Colorado Springs domestic partnership fight goes to the dogs

July 21, 2006

It started innocently enough. Supporters of a Colorado Springs domestic-partnership ballot initiative launched what they called the “born different” campaign, featuring a little Brittany spaniel named Norman. In the ads, [tag]Norman[/tag] says “moo,” instead of “woof,” as a round-about way of trying to say that gays and lesbians are “born different” and don’t choose their sexual orientation.

Of course, this is Colorado Springs, home to James [tag]Dobson[/tag]’s [tag]Focus on the Family[/tag]. It didn’t take long for Norman to meet a rival dog named [tag]Sherman[/tag].

James Dobson’s Colorado Springs-based ministry stands firmly against same-sex marriage, gay rights initiatives and, now, mooing puppies.

On Tuesday, Focus unveiled its new “straight” puppy Web site, www.no-moo-lies.com, featuring a basset hound named Sherman, who barks as biology intended. During a news conference, a Focus employee dressed in a dog suit, who serves as a mascot at the group’s visitors center, made a brief appearance. “Dogs aren’t born mooing, and people aren’t born gay,” a Focus news release stated.

Bill Maier, a Focus psychologist, conceded that people who believe that gay people were born gay are “more likely to support gay rights.” Indeed, I think it’s safe to say that if the far-right ever had to give up on claiming homosexuality is a “choice,” the whole movement would struggle to justify their hatred.

So, what are we left with? At least in Colorado Springs, a fairly silly [tag]dog[/tag]fight between Norman and Sherman.

Given Dobson’s personal family background, and his disturbing experience with cruelty against dogs, there’s a great psychological thesis in here somewhere.

I’m surprised the result was just Sherman the Barking Dog.

Dont get me wrong, I loathe Dobson and fully support Norman the Dog’s sponsors and their point, but this was rather careless of the pro-gay-rights team; I really thought Dobson’s punchline was going to be that the use of the dog in the ads proved that the same people would next be seeking to legalize beastiality. Or proof that Colorado Springs was going to the dogs.

Really, you just have to think more than one or two moves down the chessboard. You can be too clever for your own good.

  • I’m surprised that Dobson’s group does not advocate putting Norman (and his kind) to “sleep.”

  • “… people who believe that gay people were born gay….”

    That’s just it: There’s no question of *belief* here. The question is whether or not it’s a fact, by reasonable empirical standards. That question was answered long ago — in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed research in this area and removed homosexuality from its list of mental and emotional disorders.

    Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Church, the Latter Day Saints, the evangelical “Christians” and the Grand Oiled Party — all branches of the American Taliban — remain unconvinced or even unaware of these findings. They are also afraid that if they sail too far West they’ll fall off the edge of the Earth.

  • I guess Rick Sanctorum is pleased. When they took homosexuality off the list of mental illnesses they should have added religious fundamentalism. I’m reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris and it’s a deeper and more profound book than just it’s political aspect.

  • Norman’s sponsors should point out to voters that perhaps Sherman wants to “moo,” but James Dobson beats him within an inch of his life if he even thinks about.

    Then they could remind everyone of Dr. Dobson’s tale about his poor dog Siggie.

  • “That question was answered long ago — in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed research in this area and removed homosexuality from its list of mental and emotional disorders.” – Ed Stephan

    And this proves that being Homosexual is a birth effect and not a choice? Or that that APA has decided that it is just not an unhealthy choice?

    Damn it, why shouldn’t homosexuality be a choice? When did we lose the choice of whom to love and how? The whole argument is insulting and invasive. Stop trying to build toll booths at my bedroom door with one lane set to either straight or gay. Really, I don’t think of myself as a misogynist but I can accept that some guys would accept exchanging blow jobs and having male companionship rather than put up with women.

    That said, let me just mention that I’m a monogamous practicing heterosexual in one relationship for 22 years.

    I will hypothesize that male homosexuality is genetic and is expressed only when the ‘wrong’ family structure exists, and that gay men can in fact outgrow it and turn to heterosexual relationships later in life (see Kinsey), though many may never ever feel the desire to. I will hypothesize that female homosexuality exists in response to population pressure and nutrition, that is, it is expressed when those pressures exist to extend the generational overturn, and will tend to decline in the woman’s late twenties and early thirties, but might return later in life.

    Damn it, I believe in evolution and there has to be an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality.

  • the distinction is important – from a legal civil rights point of view, if it can be shown that people are born gay – then sexual orientation becames classified as an imutable characterstic (something that can’t be changed – in the same category as race or ethnicity) and any laws that result in discrimination based upon sexual orientation that are challenged for constitutionality are accorded the *strict structiny* standard of review as opposed to the “rational basis” standard of review that is applied to laws that affect behavior that is voluntary and can be changed (i.e., if the government has a rational basis for enacting the law then it is given the benefit of the doubt).

