This exchange occured at the recent Miss USA pagent between the moderator and Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean: “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”


Carrie Prejean, Miss California, was the frontrunner and the favorite to win the Miss USA pageant...and then she committed the deadly sin of self-expression. She forgot where she was and what demographic comprised the majority of her audience. Hollywood is run and policed by the homosexual lobby.

(Note: I will not use the term “gay” to describe a male homosexual. Gay is a state of mind. It means to be happy. It was co-opted by a group with the full intention of twisting the dialogue to their terms.)

In the space of a few seconds, Miss Prejean went from crowd favorite to crowd goat, never mind that the same people loudly expressing their hatred were the same people with an extensive history of standing on the first amendment. The hypocrisy is that they don’t believe it extends to anyone who disagrees with their side of the issue. Some have actually called for Miss Prejean’s arrest and conviction on a hate crime charge. I doubt those individuals even know how to spell hubris.

The only group whose world view is affected solely by how they copulate is the homosexuals. They are the only people who insist on bringing what they do in the bedroom to the fore of the discussion. They the only people who use a sexual activity as the template for defining who they are.

Every group has its fanatics and the homosexual community is no exception. But the fanatics are controlling the dialogue which makes the possibility of a progressive, logical debate a non-starter, but someone has to try. One place to start is the hatred the homosexuals seem to have for Christianity while at the same time demanding that Christianity treat them as something other than what they are, same sex couples engaging in an activity the Christian Bible condemns.

This is typical of the homosexual lobby. They have mastered the “do as I say not as I do” gambit. What is dismaying is that nearly every elected official and media outlet has swallowed that lie hook line and sinker. They see no hypocrisy in homosexual couples demanding that a religion accept them as non-sinners while actively engaging in what that church views as sin. They see no hypocrisy in using the first amendment to further their aims while denying its protection to that church.

For the Christian church, marriage is to be a rite of commitment between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a girl, a girl and a boy, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The secular world already has avenues for those arrangements, including such things as power of attorney and other documents that give a domestic partner all the access and privileges of a spouse. So what’s the problem with allowing church marriage to stand as it is?

The problem is the word “sin”. Anyone who has ever been involved in a discussion with a homosexual activist will have noticed the demeanor of unrepentant aggression that permeates the one they are speaking with. This demeanor is typical throughout the demographic. Whether the media and the politicos want to admit it or not, the homosexual community is at war with the Christian church. They view Christianity as one judging them and what they do. They consider Jesus’ admonition to “go and sin no more” as something hateful. The word “love” only means one thing, sex. The argument goes nowhere. When the terms of the discussion means different things to the participants, only confusion can result.

What this all comes down to is this: As Americans, we all have a right to express our opinions freely and without fear or repercussion...even if we happen to be a Christian living in Kalifornia.

The homosexual demographic in the US is the only group I am aware of that has a sexual activity as its primary source of identity. Blacks use race whereas Orientals use family and Hispanics value their ancestral homeland. Whites seem to be the only group that places what their occupation is before any other factor as an identifier. Within the Caucasian race, the Celts, like Hispanics, use the homeland.

Homosexuality is not a right and it is not a race. It is, in fact, an aberration from the normal template of nature. Any scientist worth the title will tell you that nature’s primary purpose is to propagate itself, in essence, “go forth and multiply”. A homosexual couple can try from now until the sun goes dark, but until one of the chromosomal ingredients changes, no child will be created. Lawsuits can be thrown at society ad nauseam, but that fact will not be changed. Don’t blame society, blame nature’s template. It takes a male and a female to propagate. Adoption is not propagation.

This brings us to the current hysteria over the passage of California’s Proposition 8 cementing marriage as being an official recognized ceremony between a man and a woman. When the counts were tallied, homosexuals across the country went ballistic. Riots erupted and some homosexuals took their anger out on people and property, even to the point of physically attacking an elderly black woman because the Black Church, along with the Mormon Church was one of the larger groups voting for the ban. It is interesting to note that when Christian groups were on the losing side of voter issues, no riots ensued, they didn’t even commit a single act of littering.

I spent some time living in San Francisco and, as a professional artist, had the opportunity to work in fairly close quarters with a number of homosexuals. I have even been hit on by a few. In most cases, I found these people to be gracious and competent, but as a demographic they tend to be far more egocentric than others, even more so than heterosexual artists. Reports of the reactions to proposition 8 tend to support my personal sampling. The passage of the California initiative has been taken as a personal attack. To them, their lives had been irreparably harmed from one day to the next, even though not one physical or fiscal item had changed.

Charges of racism, hate, bigotry and homophobia flew like grapeshot through the media, the airwaves and now the courts. It did not matter that the majority of the people of California spoke and 52% of those voters decided to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Domestic partnersships are still quite legal, and if two consenting adults in California choose to live together, even in a homosexual relationship, they have a right to. And, the law is quite specific; they even have a right to marry…as long as the partner in that marriage is of the opposite sex.

In answer to the charges, it is impossible for someone who disagrees with any portion of the homosexual agenda to be committing an act of racism. A sexual activity is not “race” or even a factor in static physical appearance. Bigotry…possible, but it is stretching the definition of the attitude, and charging homophobia is simply being ridiculous. As a recognized psychosis, homophobia is way down on the list of fears. Arachnophobia, agoraphobia, and many others are far more common. Simply disagreeing with a person’s political position is not being phobic, and it certainly is not an expression of hate. Quite frankly, the way our country’s laws are written, the passage of Proposition 8 happened exactly the way the founding fathers envisioned things. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thomas Jefferson said, “The States should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government."

We have strayed so far from that ideal that many US citizens are not even aware that the 10th amendment even exists, and yet it does, often as an irritant to the more socialist-minded politicians and community organizers. The Supreme Court Row vs. Wade decision is one glaring example of the Federal Government stepping way outside of its bounds where that portion of the constitution is concerned. The law of the land is not there to cater to every select group that comes down the pike. Homosexuality happens to be an aberration from the natural way of things in the same manner that kleptomania, pedophilia, and compulsive eating disorders are. Should society offer up laws that accommodate every human disorder simply because they have banded into political action groups? If a store owner stops a kleptomaniac from shoplifting, is that an expression of racism, bigotry and hate? The comparison is ridiculous for a point. Giving preferential rights to homosexuals simply because of the way they choose to act is equally ridiculous.

All right, so California has stated that within its boundaries marriage is left to heterosexual unions. That does not mean that other states can choose to rule differently. The US Constitution says they have that right, and because we are a union of individual states, you have a right to move to the state of your choice. You do not have a right to riot. You do not have a right to assault. You do not have a right to commit destruction of property, and you do not have a right to not be offended. The Declaration upheld only 3 rights as being self-evident: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness, by itself is not a guarantee, only the pursuit of that goal is guaranteed.

There is no guarantee of prosperity. There is no guarantee of satisfaction and there is no golden parachute issued by the government to guarantee easy street to every citizen. The law is supposed to affect every citizen equally, and when it doesn’t, we call that corruption.