Why I say "No!" to so-called "gay marriage"

By John Wilkenson

I have previously written on this subject in an essay titled, "How the 'gay marriage' movement is a threat to the 1st Amendment", but considering recent MSM news stories about the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, it was time for an updated aggregation of material. Hence this blog article.

As a self-ownership activist and free-speech absolutist, I believe in equal rights (including equal protection of law) for every human being. But, having said that, I must also say I have seldom seen the level of intellectual dishonesty and manipulativeness which surrounds the so-called “gay marriage” so-called “issue.”

“Gay marriage” is a self-evident oxymoron, like “homosexual heterosexual”, "black white" or “hot cold”. I blame arrogant paternalistic heterosexuals for its existence, just as I blame arrogant paternalistic men for the existence of the man-hating “Feminazi” (aka "gender feminism) movement. If significant numbers of arrogant paternalistic men had not been hell-bent on keeping women disenfranchised and subservient, women would not have had to fight so desperately for their suffrage. Analogously, if significant numbers of heterosexuals had not been so hell-bent on depriving homosexuals of equal rights and equal protection of law, the term “gay marriage” would not exist, because the attempted (and dangerous to the First Amendment) redefinition of the word “marriage” is nothing more than a deceptive propaganda tool used by intellectually short-sighted manipulators to get their way in a “political1” struggle which should never have existed in the first place.

All human BEHAVIOR, including heterosexual celibacy, is a CHOICE. “Preference” and “choice” are by definition synonyms. Skin color and eye color are not behavior. They are physical traits. Such things as eating, drinking and breathing are not so much "choices" or "preferences" as quasi-involuntary survival functions. Traits and survival functions are not choices. Celibacy and/or having sex are neither traits nor survival functions. Heterosexual or homosexual, you can choose to have sex or choose to be celibate. Clearly, those are behavior CHOICES.

The intellectual lie which functions as both premise and primary enabler to the "gay marriage" language fraud is pretending that “choice” means the same thing as “trait” or "function". It doesn't. Moreover, that lie is also bad science.

One of my favorite writers, openly lesbian humanities professor Camille Paglia, who has been very critical of the gay propaganda strategy leadership, has defined homosexuality – (remember she is a lesbian) – as “an ADAPTATION that works for some people”. I agree.

Paglia has also expressed concern that combative militancy in insisting that homosexuals are born that way imposes a dangerous chilling effect on the freedom of scientific inquiry into the development of human personalities. In other words, scientific investigation into the subject of what causes some people to be homosexuals (and others heterosexuals, and yet others serial killers) is considered by combative control-freak Homonazi propaganda zealots (who, just like the so-called “religious right” they hate, want to use the power of government2 to cram their views down everybody else's throats) to be “hate”, “hate crimes” and/or “hate speech”.

The only real result from all this brouhaha is the cultural weakening of the sacred principle of self-ownership and the ruining of a couple of perfectly good and useful words such as “gay” (as in “don we now our homosexual apparel”) and “marriage” (which, from the point of view of positive human law, is nothing more or less than a heterosexual “civil union” generally recognized by society as important in the raising of children).

No doubt I will be viewed by a few low-information and/or sophistic3 individuals as a “hater” even though I have always thought the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding a Georgia anti-sodomy statute and directly overruled in Lawrence v. Texas) was wrong on the grounds it violated the sacred principle of self-ownership.

Any political success which the gay propaganda strategy leadership has had can be attributed in large part to rhetorical brinksmanship. Most benign, well-intended individuals are not comfortable using language with the same blunt and rude combativeness which the gay propaganda leadership routinesly uses as a preferred political strategy. Since I don't mind engaging in rhetorical tit-for-tat, let me demonstrate what I'm talking about.

What exactly is “sodomy”? It's one person sticking his erect penis up another person's rectum – a rather primitive act which is not remotely honorable, noble or uplifting to the human spirit. Like urinating or defecating, it's something most “respectable” people don't even want to mention because it falls into the category of “too much information” even though bodily functions are a fact of life.

The First Amendment allows an individual to say things such as, “I sincerely believe rectums were designed for the expulsion of waste, not the expression of romantic love,” or “I sincerely believe smearing feces on my urethra would be disgusting and medically risky.” Homonazi speech-police propaganda strategists would call the immediately preceding four sentences “hate speech” and want to use the power/violence of government2 coercion to ban it. Some anti-self-ownership speech-police homonazis want to pretend that the Bible constitutes “hate” and want to ban it. That's how any tyranny operates: kill the intellectuals, burn the books, and punish disapproved speech.

Personally, I think so little of the variations in human sexual behavior and preferences that I don't want to know about them. When I see a person, I don't wonder if that person is heterosexual or homosexual, I just notice if they look happy or surly and might say something like “Nice day, isn't it?” I see nothing wrong with “don't ask, don't tell”. I am satisfied that things in the “too much information” category should be irrelevant to serious public discourse. I don't want to know how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your butt. I also don't want to know if your finger broke through the paper the last time you wiped your butt after defecating. Nor do I care. Furthermore, I consider the subject of our various preferences as to how we wipe our butts to be an inappropriate subject for public discussion. The same goes for sexual preferences.

MLK dreamed of a society where people were judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Why wouldn't it be just as good if people could be judged by the content of their character instead of their sexual preferences? Why isn't it good enough for some folks on both “sides” of the so-called “gay marriage” issue that a person's sexual preference should be irrelevant?

