October 2008

Checking my Facebook e-mail today, I saw a “vote no on Prop 8″ ad. The measure, which appears on the California state ballot, would define marriage as between only a man and a woman. The irritants who created this ad used a picture of a black man at a “colored” water fountain from the 1950s or 1960s, similar to the one on the right.

Nothing gets me riled up quite like a homosexual, especially a white male, whining about his inability to legally “marry” another male and comparing himself to blacks who were forbidden to sip from “Whites Only” water fountains or made to go through back doors of business establishments like restaurants.

It makes me want to vomit, too.

Imagine traveling back in time and telling some of those church-going folks getting beat upside the head, sprayed with firehoses, attacked by dogs, drenched with soda and food at Woolworth’s during a sit-in demonstration, and called “Niggers” that they’re enduring all this nonsense so that one day, two men could make a mockery of marriage.

Give me a freakin’ break! Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what homosexuals want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.

It’s maddening, not to mention insulting, when homosexuals co-opt the language and imagery from that turbulent era to push such an agenda. (I’m choosing my words carefully here.)

Lunch.