By BRIAN CLOWES
Part 1
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For a PDF copy of this article with extensive footnotes, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org. This is the first of a two-part article.)
+ + +
When pro-family people claim that homophile groups are pushing a “special rights” agenda, they are roundly condemned and ridiculed by homosexual leaders, the media, and the glitterati. “Gay rights” organizations assert that they are not asking for special rights, but only for the same rights that everyone else enjoys.
For example, activist Frank Brown said that “I want to go to my job. I want to have a home. I want to save my money. And I want to go on vacation. What kind of ‘hidden agenda’ are they talking about?” And rallies supporting homosexual “marriage” usually have several people holding professionally printed signs reading something like “The Gay Agenda: Spend Time With My Family/Be Treated Equally/Buy Milk.”
This language is carefully designed to be soothing and nonthreatening, distracting attention from the real special rights agenda as it rolls ahead almost unimpeded.
In his notorious essay on the homosexual revolution, Michael Swift mentions “wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.” Homosexuals frequently employ these tools, endlessly ridiculing the idea that there is a “gay agenda” at all. This, of course, allows those who are pushing the agenda to avoid discussion and simply mock those who allege its existence.
For example, Jeff Miner, the homosexual senior pastor of Life Journey Church, describes “The Gay Agenda”:
6:00 a.m. — Gym
8:00 a.m. — Breakfast (oatmeal & egg whites)
9:00 a.m. — Hair appointment
10:00 a.m. — Shopping
Noon — Lunch
2:00 p.m. — Take over government/Recruit youngsters/Replace school counselors/Destroy marriage/Bulldoze houses of worship/Secure control of Internet.
+ + +
Despite denials and mockery, the “gay agenda” is distressingly real, and it has specific and well-defined goals. But its ultimate objective can be stated in one sentence: the complete crushing of all opposition to whatever the homosexual leadership wants.
We must emphasize that the great majority of homosexual people do not believe in this program. All they want is to live their lives without interference. Unfortunately, it is not the average homosexual who defines the special rights agenda; it is the most extreme and vocal activists.
Confusion V. Precision
The Culture of Death thrives on confusion because it knows that confusion leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to paralysis. Every one of the dozen or so leading homophile groups is actively involved in laying down a thick screen of deceptive and distracting language, thereby hoping to divert attention away from what they are actually trying to accomplish. This tactic goes so far as an attempt to do away with the term “special rights” itself.
For example, in its “Media Reference Guide,” the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) describes the term “special rights” as a “rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister,” and specifies the following:
“Offensive: ‘special rights.’
“Preferred: ‘equal rights’ or ‘equal protection.’ Anti-gay extremists frequently characterize civil rights and equal protection of the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans as ‘special rights’ in an attempt to energize opposition to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws.”
GLAAD is obviously attempting to confuse and distort the definition of “special rights.” No pro-family group has ever lobbied against “equal protection of the law” for homosexuals. We simply object to people who think that they are so special that they are entitled to rights that nobody else enjoys.
Dishonest activists, regardless of their cause, embrace imprecise language and terms that they can use to manipulate the law and public opinion. More important, if the language is flexible and ill-defined, they can get away with practically anything in a debate, discussion, or political race.
In other words, they love confusion, because flexible terms mean that none of the central points will ever be settled. And this, of course, is exactly their intent, because it means they have unlimited freedom of action.
Whenever a precisely defined term such as “special rights” surfaces in the debate, the homophiles loudly denounce it because they know that it has the potential to be damaging to their agenda. They try their best to bury it as deeply as possible or to just ignore it and hope it goes away, which is typical behavior for people who are frightened of discussion and debate.
Defining The Term
“Special Rights”
In order to make our case, we must begin by defining exactly what a “special right” actually is:
A “special right” is a right demanded by a group of people who deny the same right to others, particularly their ideological opponents.
To clarify the concept, let us consider a typical “gay pride” parade. During these events, homosexuals are frequently naked, simulate sex, and even perform sexual acts in full view of the public, including small children. Homosexual activists and their supporters have attempted to enact laws that specify that only homosexuals have the right to be naked and perform sex acts in public.
Additionally, the very concept of a “gay pride” parade itself is an excellent example of a special right demanded by homosexuals. They demand the right to celebrate their lifestyles in public, but have viciously condemned those few people brave enough to propose “straight pride” parades, labeling them “homophobic.” The primary point here is that homosexuals demand the right to have “gay pride” parades while denying their ideological opponents the right to hold a similar event celebrating their lifestyle.
Homosexuals inevitably trot out a long and impressive list of justifications as to why “straight pride” parades should be banned, mostly based on a long history of usually fabricated victimization, but their rationalizations are irrelevant. The stark fact is that they are denying others a right that they claim for themselves.
This is the heart and soul of a homosexual “special right.”
Their Endless Demands
The typical homophile activist is always diligently searching for evidence of hypocrisy in everyone but himself. He will inevitably claim that pro-family activists claim certain “special rights” for themselves that they deny to homosexuals, the primary example being marriage. But this is incorrect. Nobody has ever said that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Pro-family people say that homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights that everyone else does; they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Homosexual activists are mercilessly goaded by guilt and anger and can never be satisfied. As one of them said, “When the [gay rights] bill passes, there will be something else. There will always be something else.”
According to former homosexual activist Luke Montgomery:
“You have to understand that the motivation of the gay community is validation. They want to be approved. They want people to say, ‘It’s okay that you’re gay,’. . . and if you disagree with one tiny, insignificant little point of their wide, broad, sweeping agenda, you’re all of a sudden a homophobe and a hatemonger. You’re a villain. A bad guy. And this is ludicrous.”
