This is so very 2018. This is what the Reign of Gay looks like:
The Iowa Senate refused to confirm a Nevada woman to the Iowa Board of Medicine Wednesday because of comments she wrote last August on a Catholic online forum critics said were “red flags” on LGBTQ issues.
The appointee is Katherine Asjes and the “online forum” is Catholic World Report. Asjes had been named by Gov. Kim Reynolds to the Iowa Board of Medicine, but she had be to confirmed by the 49-member Iowa Senate. Asjes is the mother of six, the wife of a military veteran, a conservative Republican, and a practicing Catholic. She needed a two-thirds majority, but failed to get it as 18 Democrats voted against her.
The opposition to her nomination, according to the Sioux City Journal, was focused on a comment made on CWR’s website last year:
However, Asjes’ positive response to an online article on the Catholic World Report that took issue with homosexuality, promiscuity and other topics related to human sexuality caused some Democrats to question whether it was appropriate to place her on a state board that oversees health issues.
“What I read was pretty off the wall for somebody going on the Board of Medicine,” said Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines. “She states that she completely agrees with all that this person has said and this guy goes back into the Dark Ages talking about sexuality.”
Judge for yourself how “off the wall” and “Dark Age”-ish is the article and the comment:
Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, who served on a Senate subcommittee that reviewed Asjes’ nomination, said he urged Democrats to oppose her confirmation because of her comments in a forum that accompanied an article in The Catholic World Report last year. The article was titled, “Re-Rebuilding a Bridge: The connection between contraception and the ‘LGBT community.‘”
“We’ve arrived at the end of the road — and we stare into a massive, rippled fun-house mirror that shows us in its own twisted reflection the extent of the monumental destruction our journey really caused,” wrote author Jim Russell.
Further into the article, the author wrote: “Initially, the ‘LGBT community’ reassured society that it didn’t want what ‘straights’ had — marriage and children. No, no it would be enough just to not be ‘hated.’ But the goalposts constantly moved — ‘no, we don’t want marriage, just civil unions! And if you object, you hate us. Now we want marriage — it’s our right. Let us have it or you hate us.’”
In a comments section, Asjes wrote to the author: “Could you please give the early sources of your definition of heterosexual — the medical dictionary you used?”
She added, “I completely agree with all you have said here, but need some sources for back up, as my 20-something son is skeptical…I could not find anything about the original definition of heterosexual in a pretty serious online search.”
Senators voted 30-18 to favor Katherine Asjes’ nomination to serve on the Iowa Board of Medicine, which failed to meet the two-thirds majority of the current 49-member Iowa Senate needed for confirmation to the state post. A total of 27 GOP senators, one independent and two Democrats were yes votes, while 18 Democrats were opposed.
In other words, Jim Russell’s factual and well-argued article was deemed out of bounds simply because it did not bow before the altars of the Reign of Gay. More to the point, it was upsetting to the Reign’s gatekeepers in the Iowa Senate, who apparently couldn’t handle or accept that a Catholic would read and agree with an article by a Catholic upholding Catholic teaching about the nature of marriage and sexuality. Here is more of Russell’s article:
The original thinking of those who popularized the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” was aligned with the natural-law truths upheld by the Catholic Church regarding God’s plan that the only normal and natural expression of sexual behavior is marital relations that are always open to procreation. Frustrating the procreative potential of sexual activity was always wrong. It is what so many psychologists of that late 19th century saw as “pathological.”
The seismic shift away from this thinking occurred mainly in the early 20th century—because of the birth control movement. The more socially acceptable birth control became, the greater the need to eliminate the procreative framework associated with categorizing non-procreative heterosexual behavior as “abnormal.” The “Roaring” 1920s reflect that transition, with some medical dictionaries by 1923 still referring to “heterosexuality” as “morbid passion,” while by the end of the decade, the first mainline Christian denomination (the now infamous Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930) allowed the use of contraception by its members.
And so the new “normal” emerged—the term “heterosexual” was untethered from its “morbid” status and “procreative sex” fell by the wayside as a norm. A new norm began to emerge: the bright line between normal and abnormal was no longer whether your acts were procreative or non-procreative, but was instead about “who” your sex partner was.
The new “normal” now is that any positive references to what really is normal is not just bothersome, but cannot be allowed by those who carry the banner of the Reign of Gay. It has no place in the public square; for them, it is the ultimate heresy.
Asjes said, in response, that “I really think that this speaks to a lack of open-mindedness and the intolerance of Democrats…” And:
Asjes also said her views on marriage are consistent with the Republican Party, but Democrats don’t like those views, so they are taking an obstructionist position by blocking her appointment to the Board of Medicine. Iowa law requires a balance of membership on state boards and commissions related to party affiliation and gender.