    In civil rigthts terms the distinction is important – it would be much much harder to legally discriminate against gays in any way (including, probably, same sex marriage) if it can be proven that people are born that way. Which is one of the reasons the Right makes determined efforts to characterize it as a “choice” and belittle the possibility that it can possible be by birth. This is just one more variation of that theme – that we all must be born the same way and any variation must be “choice” (and a rejection of God’s Word, to boot – it’s interesting that the all of the ins and outs of the complexities of human behavior were worked out and settled in biblical times for these people)

  • Thanks DDD,

    That was a most depressing comment.

    And I still hold that there is no “rational basis” for outlawing homosexuality.

    As for Biblical times, reading (just of bit) of 1 Kings and 2 Kings kind of shows that the Biblical rulers of Isreal and Judah had a pretty hard time of ‘working out’ and ‘settling’ legal and acceptable human behaviors.

  • DeepDarkDiamond raises interesting points about immutable characteristics, but I think jumps too quickly to a “Strict scrutiny” standard. Plenty of immutable characteristics are not protected (in fact, only race and national origin qualify as of today–not even gender, which gets “intermediate scrutiny”).

    The flip side argument is that it might be deemed a “defect.” Remember, genetic diseases are merely a rearranging (or omission, or addition to) our “correct” genetic code. But then, so are most differences between people . . . so we decide to call blindness and Down syndrome “bad,” but left-handedness (which was discriminated against in most of our, or our parents’, generation, fyi), brunettes and hairy backs are “normal.” After a point it becomes arbitrary and we run the risk of deciding what is acceptable on a genetic level. Based on human history to date, that could get messy.

    And before people respond with, well, of course blindness is bad—they can’t see! remember that we’re just imposing our concept of “normal” on a result which clearly isn’t, to us. But there are physically and socially negative consequences to being short, to being left handed (higher vehicle mortality rates for example, since cars are built for right-handers), to the shape of our nose and ears, etc ad nausea. That slippery little slope would feel like home to the theocrats, who like the Nazi’s would pick and choose “good genes” from “bad genes.”

  • As a Colorado resident, the ongoing “moo” versus “woof” dialogue in the State is franky freaking me out.

    Even though I fully support domestic partnerships, the whole “moo” compaign was pretty stupid from the start. Now that it’s to the point where it’s on the local news at night, I’m getting really sick of both sides and the ridiculousness of their message.

  • I don’t see any advantage to the pro-gay, pro-sexual freedom side taking on the burden of proving that people are “born gay” or that gay is “not a choice”.

    Of course, “gay” is a choice, and a very sensible choice, for some people, who ought to be free to make that choice.

    People should not be imprisoned in a life that doesn’t work for them, or have their most intimate and personal choices made for them by people they don’t know, and have no legitimate interest in who loves whom.

    The central issue, here, is “choice” and personal autonomy and freedom for the individual. “Immutable characteristics” are not a pre-requisite for civil rights and personal freedom. We guarantee religious freedom, with no requirement that anyone prove they were “born Methodist”.

    Religious freedom should prevent this christianofascists from requiring other people to conform to their religious tenets. I wouldn’t want a Jew or a Muslim to prevent me from enjoying a cheeseburger or ham sandwich. James Dobson should be preventing anyone from seeking a happy life or a decent blowjob.

  • I just loved the Norman message and the commercials. I am a Gay man who live in Sweden but I used to live in the US. I can’t believe what is happening over there with all the anti Gay hategroups. Seems churches in the US are more concerned over how people form their families rather than an ongoing war……

    Why can’t these hatefull fundamentalists just accept fact that we are born this way and just leave us alone.

  • It’s nice to see all the rational “debates” about the issue presented here . . . oh wait, calling Dr. Dobson and Rich Santorum vile names and spewing misogynist attitudes towards women IS reasoned debate. Hmm, big surprise there.

    By the way, yes, “in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (under much duress and after a vicious, all-out political campaign by homosexual activists) confirmed research in this area (confirmed what research? in what area exactly?) and removed homosexuality from its list of mental and emotional disorders.” This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that gays aren’t “born” that way. The APA did not say that homosexuality is “normal,” nor did they say that “gays are born that way.” They simply “removed homosexuality from its list of mental and emotional disorders.” Period, end of story.

    In other words, the “evidence” doesn’t really prove your point. (Besides the fact that since when does the APA have moral and legal authority over all of life’s issues? Oh, since 1973, I get it.)

    • Comments are closed.