The Politics of Safety

Mario Diaz
|
Posted: Dec 04, 2008 5:04 PM
The Politics of Safety

It turns out the “tolerance” movement might not be as tolerant as advertised.

In a 1995 speech entitled “Winning the Culture War,” Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) said,

In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card — safety — and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.

For homosexual activists, the illusion of danger and the need for safety was all part of a strategy, the means to an end, a façade. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen made it clear in their 1989 treatise After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s: “in any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable.”

It worked. Homosexuals gained enormous sympathy from Americans by portraying themselves as victims and calling on the government to enact laws to “protect” them. They called for laws to specifically protect “gay” youth from being bullied (thus erecting the illusion of masses of homosexual youth who needed more protection than any other bullied child) and politicians stayed silent for fears of being called “insensitive” or “intolerant.”

But it turns out that, in certain circumstances, bullying is good after all. For example, if you are a Christian and voted for Proposition 8 to preserve the historic definition of marriage, some homosexuals think you should be bullied.

“Trust me. I've got a big list of names of [M]ormons and [C]atholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … I warn them to watch their backs,” said a homosexual activist, mad about the result of Proposition 8, in a blog post. “If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You’re going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security,” warned another.

They did not stop at warnings either. Many saw the reports from Palm Springs, California where homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross. At Saddleback Church, several hundred homosexual activists intimidated parishioners with menacing chants and a large swastika display. A Catholic church in Riverside, California, found Proposition 8-related signs arranged in a swastika on the church's front lawn. In Lansing, Michigan, homosexual activists vandalized an Assembly of God church and threw pro-“gay” items and condoms in the sanctuary, while two lesbians kissed each other at the podium among chants of “Jesus is a homo." And several thousand homosexual activists marched at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles-area threatening to break through the gates and storm the building. And these are just a few of the reports.

Who needs protection now?

But the truth is out. Homosexual activists are not fighting for their “safety.” Nor are they fighting for their “rights.” The California Supreme Court recognized in its now-infamous same-sex “marriage” decision that homosexual couples already possess the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual couples through California's civil union law; Proposition 8 did not change that. The reality is that homosexual activists are bent on the open promotion and celebration of homosexuality in America — even at the expense of

our safety. They do not permit anyone to object, no matter how reasonable, thoughtful or kindly they do so. They simply will not permit religious people to express their faith – not at the ballot box and not even in their own houses of worship.

Remember when all they wanted was the “right to visit their partner in the hospital” (a false claim in and of itself because patients already have the right to designate who can visit them)? But still, those days — and the false tears — are long gone. Today, they storm churches, bullying people into denying their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, while trampling our religious liberties and our form of government.

In lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, homosexual activists ask the Supreme Court to violate legal precedent and ignore the state and federal constitutions to invalidate the marriage amendment. In effect, they are asking the Court to nullify the sovereign right of the people to self-govern.

But remember, this is all in the name of “tolerance and safety.” A small price to pay, right?