The Reign of Gay is the new Dark Ages. As I wrote four years ago this month:
If homosexual acts are, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “acts of grave depravity” (par 2357), then everything constructed upon their claimed goodness is misdirected and deceptive, regardless of the sincerity or subjective innocence of those involved in the construction and promotion. After all, the Catechism says, “Under no circumstances can they be approved.” We would never congratulate a man who publicly boasts that he is a serial adulterer, or affirm a man who zealously promotes the healthiness of viewing pornography every day. Why, then, do otherwise with homosexuality? One simple reason, of course, is that we don’t want to be labeled a “bigot” and called a “hater”. It’s hard to be hated, and it’s especially hard when the bullies not only get their way, but are declared “victims” whenever anyone stands up to them.
In a certain sense, the Sexual Revolution is over; at the very least, the walls have been breached and the consequences are serious and long-lasting. The Reign of “Gay” is proud, loud, and quite unwilling to tolerate dissent or discussion.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Democrats are the purveyors of anti Catholic beliefs and as with Katherine Asjes determined to oppose Republican candidates who hold similar Catholic beliefs. Their outrage over Trump’s Republican success is hysterical. It’s cultural warfare that has its roots in the Liberty concept of Justice a Kennedy, a nominal Catholic whose opinion reflects the spiritual malaise of a Nation that holds the individual’s right to form their personal views impervious of traditional moral principles. Licence has become a right now protected by law that places the power of the law on their side. There are good Christian lawyers and congressmen that must be supported and urged to fight for our religious rights and be protected of discrimination. The USCCB must have a major role in addressing our rights regardless of the possible loss of the tax exemption. Faith cannot be minimized by financial concern.
Another example of the “tolerance” of the fascist left.
Broad brush? I sued to know some nice Liberals, my mother being one.
The flight from truth.
Faithful Catholics are martyred in various ways every day.
And so it goes.
I’ll tell ya when i saw the nasty bullying start. In 1998, while in a casual conversation, I was interrupted by a liberal and told that I shouldn’t use that word. I was told it was racist and I should henceforth use another. I refused then and do now. The word? Oriental.
Yeah, that’s not too far from the N-word, so continuing to use it makes you racist.
SYMPTOM OF A LARGER PROBLEM: THE CONSERVATIVE ENDGAME IS UNCLEAR
I think that this event (this doctor being rejected by the Iowa Senate) is a symptom of a larger problem:
The political Conservative Movement in the U.S. is vague and unclear about what its ultimate objectives are regarding LGBT people.
What is the end game? What is the ultimate state of society and law that Conservatives want for LGBT people?
Some Conservatives merely and only want “religious liberty,” i.e., the freedom to hold and express the view homosexuality is a sin and/or a serious moral disorder and/or a serious psychological disorder. They want the liberty to not decorate a cake for a gay marriage. But they do want laws to forbid discrimination against LGBT people in employment, renting apartments, etc.
And yet there are other respectable Conservatives who want more.
Some Conservatives want to undo the Supreme Court decision that forced gay marriage on every state.
Some Conservatives still want an amendment to the Constitution that outlaws gay marriage in every state.
Some want LGBT forced completely back in the closet by the old combination of (1) the threat of criminal prosecution for gay sex and (2) widespread social disapproval that makes it possible for known LGBT people to get employment or housing.
In light of all this ambiguity in the Conservative Movement, I think it is understandable that the Iowa Senate would reject this Medical Doctor who was and is clearly a part of the political Conservative Movement and, I assume, the Catholic Church.
I myself would like to know where the political Conservative Movement is heading on the whole matter of how LGBT people should be treated in society.
I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts and other sexual acts that are morally disordered.
But does it logically follow from those teachings that men like Alan Turning must be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for homosexual acts with other consenting adults? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
I don’t know the answers to all this. I really don’t.
I feel that we are not getting any consistent or coherent guidance from the Catholic Church on what the ultimate disposition of LGBT people in society should be.
And the political Conservative Movement–who knows where it is heading?! It could go off in many different directions, perhaps in some really savage and brutal directions. Who knows!
There always have been some LGBT people and always will be some.
This small group of people has obtained very recently a very unusual and unexpected prominence, and this has disturbed many people. But “disturbance” does not answer the questions of policy.
What should become of LGBT people, if we Catholics had our way in society?
Honestly, I don’t know.
So I don’t blame the Iowa Senate for not knowing either, and being afraid for the future of LGBT people.
I say that it isn’t enough anymore for Catholics or Conservatives to express outrage after outrage at the latest enforcement of “political correctness” regarding LGBT people.
Catholics and Conservatives need to step up and be very clear, specific, and definite about what is their endgame for LGBT people.
Am I making sense to anyone?
you are fishing for a compromise.
Liberal Catholics like Cardinal Walter Kasper are famous for being quite ambiguous and vague as they promote their Progressive agenda. It is often hard to get out of them exactly what their doctrinal, canon law, & pastoral practice endgame is regarding things like divorce & remarriage, reception of the Eucharist, recognition of gay marriages, adultery, etc.
But, alas, many Conservatives and Catholics, who uphold the Catholic teaching that homosexual sex in an intrinsic evil, play the same game!
How so? Because I don’t ever see or hear them being clear about what end state or final arrangement they want for the LGBT people in society!
Do they want LGBT people in the US, Canada, and Europe to have the same legal status that LGBT have today in Iran and Saudia Arabia? If so, just say so, please, so that we little people can know what we are supporting!
Do they want LGBT people in the US, Canada, and Europe to have the same legal status that LGBT had in the U.S., Canada, and Europe in the 1940s and 1950s? If so, just say so, please, so that we little people can know what we are supporting!
I ask all Conservatives and Catholics: Have the moral courage and honesty to speak the Truth of what your political endgame is.
Any time you are writing or speaking about how extreme and out of control the LGBT community and their supporters in gov’t and Hollywood have become, ALWAYS state upfront what you political endgame is. If you want things to be like the Republic of Iran, just say so! If not, just say so! Just quit playing games!
The Progressives fears that we Conservatives and Catholics are all Hitler in disguise.
Well, let’s each of us solve that by making completely clear what our political endgame is.
No more sneaky politics, please! Put all your cards on the table, please!
I’ll start. Here’s my own personal political endgame:
(1) I want the guaranteed religious liberty for myself and others to believe and speak out our belief that homosexual acts are an intrinsic evil. Likewise, those who see no evil in homosexual acts should likewise have the liberty to think and speak that.
(2) I support the re-criminalization of all pornography.
(3) I support much tougher criminal penalties for adults who have sex with children.
(4) I do NOT support the re-criminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults.
(5) I do NOT support the repeal of laws that protect LGBT people from unjust discrimination in employment, renting apartments, and other matters of commerce that are essential for staying alive.
(6) I support the re-ordering of marriage laws so that every church denomination becomes the law-maker and administrator of the marriages for its own members. The secular state should get out of the business of granting marriage licenses and granting divorces. Non-religious people can have their marriage licenses and divorces handled by some secular organization, such as an Elks Lodge or the United Way. (Some states in the U.S. are considering this approach to marriage and divorce.)
(7) I do not want a culture in which bullies and gangs feel free and encouraged to threaten and carry out physical violence against LGBT people.
Nice try.
We see your endgame quite clearly.
This wasn’t about political conservatism but about one who simply expressed agreement with the notion that the LGBT lobby continually misleads regarding what it seeks. The concern is with the “endgame” of this now powerful lobby which has a solid foothold in the Democratic Party and increasingly one in the GOP as well.
In response to some of your other questions, if the concern was with a desire to prosecute homosexual conduct, there was an easy solution. Ask her about her views on that specific matter. Or, since there’s legally no chance of criminal prosecution given the state of U.S. Constitutional Law, don’t bother since she’s seeking appointment to a medical board and not a legal position.
The “endgame” from a Catholic perspective is well summarized in our Catechism. We recognize the truth of same-sex attraction; that is a disorder but is not morally problematic unless acted upon. The endgame should be for Catholics to uphold the truths of our faith as always whatever the cost. Politicians will often do as they please. Catholics must uphold their faith.
“Am I making sense to anyone?”
Absolutely not.
This is evidence in support of the notion that a profession of faith in the Catholic truths of Christianity may soon be outlawed or legal only in the most superficial sense. In any event, faithful believers will be increasingly excluded from public life and pushed well into the margins. It’s time to fight the good fight. Publicly and without fear.
Of those 18 dems who voted ‘no’ I wonder how many of them were Catholic?
None, though there may be some who claim to be Catholic.
Religious tests for public office are supposed to be illegal, but that was back when we were a democracy.
The real victim of ssm is the child who would be procured into it. State sanctioned ssm makes children creatures of the state.
The Endgame: The Destruction of Mankind.
Please don’t forget that this “new normal” is actively propagated by the highest prelates of the Church. Betrayed by their own clergy real Catholics are thrown under the bus by Church and State alike.
Such ugly, ugly people who claim to do “God’s work”. You wouldn’t know what Jesus would do because you are so far from reality that all things good and pure seem foreign to you. People are to be judged by their character and when you do everything in your power to judge people you don’t even know your character speaks volumes.
“You wouldn’t know what Jesus would do”
Certainly we would. We know from the Bible, for one thing. Like Romans 1:
“22For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.
24Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
28And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
And for someone who rails against people who judge, you’re certainly very judgmental.