Far from hiding their special rights agenda, homophile groups have provided us a detailed description of it. They have published dozens of manifestos featuring detailed lists of elements that all begin with the words “We demand,” “We insist,” “We expect,” or “We want.” This article describes these demands, shows how they are being implemented in the real world, and concludes by showing that, as a body, they represent a real and growing threat to life and liberty.
If any of these demands appear reasonable at first, just imagine the public outcry that would result if the Catholic Church or “straights” made them instead of homosexuals.
Media And Entertainment
We are all aware that the mainstream media are heavily biased even to the point of corruption regarding the social issues. The result is a crippled and entirely one-sided view of homosexuality.
Homosexual infiltration and intimidation of the media began in the early 1970s. Even then, television producer James Komack complained: “Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women’s lib or any nationalist or racist group. It’s the gays. If you don’t have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don’t go on the air.”
In other words, the media show us bad guys all the time, but never any bad gays.
The ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) has demanded that nations eradicate the broadcasting of all content it deems discriminatory or unfavorable toward homosexuals. This has already occurred in Canada, where the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTTC) has forbidden licensed stations to broadcast any programs portraying homosexuals or homosexuality in a negative light for any reason whatsoever.
The CRTTC has directed the Dr. Laura Show, Jerry Falwell’s Old Time Gospel Hour, and Focus on the Family, among others, not to include any material at all dealing with homosexuality in their programming.
No other racial, ethnic, religious, or other type of group enjoys such absolute protection.
The result of this campaign of intimidation is that television shows and movies invariably portray all homosexuals as people of the highest possible moral caliber, and any faults that they do possess are endearing, humorous, and inconsequential.
Compare this to the hideous treatment of Christians in general and Catholics in particular, whom the media often portray as hypocritical and contemptible ogres and sexual perverts.
Some homosexual groups have even demanded that the Internet be purged of all criticism of homosexuality. For example, the Canadian homosexual group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) has e-mailed threatening notes to pro-family web sites and has openly discussed the tactic of filing an avalanche of harassment lawsuits against them.
Various homophile groups have demanded that all movies and television shows include homosexual and transgender (sex-switching) characters, all of which must be portrayed in a strictly positive light. One group supporting homosexual “marriage” even demanded that Bert and Ernie, two male Muppets from the children’s television show Sesame Street, get married — to each other!
The silliness knows no boundaries. When the blockbuster movie Avatar was released in December 2009, homosexual activist groups staged a boycott because it contained no transsexual characters. This action, which failed dismally, was called the “International Day of Protest Against Avatar.” Its web site boasts the slogan “The Future Is Transgender, Not Straight!”
As comedian Dave Barry says, “I swear I am not making this up!”
Politics And Public Life
In order to enact the “special rights” agenda, homophile activists must completely eradicate opposing viewpoints from every aspect of the public arena. They want to make certain that the ugly features of the homosexual lifestyle and the terroristic history of the “gay rights” movement are not only completely hidden from view, but entirely forgotten by the public.
To begin with, leading homosexual activists have sought to censor all speeches given by political candidates. As one example, the $40 million-a-year homophile group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) demanded that the Republican Party suppress any speeches or performances at the 2004 GOP convention by anyone they deemed “homophobic.” The HRC even drew up a long list of entertainers and speakers that they wanted banned from all public speaking engagements because they had at some time in the past opposed some aspect of the homosexual agenda.
The majority of those submitting comments to various homosexual-oriented blogs applauded the HRC demands; very few were courageous enough to mention the obvious dangers they posed to free speech.
To illustrate how absurd this situation really is, try to imagine the howls of protest that would arise from the left if pro-family activists demanded that the Democrats prohibit speech by anyone who had expressed anti-Christian views in his or her past.
Unfortunately, homophiles are not satisfied with silencing political candidates. They believe that all public figures must be forced to toe the line.
For example, actress Jada Pinkett Smith received an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations in 2005. During her acceptance speech, she told women in the audience: “You can have it all — a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.” Hours later, Harvard’s Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance condemned her statement, calling it “heteronormative,” and demanded that future speakers be allowed to speak of man-woman families only if they also approved of homosexual “marriage.”
The homophiles not only believe that those who publicly oppose their agenda should be muzzled; they often demand that they should be severely punished as well. Homosexual activist groups have demanded that those who oppose gay “marriage” be forbidden to run for public office, be banned from working for government in any capacity, be barred from attending law school or from practicing law, and be fired from their jobs without recourse.
In September 2013, the Democrat-controlled city council of San Antonio, Texas, passed a sweeping ordinance stating that:
“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”
The ordinance does not contain a religious exemption, meaning that those who are members of pro-family faiths or who have, say, expressed their disapproval of same-sex “marriage” in a letter to their local newspaper will be permanently banned from seeking public office. Meanwhile, to our north, influential Canadian homophile groups are demanding that anyone who believes that marriage should be a union between one man and one woman must be forbidden from attending law school or from practicing law.
The Canadians are getting more and more aggressive at trampling the rights of those who oppose the homosexual special rights agenda, but the United States is not far behind.
In 2013, the United States Department of Justice published an internal memorandum entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It says “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
This is a threat, and not even a subtle one. The memorandum uses KGB-style language to intimidate: “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual e-mail or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”
The document even compels support by directing “DO Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space’.”
In other words, if you work for the Department of Justice, you must display some visible symbol of your support of the homophile movement, even if you in good conscience disagree with it.
Among several other truly ridiculous directives, the memo commands DOJ employees “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other,’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”
In other ways, play along with the corporate delusion or you will be punished.
Not one homosexual activist group questioned the breathtaking arrogance of this directive; in fact, most supported it.
Once again, imagine the outrage that the elitist left would display if the DOJ had instead commanded all of its employees to display crucifixes or images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in their offices.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress