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.