Tearing down crosses and making threats does not change minds

Every generation or so complains about how the next generation is changing our lives, the country, etc. but sometimes the changes are not just in how long we let our hair grow or what the music fad is, sometimes the changes are tragic to the fabric of society and our liberty and freedom – bought and paid for by blood and heartache of our founders. We are experiencing such an era of change now.

I’m not referring to the political changes we may expect under President Obama and the elected Democrat majorities in Congress, I believe we need to also focus on the changes in personal behavior and hate as we witnessed in Palm Springs when a mob of homosexuals and their supporters overcame an old woman carrying a cross because in their view religion, especially Christianity, cannot be tolerated if it interferes with their agenda. The homosexual agenda is to force their way into every aspect of human life to the end that homosexualism is synonymous with mankind. This goal requires providing homosexuals the status of “married people” not only with respect to legal rights, but in how non homosexuals perceive them regardless of their personal beliefs or religion.

Militant homosexuals have planned their next steps to achieve their goal. They are going back to the California Supreme Court that gave homosexual marriage its imprimatur to once again reverse the majority in the state. The practice of this court in the past as overruling the voting majority in the state is ample to justify the expense and effort in support of the homosexual theology. Who must the public rely on to support the Proposition 8 constitutional amendment in the court – Attorney General Gerry Brown – (do you feel comfortable with this advocate for you?)

Also on the homosexual agenda is the “boycott.” Their representatives say if we can’t beat them in the ballot box (yet), we will make the pay in other ways for failing to kneel at the homosexual altar.

Yes militancy, but not violence, has successfully transformed our society to a fairer one. Our founders were only “mostly” perfect but they accepted some prejudices in their way of life we have found to be wrong over the years. Thus was born voting rights for women and those other than whites, denial of slavery or servitude and overcoming racial disparity.

Euphemisms are used to convey what some regard as a more acceptable description of the thing; this has gone on for decades. For example, to make those practicing homosexuality seem to be less different from others the word “gay” has been descriptive of homosexuals and their life styles (curiously, the word does not seem to apply to female homosexuals or lesbians). As a result, a perfectly good word – gay – cannot be used as it had for centuries to describe a happy condition, not limited one particular group.

Objecting to the will of the majority is a fundamental freedom under our constitution and laws. The constitution is silent with respect to homosexuals so it is a subject (one of the few these days) that has been left to states to deal with. States frequently enact laws than many disagree with and those unsatisfied seek reversal generally by persuading others of their view. Such efforts cost a lot of money but are nevertheless permissible within our legal structure. What differentiates some groups with strongly held views from others is the way they go about seeking to achieve the result they desire. PETA seems to want us all to forego using animals in any form so they disrupt meetings, cause vandalism and worse. Does PETA really believe people will be drawn to their philosophy by such acts?

Militant homosexuals attack little old ladies with crosses and march and march; protest and protest that voters who approved Proposition 8 or the like (for the second time) are homophobes who wish to deny them their constitutional right to marry; but the U.S. Constitution does not address homosexuals at all. It was only the California Supreme Court stretching the state constitution language to suit their social preferences did they manage to overturn all previous efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman – as it has for thousands of years.

Like many of us, I have changed my mind about things many times; but never under any kind of threat. I suggest homosexuals put away their hardware and mobs, stop threatening those who disagree with you and join the dialog. You may not persuade many who disagree with you for what they regard as responsible reasons; but if you don’t and continue as you are, it is only you will look foolish in the end.