Homophobia or Speech-Freedom

The “Duck Dynasty” brouhaha has snapped the nation's attention again to an issue presented by the homosexual community and/or its rabid supporters, to wit, that criticism of “gays” is not allowed...meaning that homosexuals are intolerant of tolerance, that gays can say what they think about “straights” (mean, homophobic, haters, etc.) but that the vast majority of folks (about 99%) may not speak about perversion. Apparently, the LGBT gang thinks the U.S. Constitution requires freedom of speech for only them.

This is not a Constitutional/legal matter, of course. If Phil Robertson had screamed a “false-alarm” fire-warning in a building, he might have to be dealt with since that could have caused physical harm to folks. Words do not hurt people unless they're amenable to being hurt—thin-skinned. It's doubtful that Robertson's skin is very thin, as proven by his apparent ability not to be bothered by the names he's been called.

It's amazing how cultural approvals/disapprovals change, especially in exceedingly brief time-frames. In only four years (an election cycle), for instance, Obama “evolved” from categorically affirming marriage to be a “one-man-one-woman” thing to being gung-ho for same-sex marriage, notwithstanding its legal ramifications. Biologically, such marriages are impossible unless, of course, sex plays no part in the discussion, in which case same-sex civil unions are already recognized in many areas, with the same government/institutional perks that accrue to actual husbands and wives.

Sixty years ago (April 1953), President Eisenhower indicated that homosexuals and lesbians were “potential threats” to national security and issued executive order number 10450 mandating that no one in either group was to be hired in federal government. Today, they are welcomed into government by a president with scant governing background and absolutely no military experience.

The case of Air Force enlisted man Bradley Manning is cause to make one wonder if Obama is ill-advised. Manning provided damaging national secrets (far worse than Edward Snowden's exposure of NSA operations) to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who made them available to news media worldwide. He has just been sentenced to 35 years but prefers to serve it as Chelsea Manning, demanding that government provide him a sex-change program. Eisenhower was right...perverted biology bespeaks perverted (even criminal) mentality.

In October 1964, President Lyndon Johnson was running for reelection when his top aide, Walter Jenkins, was apprehended by D.C. police performing oral sex on an immigrant man in the toilet of a YMCA facility near the White House, not the first apprehension for Jenkins. Johnson believably insisted he had no idea that Jenkins, the father of six children, was a homosexual; otherwise, so soon after Eisenhower's order Jenkins would not have been around.

Johnson had reason to worry because Jenkins possessed information about campaign funds that could have proved disastrous if in the wrong hands. Johnson aides Abe Fortas, later a Supreme Court justice, and Clark Clifford took care of removing all the damaging documents. Jenkins was gone immediately and Johnson was reelected. Could Jenkins, fathering six children, actually claim he was “born that way,” or did he choose that sordid lifestyle, ignoring the possibility that he could carry some dread disease home? Oral- and anal-sex, not to mention other alleged homosexual practices, involve inordinate filth.

Recently retired New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson's homosexual “partner” is referred to by the Center for American Progress as Robinson's “husband.” Robinson's appointment to the Bishopric in 2003 caused deep splits in the church, although the prevailing position of the church seems to be that homosexuality is good. Indeed, but for the bishops mostly in Africa, the official position of the church internationally would grant approval of homosexuals being ordained, as well as married to each other.

Robinson has two grown daughters and grandchildren, so was he “born that way” or did he decide that normal biological sex just wasn't good enough? Did he find that “loving” a man was more fulfilling and scriptural than faithfulness to his wife? Making that case stretches the imagination a brain-wave too far. Physical perversion bespoke an insensitive, selfish kiss-off to his church, causing much harm.

Obama's imprimatur on homosexual behavior and his consequent approval of practicing homosexuals in the military—not Obamacare—will be his primary legacy because this stance damns both the society and the national defense mechanism. He will be known as the “sexual deviancy” president, a Clintonesque stain on the office.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark