“Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand” John Adams 1775
On Oct. 12, 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law. This law, called the California Student Civil Rights Act, prohibits any public school curriculum that would adversely portray the homosexual lifestyle. It bans “promoting of a discriminatory bias” against homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals and trans-genders and redefines gender as basically, “you are what you think you are.”
After giving it some thought I decided to comment on this controversy. First, I am unconcerned with what consenting “adults” do in the privacy of their homes. I do not support the government dictating sexual behavior that is not forced, coerced or harmful. I passionately oppose a small minority of the population attempting to normalize abnormal behavior to suit an immoral agenda.
Homosexual activist and most liberals misrepresent the issue and control the debate through subterfuge. They talk of benign relationships, inheritance and other processes. What they are really attempting to do is “force” society to accept abnormal behavior as normal. Let’s be clear. A man putting his penis in another man’s mouth and anus for sexual gratification is NOT normal behavior. A woman performing oral copulation on another woman or having intercourse with a “dildo” is atypical sexual behavior.
The most generous statistics place the entire homosexual population at less than 10%. Since homosexual activist can not redefine abnormal behavior as normal or legalize same-sex marriage via the vote, they have taken the path of judicial fiat to force their agenda. In election after election society has continually rebuked pro-homosexual marriage initiatives by super majorities. So, in desperation they have turned to a few liberal activist judges in liberal courts and liberal academia.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court circumvented the constitutional process in the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health and arbitrarily imposed “same-sex marriag” on the people of the state. In 2000, California Proposition 22, an initiative that defines marriages as between one man and one woman, was passed by almost 70%. Homosexual sued and implementation of the initiative is pending. So, homosexual activist lobbied liberal democrats, who control the legislative body, to pass SB 777 (California Student Civil Rights Act), AB 14 (Sexual Orientation in Business and Education Code) and AB 394 (Antidiscrimination and Anti-harassment Policies).
Homosexuals ignore the reality that most of the population is repulsed by homosexual behavior and desire it is practiced in privacy. They erroneously advocate that straight male repulsion of sex with another man is the product of cultural conditioning: a learned prejudice that can be unlearned. So they attempt to convince all of society that homoerotic sex is as beautiful as straight sex, and to “cure†men of their visceral disgust at their perverted sex.
Homosexual activist are pressuring liberal politicians and academia to program children in liberal indoctrination centers, called public schools. Over the objection of parents, SB777 is forcing schoolchildren, as young as kindergarten, to be introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality. AB14 bans religious organization and schools that believe homosexuality is a “sin” from renting any state owned facilities, including parks. Illustrating the intolerance of liberalism!
Homosexuals and liberals are using government and the courts to violate the constitutional process and force the will of the very few on the majority. Where will it stop? What is to prevent other small minorities from using the ruse of discrimination to impose their perversions on society? Polygamists, who make up a larger percentage of the population than homosexuals, could use the same tactics to be allowed to practice polygamy.
NAMBLA advocates the lofty goal of ending the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships. If homosexuals can use the claim of discrimination to force their perversion on society, what justification could society use to prevent the men of NAMBLA from marrying young boys? Or, couples who just happen to be blood relatives could use the claim of discrimination to force society to allow them to marry or carry on sexual relationships. If anything goes, where does it end?
Leave a Reply