Tuesday, June 26, 2007

"Coming Out" to Oakland?

After reading George Will's op-ed piece, "Speech police riding high in California" about Oakland, California's ban on the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" in the government's open e-mail system and on the employee bulletin board, I felt compelled to write the mayor, Ron Dellums, via e-mail, to ask him a few questions. I will ask him here, where I don't have to worry about any legal ramifications for interfering with Oakland's delicate and sensitive open e-mail system. I'm sure it would be screened and deleted for offensive language.

Mr. (may I call you Mister?) Mayor:

Since the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" have been deemed homophobic, disruptive, hostile and intolerably inflammatory, how does one apply for a "marriage" license if that is such a derogatory word to city government workers?

If you, Sir, (if I may address you in such a manner) or anyone else in local government, are "married" to a person of the (warning: non gender-neutral term ahead!) opposite sex, are you allowed to bring that spouse to official functions? I hope not. It's no longer politically correct in Oakland and you could save your government a lot of money by disallowing it.

What about (warning: more non gender-neutral terms ahead!) healthy male/female couples who want to have children by good old fashioned "natural" insemination? Can they legally start a "family" if one or both parents work for you, and can they announce the birth of their child on the employee bulletin board? Personally, I guess it wouldn't be a problem if the genders of the parents and baby are not disclosed, but how that particular child was conceived might be an issue to some. Shudder the thought.

Isn't your government inferring that same-sex couples are not qualified to have, nor are capable of believing in, "family values" by banning that term, so there can be no perception of targeting and excluding that group?

You may send me your answers through the good old U.S. Postal Service. As far as I know, it's still legal to do that.

David B. Knechel


  1. From Tongue Tied 3 we read:

    "The Supreme Court yesterday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections."

    A small victory for free speech.

    From pcwatch we read:

    American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

  2. I applaud you and your letter!

  3. Thanks for the applause, Tim.

    Personally, I see no problem with liberal schools. After all, you graduated from one and you're certainly no liberal. Did you feel that you were under a leftist dictatorship during your university years?

    I think most students will either agree with some of those wacked out ideas or see right through them. Think of what a preacher preaches. Feed and clothe the poor. It is better to give than receive. Turn the other cheek. In reality, how many of the faithful follow those messages? Quite liberal, that Christ guy, don't you think? A real dictator.