Culture Of Life 101… “The Homosexual Intimidation Tactic”

By BRIAN CLOWES

Part 3

(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For an electronic copy of all of the “Culture of Life 101” articles that have been published on homosexuality so far, with footnotes, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.)

+ + +

“I have never thought, for my part, that man’s freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will” — Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

+ + +

We have seen that homosexual activists frequently use verbal attacks and even physical violence to intimidate pro-family people into silence and inaction. However, these are not the only weapons in their arsenal; they also use coercion, censorship, and retaliation in order to bypass discussion and debate and simply force their agenda onto the nation.
Intimidation through Coercion. Coercion involves forcing someone to do something against his or her will. In some countries, the degree of power wielded by homosexuals is simply incredible, and the type of incidents described below will increase in frequency as homosexuals grab even more power in government and other institutions.
Some people still believe that the “gay rights” movement is about tolerance and rights. It’s not. It is now about forcing everyone to not just tolerate them (because mere toleration implies disapproval), but to actively celebrate their lifestyle.
Nothing less than loud, enthusiastic support will be good enough. There are now several hundred well-documented cases of homosexual coercion in Western nations:
In 2013, the United States Department of Justice distributed a pamphlet entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” This official policy requires DOJ workers to verbally and visually affirm homosexuality, whether or not they approve of it. The pamphlet ominously warns: “Don’t judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” And disapproval, of course, is subject to punishment.
DOJ employees are even required to decorate their offices with “gay pride” paraphernalia, and are not allowed to use the terms “husband” and “wife” in their conversation or in their correspondence!
Missouri State University professor Frank Kauffman required all of his students to write and sign a letter to the Missouri legislature promoting homosexual adoption and foster homes. Emily Brooker, a Christian student, refused to write the letter on religious grounds. The School of Social Work charged her with violating its “Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education” in the areas of “Diversity,” “Interpersonal Skills,” and “Professional Behavior.”
She was dragged before an “ethics committee” which grilled her for nearly three hours. The members asked her questions like “Do you think I am a sinner?”
The university did not back off until Brooker launched a lawsuit with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, now the Alliance Defending Freedom.
There are dozens of other examples of college students being forced to “go along” with the homosexual agenda or be punished, including several professors who have said that they will immediately flunk any student who uses the terms “male” or “female” in class or in their assignments.
Once again, England leads the way to social degeneration. Its appropriately-initialed NUT (National Union of Teachers) requires that all teachers portray all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle in a positive manner. Any hint of reluctance is severely punished, and there is no religious opt-out; all teachers who refuse to toe the line are simply branded “homophobes” and are fired without recourse.
English Member of Parliament Mike Weatherley, backed by other influential citizens, has demanded that all churches (including the Catholic Church) be forced to perform ersatz gay “weddings,” or lose their “right” to perform any weddings at all.
Homosexual activists are more than willing to “soften up” ecclesiastical resistance. Despite previous promises that this would never happen, homosexuals are hitting English churches that refuse to perform homosexual “weddings” with a wave of nuisance lawsuits. As one homosexual put it, “I am still not getting what I want.”
And this, of course, is what it is all about. Homosexuals place their mere whims and desires above the fundamental civil and religious rights of all who oppose them.
Intimidation through Retaliation. If an organization or person effectively opposes the special rights agenda in any way, shape or form — even if such opposition is mild, inoffensive, and completely constitutional — they can expect immediate condemnation and retaliation by homophiles.
The hallmark of a weak and totalitarian regime or movement is that it cannot stand examination and debate, and must aggressively crush its opposition as an example to others who might be thinking of resisting as well.
The number of cases of homosexuals and their allies in various government, media, and corporate agencies retaliating for merely disagreeing with homosexuality now numbers in the hundreds. One notable characteristic of homosexual activists is their utter lack of mercy, as these examples show:
In 2005, J. Matt Barber was fired from his job as a manager in Allstate’s Corporate Security Division. His offense was opposing same-sex “marriage” in an article for a magazine, even though he wrote it on his own time and at home.
Additionally, according to Barber, his wife had just gone through a high-risk cesarean section delivery, but Allstate cut off his family health benefits immediately.
Barber sued Allstate and they eventually settled on undisclosed terms.
Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin in 2002 wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the special rights propaganda saturating the province’s schools. University of Calgary professor Darren Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which prosecuted Boissoin for a “hate crime.”
In such situations, the complainant does not incur any costs, but the defendant must pay all of the costs of fending off such harassment complaints, an ideal formula for abuse. Lund knew his complaint was baseless, so he even asked the courts to halt publication of the complaint itself.
Not only do homosexual activists use the government to silence dissent, it can be very profitable personally for them to do so. Boissoin was ordered to pay $5,000 to Darren Lund, and another $2,000 to the homosexual group EGALE Canada, which is already heavily funded by the Canadian government. Fortunately, this ridiculous decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeals.
In 2006, Scottish firefighter Brian Herbert was ordered to distribute leaflets at a “gay pride” event in uniform, but refused. He was demoted from watch manager to crew manager, a move that cut his salary by $6,500 a year, was officially reprimanded, and was ordered to attend “diversity” training (i.e., brainwashing).
Even voting against “gay rights” can get you fired, as several Californians who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008 found out. Homosexual activists published the names of people who voted for Prop 8 and several of them were fired from their jobs. It is difficult to believe that, in the United States, it is possible for people to lose their livelihood merely for exercising their constitutional right to vote, but this will become the norm if the homosexual activists have their way.
Homosexuals also set up a website where they posted the names of people who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. Several of these people lost their jobs, were physically beaten, had their homes vandalized, and even had their pets killed and mutilated.
Perhaps the most famous such campaign by homosexual activists backfired badly in 2012. Large businesses and foundations have donated hundreds of millions of dollars toward advancing the homosexual agenda, but when Chick-Fil-A donated about $5 million to pro-family groups, the homosexual propaganda machine went into overdrive, cooking up silly slogans like “If you’re eating Chick-Fil-A, you’re eating anti-gay.”
In June and July of 2012, Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made several public statements opposing same-sex marriage, and the homophiles became apoplectic. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Alderman “Joe” Moreno tried to block franchise expansion into their cities. Mayor Edwin Lee of San Francisco tweeted on July 26, 2012 “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”
Vandals hit several Chick-Fil-A restaurants, and the media simply repeated over and over that the chain was peddling “hate.” Not only did civil libertarians (including the ACLU!) come to Chick-Fil-A’s rescue, but the restaurant chain experienced a huge increase in sales.
The intimidation tactic most used by homosexual activists is simple garden-variety censorship, which will be discussed in the next article — along with ways to counter the bullying of the homosexuals.