Gays Asking For Special Treatment, Not Equal Rights//

Haven't heard the GLBT's yet? Don't worry they're still screaming...

Haven't heard the GLBT's yet? Don't worry they're still screaming...

What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? This so-called greatest country in the world is turning itself into the land of the free-as-long-as-you-are-tolerant-of-the-things-we-choose and the home of the cry babies.

The biggest argument coming from this ever-growing group is that homosexuals do not receive the same rights as heterosexuals. But in reality, they do. A man who professes to be gay has the same right as a straight man: to marry a woman.

Homosexuals are fighting for so-called freedoms, but they already have actual freedoms, the very freedoms listed  in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, the very same freedoms that every American has, gay or not.

In short, what is happening to America is the downfall of equality and the rise of privilege. Not privilege for everyone, but for those who consider themselves oppressed. The so-called minorities are searching for an exclusive place in society, and the government is handing it over.

So much for equality– because what homosexuals and their agenda filled backers are really fighting for are “special” rights; those different from and above and beyond what anyone else has. Why should we change all of the rules for them?

They lobby for the particular privilege to marry the same sex – an entitlement no person has. It isn’t equal rights these people want – it’s an exclusive allowance they’re searching for.

So this begs the question, do they deserve an exclusive allowance? Translation–do they deserve special treatment just because they don’t like being a minority, not a minority in a  legally “protected class” kind of way, because no one outside of the GLBT community and their supporters is worried about protecting this alleged minority, but minority as in they participate in  activities and live a lifestyle that most people believe  is immoral and unacceptable. GLBT drama isn’t going to win a popularity contest, and Californians have already made that very clear.

Sorry guys…in my opinion, being associated with said immoral sexual activities by your own choice and of your own doing  does not mean that you should get your own lane on the 405 fwy so-to-speak. You have to drive with everyone else who wants to use that freeway and follow the rules that have already been established as the best and safest for all involved.  If you cause a ruckus, or spin your car out of control, you’re going to get run over… like you did on Nov 4th! (Like that analogy? I just came up with it on the fly…lol…)

But gay marriage is just the introduction to the fight. The quest for the exceptional right to unnaturally marry has spawned an entirely new argument: discrimination.

{Click Here to Continue Reading…

Should Gays Be A Protected Class?// not a chance, read on to find out why…

Do handicapped or elderly workers just volunteer to joing those protected classes? Nope, but gays join their club voluntarliy and then want the government to protect them...

Do handicapped or elderly workers just volunteer to join those protected classes? Nope, but gays join their club voluntarliy and then want the government to protect them... There's a difference

I came across this amazing post by my blogger friend at Comments on the Contemporary. He talks about the facts surrounding a class of people becoming a “protected class,” which can then sue for a violation of their civil rights. He talks about the classes of people that are legitimately a protected class, and how gays are trying to wiggle their way into protected status. Read the post here.

It is apparent that the argument in California over Proposition 8 has jumped over this fundamental issue and made an invalid assumption that a protected class exists without ever defining that class. Class definition is not difficult in the instance of race, or sex (i.e. women vs. men) but has been and will continue to be problematical for national origin and religion. Are we ready to include a class that does not have a definition? Won’t that open the door to almost any possible group or preference labeling themselves and claiming protected class status?

Constant repetition of the mantra of “gay rights” does not automatically create a protected class, unless there is some rational way of defining the class other than by someone claiming membership. To do otherwise, destroys the whole concept of civil rights in America today.

Protected classes seem to have historically been made up of individuals with characteristics that they have no control over. It seems like homosexuality has been drummed up by gays as they are trying to convince America that they should be a protected class because of their immoral choices to have-sex with, cohabitate with and fake-marry people of their same sex.

How does one go about proving they are a member of a class that has no accurate definition and no criteria for membership?

Again, referring to Euripedes, “The slippery slope exists when other people group themselves together and begin to claim protected class status for the most frivolous of claims. ” For example, if a person is the subject to same-sex attraction, but never acts out any of their feelings, is that person entitled to class protection as a “Gay?” What about the commonly argued situation where two people of the same sex live together but are not sexually involved at all. Are they also a member of this protected class of “Gays?”

Calling all college roommates in same-sex-only dorms, or people who don’t believe in living with the opposite sex before marriage. Check this out….they too could potentially also become a protected class, and therefore categorized by government and all of Americans as gay! Ok, folks…see now how ridiculous this gay protected class thing is… Thanks for the info ‘Comments on the Contemporary!

