Will liberals lift the ban on free speech now that same sex marriage is a fact of life? I ask the question because several years ago things were looking mighty bleak —— for free speech. In those dark days, I posted a few messages on the subject. My updated observations are more valid today in light of California’s thriving same sex marriage industry.

I can’t say when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:

blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious

Were I to overwork the word homosexual, I would be accused of homophobia. Aiming for savoir-faire, I have decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay where appropriate.

Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you’ll find that free speech is always the first casualty. Phyllis Schlafly’s column on November 6, 2006 touches upon a few of the blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda:

Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly

The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.

You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly cites several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.

You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities makeup the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. Indeed, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.

Not to be ignored, public schools are a primary target for the merry community’s lifestyle. Schlafly pointed out:

Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.

The sly transition that goes from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:

First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.

California’s judges recently moved into the legislate phase leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage.

The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages, the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.

The next excerpt from Phyllis Schlafly’s column gives an example of censorship:

Taking their demands for censorship into the courts, gays have been winning. After Poway High School near San Diego endorsed the gay project called "Day of Silence," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school in forbidding student Tyler Harper to wear a T-shirt with the words "Homosexuality is shameful, Romans 1:27."

The dissenting judge pointed out the intolerance of those who claim they want tolerance for minority views. But Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who sided with the school, wrote that Tyler's defenders "still don't get the message."

I am getting the message: For Reinhardt, gay rights means intolerance for free speech.

Clinton apologists once defended his scandalous conduct by saying it was "only about sex." It's increasingly clear that the gay ideology is about far more than sex; it assaults our fundamental right to free speech.

Rather than beat the free speech issue to death, I’ll move along to the arts.

Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, the twist, got started. I don’t know if the story was ever proven true, but it is worth repeating.

It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance the twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and the twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.

My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la the twist. If that was the merry community’s intent, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.

I doubt if any of them ever thought that their inside humor would go as far as it has. Now, that they’re being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists and try to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they see a way to tear it down.

Now that California is dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I don’t care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It won’t build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it’s not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How they must be laughing at straights.

Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed, as one of their own, every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble. Michelangelo’s talent was the face they tried to put on homosexuality.

Don’t fret. There has been a makeover. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and wouldn’t dream of infidelity. All things considered, they should have stuck with the artistic image.

My problem with the new face is this: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.

One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the merry community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That’s a good thing for them if that’s the case, but it doesn’t mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.

One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they’ll have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.

Here’s the link for Schlafly’s column (you have to go to her archives for Nov. 6, 2006):

Townhall.com::Columnists
h

__________________

Flanders

The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer