Ann Coulter On Conservative Gays

I love Ann Coulter. I know she often has a, shall we say, forceful tone but that's why I love her. Coulter is a fiscally and socially conservative, Christian woman and she's unapologetic and fearless about it. So, when I heard that Coulter had endorsed GOProud, a conservative gay group, participating in CPAC this year, I was surprised and a little concerned. I've always thought of support for the gay agenda as a social Left cause at odds with conservatism's traditionalism. When Coulter endorsed the Republican gay group I was afraid she'd turned against the fight for traditional values. I needn't have worried and the video below shows why.



I agree almost completely with Ann in this video. She says better than I ever could how you can be a "friend of the gays" without jumping on the gay agenda bandwagon. I've always felt that was true, but sometimes I get demoralized by the constant shrieks of "Homophobe!" flung at traditional people. Coulter shows how stupid it is to brand belief in traditional marriage, for instance, as homophobic. This is just what I needed to hear. I'm a social conservative. I believe in traditional values, especially traditional marriage. And I don't hate gay people. Thank you, Ann Coulter, for explaining that.

Another Brave Voice

We've all heard of the controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean. We've seen her courage in the face of viscious denunciations. On "The O'Reilly Factor" this past Tuesday I saw where Miss Prejean got some of her courage: her pastor, Miles Mcpherson. I don't know where Miles Mcpherson stands on all the issues, but on the issue of gay marriage he's a fearless advocate of Biblical morality and truth. He's also African-American, which undermines the gay rights activists' effort to equate their struggle with Blacks' struggle for civil rights. Mcpherson rejects that equation. Like I said, the man is brave. Give a look and listen to Miles Mcpherson. If you're a traditionalist like me, you'll cheer.

What Will Sean Say?!

Barack Obama sent a video yesterday to the Iranian people on the occassion of their holiday Nowruz (spelling?). Obama was signaling a new direction in America's relationship with the Islamic Republic. Obama told the Iranians that his administration was committed to diplomacy and mutual respect with Iran. No word yet on the Iranian government's reaction but I'm waiting on reaction from Hollywood leftist and lover-of-America's-enemies, Sean Penn. Why? Well, it's like this.

Everyone knows about Sean's best actor win at the Academy Awards a few weeks ago. In his victory speech Sean gave a tongue lashing to opponents of gay marriage, saying they should be ashamed of themselves. Now, however, Sean's god, Barack Obama, wants to extend respect to a regime that executes gays. Obama wants to normalize America's relationship with a nation that doesn't allow gays to live. Just what is Sean Penn going to say about that?

Obama's diplomatic shenanigans put Penn and virtually every liberal in a bind. When it comes to American use of force, liberals like to act anti-war. For nearly eight years they denounced George W. Bush as a "war criminal" and religiously touted diplomacy as the answer to the world's problems. However, liberals also love to rail against "homophobia" and to act indignant about such things as Proposition 8 and the military's don't ask/don't tell policy. They act like these things are the worst atrocities on the planet. Now their Messiah is extending a friendly hand to people who actually KILL gays! What to do? What to do?

Liberals are neither consistent nor rational. Rather, they are profoundly Orwellian, willing to support or oppose anything or anyone if it's deemed necessary to advance their agenda. Obama's overture to Iran, then, will probably be hailed as an act of greatness by the Left, including the dimwits in Hollywood. They will simply ignore the contradiction between howling for gay rights while gushing over their Chosen One's "peace" initiative with one of the gay community's worst enemies.

Sean Penn loves gays. Sean Penn loves Obama. Obama loves people who murder gays. What will Sean Penn say about that? NOTHING!

Thwarted Again

It's happened again. Yesterday four members of California's Supreme Court flipped the bird to the people of that state and ruled that gay marriage must be allowed, despite the voters' rejection of it. When is this going to stop? When are activist judges going to return to their role as interpreters, not makers, of law? When are they going to stop spitting on the will of the people?

