A coward stalked Mooney’s Grove today.  He (or she) snuck around and stuffed a folded paper under the windshield wipers of cars parked near Gay Visalia’s second annual Family Fest celebration.  A full page of homophobic ramblings, unsigned and unattributed, lacking in coherence, logic, or facts.  Normally I wouldn’t give this kind of thing a second thought, simply crumpling the flyer and tossing it in the nearest trash can. Today, though, I think I’ll do something a bit different.  I’m going to respond, as best I can, to the points the author (whoever it was) tried to make. It’s going to be a rambling post, but that’s due to the flyer’s  incoherence.  Hang in there,  and see how the homophobes imagine you.

The homosexual community argues that since they are born gay, as a minority group under the Civil Rights Act, they have a right to marry

Right off the top, we see this author didn’t pay attention in Civics class, and doesn’t have even a basic understanding of the current issues regarding gay rights.  Or perhaps they do, but have decided to deliberately lie.  At any rate, courts across the country have ruled homosexuals are a minorty, and have been subjected to prejudice and hatred for decades, if not longer.  Claims of the right to same-sex marriage are based on the Constitution of the United States, however, NOT the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The base claim is that the 14th amendment ensuring equal protection of the law does not allow government to license some marriages, but refuse others, based soley on sexual orientation.

Q. Does the Civil Rights Act only protect politically correct sexual orientations (LGBT) and not all other sexual behaviors? How can homosexuals claim TOLERANCE and EQUALITY FOR ALL when they deny rights to other sexual minority groups such as Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, Pedophilia? Are Homosexuals PEDOPHOBIC? Of course not, they’ve always supported NAMBLA but can’t say it publicaly until they gain marriage.  A MORAL WRONG CANNOT BE A CIVIL RIGHT”

Wow. Let’s dive in…  hold your nose and bear with me.
Again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not relevant, it doesn’t deal with sexual orientation at all! At the Library of Congress’ website, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/civil.html the only mention of sexual orientation regarding the Civil Rights Act is a Justice Department policy regarding their own hiring.  The Act itself does not mention sexual orientation.  (http://www.hrhero.com/topics/title7.html)
In that very first line, however, the muddled thinking of the author is displayed.  The first half talks about orientation, the second half of sexual behavior.  Orientation and behavior are two very different things, and not particularly related  in the discussion of legal rights. The author cannot separate  orientation from behavior, and thinks they are the same.  He then lists other “groups” as being denied the right of marriage by the homosexual lobby!  I wonder if he’s considered that if we could actually deny other groups the right to marry, why we don’t manage to permit ours.  Oh, that’s right.  Logic does not apply in this world.  Sorry.  Let’s continue.
The author continues the ramble, claiming we’ve “always” supported NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).  This is, of course, blatantly false.  Claiming we really support this group, when every gay group who even feels the need to make a statement regarding such nonsense has said they do not, is simply an attempt to smear the gay rights community with the patina of child molestation.  It’s a transparent, desperate attempt to convince others of the lies the author apparently believes.

A moral wrong…  love.  How twisted is a mind that would think love is a moral wrong?

“The homosexual community argues “Separation of Church & State” and claims that the Church have no say in the same-sex marriage issue.”

Well, no, that’s not at all what the “community” argues or claims.  It’s convenient for the author’s rant to say so, but it’s not the truth.  There are churches who are quite willing to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, even Christian denominations.   Where do those who disagree get off thinking they can dictate to other churches what they must or must not do?  Aren’t these people the ones decrying the alleged loss of religious freedom if same-sex marriage is legal?  Even though the law will not require any religion to conduct or recognize any of those marriages?   Oh, that’s right, religious freedom for THEM, not for those they disagree with!

Q. Wasn’t Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., considered the leader of the Civil Rights movement, a Baptist Minister (who assisted by churches opposed to unjust State laws)?  No separation of church and state here.  And Jesus Christ, were He an American citizen and registered voter, based on His own teachings, would have voted Yes on Proposition 8.  Jesus said “In the beginning God created them male and female, a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh.  What God has put together let no man divorce.”  St. Matthew 19:4-6.”

