Faced with the evidence above, top gay advantages spokespersons have recently been forced to "shift gears." Some now admit that, as Colorado lesbian activist Robin Miller stated in testimony before Colorado's Attorney General, "of course" being gay isn't the same as being an ethnic minority. Yet somehow, gay activists assert that they should have special anti-discrimination protections despite their admitted lack of qualifications for true protected class status.

Now, if gays, as they themselves admit, are not a true minority class, what are they? John Franklin, Past Chairman of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (an outspoken opponent of "gay rights" on traditional civil rights grounds) has cut through gay activist "civil rights" rhetoric with this insight:

The "gay rights" movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged.

Now that gay affluence and political clout have been exposed, gay activists are trying to say they want only "protection from discrimination." But never have special interest groups been favored with anti-discrimination laws protecting their behaviors, desires or political agendas from public scrutiny, criticism and control.

Special interest groups who can't get their way through legitimate political means simply don't have redress for their grievances under anti-discrimination laws. The Teamsters union doesn't have access to special anti-discrimination protections for their "unionly" philosophy. The tobacco lobby doesn't have special protection for their pro-smoking propaganda activities. Circus clowns can't file discrimination suits if they don't like the way people laugh at them.

It is deception of the rankest order for a special interest group to masquerade as a "disadvantaged minority" in order to secure benefits for itself. Will powerful gay extremists get their way and secure the benefits and entitlements of the poor? Would it not be the height of injustice for the people of America to capitulate to such a concerted and deceptive "hijacking" of the status of the disadvantaged? What special interest groups would ask for special protection next? Pornographers (they also represent "sexual orientations")? Smokers? Television watchers? On close analysis, the idea is patently absurd.

Email this to a friend