I'm sick of this! From gay marriage to illegal immigration we, the American people, are being spat on by judges and/or elected officials who think their job is to impose their "enlightened" views on us. The issue really isn't gay marriage, illegal immigration, or other things. The issue is the perversion of the American way of government by liberals who are committed only to their agenda, not to the political rules or moral heritage of our Republic.

Throughout America's history there have been people who wanted to change things. The movements against slavery and for women's suffrage are prime examples of that. And that's fine. If you want to change something in this country you're perfectly free to try, but there are rules to follow. If you want to repeal or add a law you lobby the legislature, and if you don't get your way you don't then get the courts to impose your change for you. That, however, has been the strategy of liberals, on both the state and federal levels, ever since Roe v. Wade. And it's kept this country in a state of constant ideological conflict.

Take Roe v. Wade for instance. It was the unconstitutional way the law was imposed, and not just revulsion against abortion, that has fanned the flames of the abortion controversy. If the fight over abortion was returned to the states like capital punishment was it would be a much less bitter and divisive issue. It's the same with gay marriage. In state after state gay marriage activists have failed to persuade most people to their point of view. But rather than redouble their efforts to change the public's mind they opt for the Left's usual tactic in the face of defeat: using the courts to impose their agenda.

It's amazing to me that liberals don't understand how much ill will this strategy has earned them. Many people who might be willing to accept gay marriage if it's voted in fairly are turned off by the courts shoving it, or anything else, down their throats. Liberals don't care. They are committed to "enlightening" us lunch pail folks, from the top down if need be. It's for our own good, don't cha know. This paternalistic attitude is one reason why I oppose liberalism.

I believe in persuading people to a point of view. I believe the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets them. I believe the Constitution is a "living" document only when it's amended the way the Founding Fathers intended. I DON'T believe in perverting our system in order to impose laws, policies, ideas, or values on the people when the people have already declared they don't want them. Sorry, liberals, but not everyone thinks your views are progressive; in fact, many of us find them downright corrupt, and forcing them on us after we've said "No!" only alienates us more. So, the California Supreme Court's decision may be a hollow victory for gays and their allies. The people of California have seen their will treated with total contempt. When they speak again it won't be pretty for the Left. I can't wait.

Here We Go Yet Again!

It's happening again. Some offended homosexuals have filed a legal complaint to stop someone from disagreeing with their lifestyle.

This latest gay attack on freedom of religion and speech is occurring in New Mexico where Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to photograph a lesbian couple's "commitment ceremony". The couple then lodged a complaint with New Mexico's Human Rights Division which is now trying Mrs. Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, under the state's anti-discrimination laws. One of the things the lesbian plaintiffs want is an injunction permanently revoking Elane Photography's right not to photograph gay ceremonies. This is insane!

I've had enough with liberal gays attacking the freedoms of others, especially Christians, in pursuit of their agenda. Clearly, they want a world where any questioning of their views is illegal. That's Stalinism and we must not stand for it. Elaine Huguenin was perfectly within her rights to refuse to promote anything that conflicted with her religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion/conscience means.

Left-wing gays need to realize that Christians don't answer to them. They need to realize that they have no right to force every institution in society to parrot their party line. The notion that it's hate to disapprove of homosexuality and call it sin is opinion, not truth. No one is obligated to believe that opinion, let alone live their lives by it. Elaine Huguenin cannot be compelled to promote a cause with which she disagrees. Neither can any other American. There's still freedom of conscience in this country. Stalinist gays need to stop trying to take this freedom from others and concentrate on using it for themselves. They just might find that their cause will be better served for it.

GAE Rights Yes, Freedom No

The GAE (Gay Activist Elite) Stalinists have struck again, this time across the big pond. Britain has instituted new sexual "equality" regulations and they have cost a Christian couple the foster son they've loved for two years.

Sixty-five-year-old Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline, 61, became foster parents in 2001 and have successfully nurtured 28 troubled children since then. But Somerset County decided the Mathericks weren't fit to keep their latest foster child after they refused to sign a paper agreeing to teach the boy that homosexuality is good. Consequently, the 11-year-old has been taken from a loving home and placed in a county hostel. Vincent Matherick explained that he doesn't hate gays but felt he couldn't endorse behaviour that conflicted with the Word of God.
That didn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience, not to mention a child's happiness, are inconsequential compared to the lofty goal of normalizing homosexuality.

This is a shocking story. There's nothing more Orwellian than government officials entering people's homes and telling them what to teach their children. Granted, the Mathericks were foster parents who, like all foster parents, have to abide by state standards. But how does not approving of homosexuality suddenly make them unfit when they weren't unfit for the last six years? And you better believe that if the GAE Stalinists can get away with using the government to impose their views on foster parents they'll use the government to impose their views on natural parents. Mark my words. The day is coming in the West when parents will be assigned a social worker to make sure they're raising their children "correctly". And a large percentage of those social workers will be GAE.

For now, the Mathericks have been forced out of fostering for being politically incorrect. They've indicated that they might appeal the decision of the Somerset County Council. I pray they do and I pray they win. Children need a loving home like the one the Mathericks are ready and willing to provide more than they need an ideology. Sadly, Britain's GAE Stalinists think otherwise and children are paying the price.

The GAE Stalinists Strike Again

For decades the White House Easter egg hunt has been a time for families to have agenda-free holiday fun with the President and First Lady. Not anymore. This Easter gays decided to politicize this apolitical tradition by stacking the hunt with gay families, wearing rainbow leis so they'd be easily identified, in order to make their pro-gay point.

Frankly, I doubt that any average gay family came up with this in-your-face idea. No, I firmly believe it was the brainchild of the gay activist elite (GAE) Stalinists. These people have total disregard for tradition. For them, everything is political. Every event, every place, every time is the right event, place, or time to force their agenda in the face of average folks. Think about it. The last thing families expect to find at the White House Easter egg hunt is activists campaigning for or against controversial causes. That sort of thing just doesn't belong at a family event like the egg hunt, yet the GAE Stalinists just had to intrude on this tradition. Why?

Supposedly, all the gay families wanted was to let themselves be seen so that people would see that they're just like everybody else. The problem with that explanation is that gay families, and single gays, are already seen and accepted in America today. Most Americans don't believe in giving gay couples the special, legal status of marriage, but they also don't believe in harming gays and their families. In short, most Americans practice the tolerance that gays claim they want. The problem is, mere tolerance isn't enough for the GAE Stalinists; they want total, unquestioning social, legal, and moral approval of homosexuality. And they feel that the surest way to get it is to go after the children.

The GAE Stalinists want to indoctrinate children with a pro-gay view; it's that simple. It's down right creepy the way they zero in on kids. The stunt at the Easter egg hunt was so important precisely because it was a family event. People would be there with their kids, and when the kids heard other kids calling two women mommy the parents would be forced to talk about homosexuality when they least expected it. The GAE Stalinists don't want parents to be in control of how, whether, and/or when they talk to their own kids about homosexuality. Leaving parents in control means that some kids won't learn the "correct" view, so the GAE Stalinists are working hard to take control away from parents and anyone who supports them.

Remember the brouhaha over the Boy Scouts? The Scouts don't allow openly gay men to be Scout masters, but rather than respect the Scouts' freedom of association rights, GAEs sued to force them to accept gay Scout masters. The GAEs claimed they were fighting discrimination, but the Boy Scouts were and still are a private organization with the freedom to set it's own leadership standards. If GAEs didn't like the Scouts view of homosexuality, they were free to start a pro-gay scouting group that would allow gay men to be masters. But if they did that, that would mean that the Boy Scouts would still exist and be free to impart their "anti-gay" views to children. That was the real issue for the GAEs. They didn't want the existence of a huge organization, influencing the minds of millions of kids, over which they had no control.

It's the same thing with public schools. Liberals don't vehemently oppose vouchers for private schools because of church/state issues, or because such vouchers would bankrupt pubilc schools. No, liberals oppose vouchers because every child lost to the public schools is a child lost to liberal social indoctrination, chief of which is approving of homosexuality. Children must be kept in the public schools, no matter how academically bad many of them are, because it gives the GAE Stalinists the captive audience they crave, with parents easily being kept out of the loop.