Yes, King was a Baptist minister.  Southern Baptists have a reputation of being fairly conservative.  The implication of mentioning him, as far as I can tell, is to claim he would be against same-sex marriage.  Perhaps he would, but we’ll never know.  The person who knew him best, his wife Coretta Scott King, came out in favor of same-sex marriage before her death.
The author clearly does not understand the concept of the separation of church and state.  King was never in government, nor was his church.  The “separation” is to keep government from favoring one religion over another, and using the authority of the law to impose religious requirements on the citizenry.
I’m really amazed at the hubris of the author, claiming to know how Jesus would vote!  Would he (or she) also claim Jesus would be a Republican?  And if Jesus says no divorce, why isn’t “the church” actively working to outlaw that?  You don’t see huge rallies agitating for the removal of divorce laws from the books!  You don’t see people thrown out of their churches for divorce.  You don’t see people fired from jobs because they’re divorced.  You don’t see roaming groups of enraged divorce-ophobes beating up the newly divorced.  Yet Jesus said clearly, no divorce.  Maybe they just haven’t had a chance to get around to that yet, what with all this homosexual stuff going on.  Hang in there, Jesus.  Your followers may get around to that divorce thing, eventually.

Yes, I’m aware that there are those who have family and friends who are gay and I respect their right to be gay.  However, that does not justify their claims for marriage.”

They have a right to be gay, but not to be married.  How respectful is that?  “I respect you, but you’re a second class citizen, and I get to decide who you can or cannot marry.”

I argue that the homosexual community uses tactics similar to American Slavery and Nazism (scientific Darwinian propaganda).  Most people agree American Slavery and Nazism was wrong and based on lies, but it was legal.  If true, why are we expected to accept homosexuality (LGBT) as normal when it too is based on lies? Here are just a few, of the many, reasons why it isn’t true.  Homosexuals and their supporters:”

You can argue all you want, but your ignorance about slavery, the Nazis, and Darwin is staggering.  Just using them all in one relational sentence displays a total failure to understand any of them.

1) Deny absolute Truth – Homosexuals are born gay.

Just a statement. No support, just the author’s “feeling”.  Disregard the statements of those of us who ARE gay, that, yes, as far as we can tell, we WERE born gay.  But why take our word for it, we’ve all obviously got an agenda to support!

2) Use Fear and Intimidation – Verbal and physical attacks against those who disagree with homosexuals.

I wonder what the tally of physical and verbal attacks would be, if we could see the totals directed at homosexuals vs those directed at heterosexuals?  Think they’d even be close?

3) Use Media, Politicians, and Educators to promote the propaganda – Homosexuals are born gay.

The author would apparently deny these groups the right to publish and teach the scientific and social evidence that supports the alleged “agenda”, and would probably insist they publish and teach superstitious claptrap that labels anyone different as a sinner.

4) Minimize or totally eliminate the voices of peaceful assembly and protest – Intolerance towards those who compassionately disagree with homosexuals.

Not sure how this is supposed to be achieved, but I guess the author is afraid of a bunch of queers coming for him (or her) in the middle of the night and stealing his protest signs.

Q. How many gay white men sat on the back of the bus or drank from the colored-only drinking fountain during the 1950’s Civil Rights Movement?  NONE!  Because it wasn’t a Civil Rights issue. Gay white men sat in the front of the bus and gay black men sat in the back of the bus.”

I wonder how the author knows?  Was he (or she) there?  Did they know the sexual orientation of each bus rider?  Do they know the struggle took place off the busses?  Does the author know anything about the Civil Rights struggle, or the gay rights struggle now?  This diatribe would indicate nothing more than homophobic racism and hatred.

Note:  Scientists have recently discovered that all human beings are born naked.  If being born a certain way is the litmus test for protecting ones Civil Rights public nudity should be legal.  There is more scientific evidence for being born naked than there is for being born gay, yet it is against the law in all 50 States to walk around publicly in the nude – violating your Civil Rights.  I thought Gay Rights stood for equality? Hum!!!

We’ve gone this far debunking this nonsense, so I’m going to finish, even though that last bit is just so off the wall it’s…  well, off the wall!  No, there are no scientific “discoveries” regarding whether or not humans are born naked.  And no, it is NOT illegal in all 50 states to walk around nude.  Remember the naked in guy in Berkeley some years ago?  He went to court to prove that it was perfectly legal to walk around naked if you wanted.  And what is the connection with nudity and same-sex marriage?  Some twisted neuron in the author’s head is the only thing I can come up with.

I wish I had seen the person who slipped this screed under my windshield wiper.  I would have loved to have a discussion with them.  But, that person is a coward, hiding behind anonymity.  They rail against the queers, but they won’t do it publicly.  They hide behind Jesus and God, and claim moral superiority, but are nothing more than cowards.  In the Wizard of Oz, the Cowardly Lion learns to be brave.  Would that this writer experience the same transformation.

Maybe we need to find him a “Friendly Witch”.