White lists obama administration’s plans to support the GLBT community

White, the website that posts details about President Obama’s administration, didn’t waste anytime throwing traditional marriage under the bus. Are we shocked though? Nah, not in the least bit. His inauguration was 3 days ago to be exact and he has already retracted everything he  ever said about supporting traditional marriage. Obama was quoted as saying that he thought marriage should only be between one man and one woman, and that he supported traditional marriage, but you know, actions speak louder then words. So, he’s got plenty in action at the moment to destroy marriage and allow the GLBT posse to run a muck all over the country. I don’t have much respect for someone who goes back on their word, or says something just so they can be the popular kid in class.

You can see Obama’s blueprints for the GLBT pedestal here, just don’t eat lunch first. Here’s a snippet of what you’ll find:

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

It looks like we have our work cut out for us!

Labor Unions// ick. . . talk about throwing your weight around, I mean money

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

Big Labor, the most powerful lobby in all of California is urging the court to overturn proposition 8. Again, we ask, just like the CTA, why is it any business of a labor union to support or not support a Constitutional Amendment that has nothing to do with labor? These labor unions feel it is a slippery slope that could lead to other rights being revoked, but Proposition 8 didn’t revoke any rights. Gays didn’t have the right to marry before Prop 8 and they don’t have the right now. What is a right, however, is the right of California voters to “define” the word marriage in their State Constitution.

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

They are arguing the same tired old argument that Jerry Brown is arguing, and that the gay people who filed the law suits are arguing. . . that any change to the Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or divides citizens into a suspect class, has to be done by a revision and not by a mere amendment. They are apparently bent out of shape that California voters have exercised their political rights and voted, and that in this country, majority rules.

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the brief states.

Yeah, they have a point, but so what. That is what the Founding Father’s of this country wrote into our Constitution, and that most states have written into theirs. People may not like it, but that doesn’t mean the rules of this country should all just change because gays want to up and get married and adopt children all of a sudden.

“We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it’s immoral and it’s also legally invalid,” Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. “We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California.”

So  Big Labor is so concerned with the morality of California voters who are for Prop 8, but they are not, however, concerned with the moral character, or lack there of, of the people they purport to be defending. Interesting.

It doesn’t matter that most rank-and-file union members voted in favor of Proposition 8, according to exit polls. More than 50 of the biggest unions in the state joined to essentially support gay marriage. In a political sense, it figures: Unions, Democrats and gay leaders are traditional allies in California – the views of their members be damned.

I guess they fit the union profile. The CTA didn’t care how their members voted on Prop 8 either. They used their union dues for personal interests and supported No on 8 anyway.

UHW-West President Sal Rosselli is worried that wealthy, bigoted people could organize the votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights. This is an interesting statement coming from the opposition. Doesn’t it appear that they are trying to do the same thing, well, in a running-after-the-bus kind of way. They couldn’t organize their voters and get Prop 8 passed, so they are going to the CA Supreme court to tattle on the unfair Prop 8 voters. sniff. . . sniff. . .

Equality California executive director Geoff Kors said he believes “the leadership of labor in this brief is going to have a tremendous impact.” Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal senior counsel and Marriage Project director, said the brief “is putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California.”

They have a point, the stakes are high for everyone in California, but not for the reasons they think. If traditional marriage isn’t protected in this state, and in the country, there will be a dangerous fall out.

The California Supreme Court has set a fast-tracked briefing schedule, which should be completed this month, with oral arguments heard as soon as March.

The info from this post came from a tip from the DNA. If you want to blog, write, comment in defense of traditional marriage, then click the DNA badge in the side bar or visit and sign up. Check out their site for more information. I’m proud to be a part of this great army and to work with other like-minded individuals in this great marriage fight! We are always looking for more people to join our team!

Sources: Marcos Breton: Prop 8 is personal for union leader Big labor urges court to invalidate Prop 8

{ 2009: ‘Gay’ rights over all }

You don’t need a weather man to know which way this wind is blowing. Current political commentary is largely focused on the transition from a market economy to socialism. The transition from civil rights for all to privileged rights for the small but politically powerful homosexual left is just as important a “change you can believe in.”

It looks like Obama plans to be really busy in the coming months and years, working for what you might ask? Primarily the gay agenda and ensuring their “rights” or so it seems. Roger Hedgecock of reports,

If Barack Obama successfully translates his campaign rhetoric into law, 2009 will be the year homosexuality becomes a civil right.