I hope ordinary gay people come to realize that stunts like the Easter egg hunt protest hurt their cause. Straight people, all people for that matter, don't like being ambushed with political messages thrown at them at inappropriate times. There is a time and a place to make political statements; family holidays are not that time or place. I actually believe most gay people agree with that and they should let their "leaders" know it.

Gay Marriage Fails in the Lone Star State

It appears that the proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Texas, officially called Proposition 2, is going to pass. In fact, Yahoo! news reports that 75% of voters have approved the measure. Of course, this isn't surprising. If liberal Oregon could say no to gay marriage, you know conservative Texas would.

I voted in favor of Proposition 2. I know that makes me a wild-eyed bigot in the opinion of some, but I believe I, and the other yes voters, did the right thing.

I voted yes for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, I believe gay marriage goes against the Judeo-Christian world view that's been the foundation of the West for 2000 years. The Bible tells us that God created Man male and female, and for that reason "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Jesus understood this as the definition of marriage, quoting this Genesis verse when answering some Pharisees' question about divorce. And to make sure that the Pharisees understood not only what marriage was, but also who had created it, He added this famous line: "What God has joined, let not man put asunder." What did God join? Male and female. I can think of no more blatant way to "put asunder" what God has joined than to redefine marriage as including same-sex unions.

Liberal types will object that no one should vote on any measure based on religious beliefs. My reply is that in America we have freedom of conscience. That means not only that no American can be compelled to act against his deeply and sincerely held beliefs, but also that no American can be prevented from acting according to those same beliefs. And there is no exception made for religiously informed beliefs. Thus, religious people have the same right, the same freedom, as irreligious people to act according to their conscience in the voting booth. If liberals have a problem with that, perhaps they should resurrect the Soviet Union and move there.

The second reason I voted for Proposition 2 is that I have a problem with gay rights activists. Notice, I said with gay rights activists, not gay people in general. I really don't care if someone is gay or not. Yes, I believe the behaviour is immoral, but I believe that lots of behaviours, sexual and nonsexual, are immoral. That doesn't mean I'm out to get every person who indulges in those behaviours. But just because I'm not out to get everyone I believe is immoral doesn't mean I approve of their actions. Some behaviours have moral and/or legal prohibitions for very good reasons. You don't have to lift those prohibitions to be decent to the people who are breaking them.

And that's what gay activists don't understand. In their world, either you agree with them or you're a hatemonger, a bigot, a homophobe. For all their rantings about tolerance, gay activists have absolutely none for anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy. And they do have an orthodoxy, one they're imposing on society with Stalinist zeal. Their orthodoxy insists that homosexuals are born that way; that they are persecuted at every turn; that every institution in society must be pro-gay; that children must be taught to affirm homosexuality, regardless of what their parents believe; that you must love homosexuality to love homosexuals; that opposition to homosexuality must be outlawed; and that the state must enforce these measures with all its might. As I said, Stalinist zeal.

Gay activists just don't understand that this heavy-handed approach costs them support among people who really are willing to extend tolerance, though not approval, to homosexuality. Most Americans, even conservative ones, are willing to live and let live, so long as they aren't asked to change their beliefs about right and wrong. After all, live and let live has to cut both ways if it's really going to work. And when gay activists hypocritically demand tolerance for themselves while denying it to all who would disagree with them, they show that what they really believe in is live and let live for me, but not for thee. And that alienates a hell of alot of people, including me. Voting yes on Proposition 2 was my way of striking back at gay Stalinism.

Hopefully, gay activists will learn a little something from their defeat today. Actually, they could learn more than a little something from the masses of ordinary gays who go about their lives being who they are without shoving it in anyone's face. They go to school. They go to work. They openly love, and live with, people of the same sex. They even adopt children. And they do all this without the wrath of fire-breathing "homophobes" raining down on them. How? Maybe because they aren't raining down the wrath of gay Stalinism on their neighbors. Gay activists should take a good, long look at the people they claim to be fighting for. It seems to me they've already figured out how to be free in America.