During the campaign, Obama said the issue of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights “is about who we are as Americans”

I guess that’s one way of putting it. If same sex marriage is legalized, if children continue to be taught that homosexuality and the perversion of marriage is ok, if Obama decides that his main job will be ensuring that homosexuals continue to try destroy the moral fiber of this nation, then sadly, he and his cohorts just might force these issues to describe “who we are as Americans.” Although, I can assure you, it will never describe who I am as an American, or who my family is, or who my traditional marriage fighter friends are, and it won’t define everyone else who wants to preserve morality, values, families and marriage in this country. But we can’t let the dissenting voices be louder then ours. The gay agenda and its supporters are the grossest example of the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” saying. They make a bigger mess, they whine louder, they infiltrate anywhere they can, they sneak up on us when we aren’t looking, they shout, riot, protest, march, vandalize and indoctrinate with the best of them. But what they don’t have is the truth.

Apparently Obama is making promises right and left, and we shouldn’t be surprised to whom and what he is promising,

legal protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression”; expansion of “hate crime” statutes and homosexual adoption rights, repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule for military service.

Looks like all of this alleged civil rights business is going to keep him very busy. Check out, under the heading “civil rights,”  for the scoop. Will he have time for the rest of us? What do we really need from him anyway? I expect that nothing productive will get accomplished in the next 4 years, but that’s fine. I hope there are enough of us involved in the marriage and morality fight that we can prevent the further disintegration of society.

Labeling homosexual behavior a civil right apparently trumps majority rule at the ballot box too. A skillful media campaign painted the voting majority bigots and the homosexual campaign to suppress democracy a defense of basic civil rights.

It seems like so many people need to go back to their high school (private school, or home school, since public schools are junk) and re-take some American History, Political Science and civil rights 101 courses. The gay rights camp and their supporters and proponents seem to have had their history facts derailed, and they are now heading towards a land of made-up rights, and equality where only the homosexuals have a say and only the homosexual agenda matters. They don’t seem to realize that there isn’t much of a connection between freeing the slaves and ending segregation and allowing homosexuals to marry.

to link the black civil rights movement to homosexual “rights” floundered,

A legal challenge by homosexual activists to the constitutionality of this constitutional amendment was filed with the California Supreme Court. State Attorney General Jerry Brown at first vowed to defend the right of the voters to define marriage, then reversed himself under pressure from the homosexual activists.

Just what every concerned American wants in their elected officials and those who are supposed to represent and fight for their interests, a spine-less bureaucrat with self-serving interests, and we can’t forget, one who goes back on their word and changes their mind like they change their underwear. The Yes on 8 campaign as far as I know is not in support of recalling Jer-bear at this point, but seriously, why not? Why does he need to stay in office when he so blatantly disrespects the will of the people and the entire democratic process?

The justices have heard the rumblings of a recall movement not seen in California since voters there removed Chief Justice Rose Bird in the ’80s when the court refused to enforce the voters’ desire for a reinstatement of the death penalty.

I think they should be concerned about a potential recall, or not, maybe they don’t care about being judges, who knows. But one of the problems with the government is that it doesn’t operate like a private business, never mind their horrific inefficiencies, that’s for another post, but in the real world, when you do a bad job, you get fired, when you don’t do what the boss says, you get fired. Far to many bureaucrats and judges seem to forget who their boss is. . . that would be us. . . the American people! I think it’s high time they started acting like it too. A little recall always serves as a great reminder.

Labeling homosexuality a “civil right” also seems to trump everyone else’s civil rights.

Just as illegal aliens seem to have more “rights” than citizens do, homosexuals claim their “civil rights” prevail over everyone else’s civil rights.

Oh, and you’re not going to believe this next part,

Take the case of four San Diego firefighters ordered by the lesbian fire chief to participate in a “gay” pride parade in uniform driving a city fire truck.

Fire Captain John Ghiotto recalls that all along the parade route he and the other three firefighters were subject to verbal sexual abuse, with spectators crying out “show me your hose” and “you can put out my fire” and “give me mouth to mouth” all the while “exposing themselves, grabbing their crotch, rubbing their nipples and exhibiting tongue gestures.”

For decades now, such behavior between men and women has been defined as sexual harassment, subject to severe penalties.

However, when the four firefighters alleged a violation of their civil rights in a civil suit against the City of San Diego, they lost. Their right to be protected against homosexual sexual harassment was subordinate to the homosexual parade spectators’ right to ignore city laws against public nudity and harass the firefighters.

This story has discrimination, harassment and typical gay antics written all over it. Would the lesbian fire chief have been so eager to send her uniformed firefighters out to parade around in support of something religious or related to traditional marriage? I am baffled why so many people can’t see the vulgarity and perversion that comes from the GLBT agenda in action.

Thoughts and comments are always welcome. Thanks for reading!

Source: “2009: ‘Gay’ rights over all”