Why do some folks insist on destroying perfectly good (and heretofore generally understood) words such as “gay” and “marriage”? Why can't sophistic3 judges see that when they get tangled up in these kinds of propaganda manipulations they only disgrace the integrity of the offices they hold?

I like to think of words as units of measurement of human ideas. As such, their definitions should be as clear and specific as possible. The ability of the human species to develop and achieve its full intellectual and spiritual potential depends upon open and honest communication and sharing of ideas which, in turn, are expressed in, and depend on, words. That is why oxymoronic words and expressions such as “hot cold”, “light dark”, “gallon pint”, “pound ounce”, “red blue”, “good evil”, “freedom slavery”, “fat thin”, “rich poor“, “black white”, “gay marriage”, ad infinitum, are meaningless and useful only for perpetrating the destructive spiritual and intellectual evils of deception and manipulation.

In his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell said, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible...The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics1 itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."

I agree with Orwell, but would add that all issues are also "economics" issues. Economics is a pseudoscience trying to masquerade as real science by hiding behind intense esoteric theoretical hyperelaboration4. While ostensibly the study of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, when combined with "politics", economics becomes the "art" of using politics and government coercion to steal the labor of The Other without the tyranny and thievery being recognized by all. Perhaps the most dangerous and disturbing aspect of the "gay marriage" fraud is that it very effectively enables the fascistic neofeudalistic goals of the evil transnational monetary oligarchs to destroy the decentralization-based one-man-one-woman-with-offspring family as the core/foundational economic unit of a free society and replace it with centralized government control over non-self-owning individuals. To human scum5 such as the debt-as-money oligarchs, an individual's sexual preferences are irrelevant except to reduce the Earth's population to a more easily manageable economic model.

If Neal Boortz and his wannbe-clever ilk are too intellectually dishonest and/or too agenda-driven to see all the connecting legal dots between the "hate", "hate speech", "hate crimes" and "gay marriage" frauds, then shame on them for trying to demonize straight talkers like me. I have utmost respect for the basic humanity of all individuals. But I don't have respect for the BEHAVIOR/CHOICE/ACTIVITY of sticking your dick up somebody else's rectum. And as a self-ownership activist and free-speech absolutist, I will not allow the sophistic Homonazi speech-police propaganda leadership and their combatively clueless followers to pretend that they are pro-self-ownership and pro-diversity when they are in fact doing their dead-level best to use the anti-self-ownership, coercion-based powers of government to control the thought and speech of any person who has the audacity to disagree with their world view and/or sexual preferences.

If a society is to be truly free, there must of necessity be a bright inviolate line (both philosophically and legally) between thought/speech and action. In a free society, government is only allowed to punish actions/behavior. It must never be allowed to punish thought/speech -- especially by the evil and dangerous method of content-based prior restraint. Having lived through tyranny and persecution, the Founders knew that full well, which is why they gave us the First Amendment.

The First Amendment's protection of free thought and free speech makes it impossible for there to ever be a constitutional right to have your inter-human relationships called by the same word as other people's inter-human relationships. There can never be a constitutional right to have other people forced to agree with you. There can never be a constitutional right to not be criticized, ridiculed or mocked. There can never be a constitutional right to not be called unkind names. There can never be a constitutional right to stick your dick up a goat's rectum and force everybody else to call it "goat marriage". There can never be a constitutional right to stick your dick up a corpse's rectum and force everybody else to call it "corpse marriage". There can never be a constitutional right to force everybody else to think it's wonderful and worthy of government-mandated respect that you want to stick your dick up another human's rectum. The abject absurdity of all the aforementioned things is self-evident to all but liars and disordered self-deceivers and propagandists. These are all CULTURAL issues, and any sophistic3 judges who pretend they are constitutional issues are dangerous anti-self-ownership liars who want to increase the power of government over the individual. So don't drink their deadly incrementalism-based anti-self-ownership Kool-Aid.

The word "marriage" is a millenia-old common-usage word that courts have no business trying to help "gay marriage" proponents coercively redefine. Disasters happen when activist judges try to use government coercion to redefine words. In the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, a pro-slavery majority of the Supremes implemented evil by pretending that black (or even partly black) people weren't "persons" for the purposes of the language in the U.S. Constitution. The power to define common-usage words is nowhere given to the Supremes by the Constitution.

On the opposite side of the coin, in Luther v. Borden (a case arising out of the Dorr Rebellion), the Supremes refused to define the word "republican" as in "republican form of government", ostensibly because they were physically afraid of stepping in between two large groups of armed men. The Supremes ducked their constitutional obligation to decide that case by calling it a "political question". So why do the Supremes feel like it's acceptable to redefine the word "marriage", but not acceptable to define the word "republican" (with a small "r")?

From a constitutional point of view, under the Luther v. Borden doctrine, defining "gay marriage" should be said by state and federal judicial branches to be a "political" question to be decided by the legislative branches. The problem with that from a "gay marriage" point of view is that traditional marriage wins in most state legislatures. Therefore activist judges (some of them homosexuals) take it upon themselves to pretend it is a legitimate constitutional question. It isn't. "Gay marriage", "goat marriage" and "corpse marriage" are all political questions. So I call "BS!" on that kind of intellectually dishonest and manipulative judicial inconsistency.

There is no right way to do a wrong thing. Anti-self-ownership tyranny is always implemented under the fraudulent rubric of “good ends justify evil means”. Isn't it long past time for a little more person-to-person kindness simultaneous with a serious society-wide backlash against all the manipulative intellectual dishonesty? With all due respect to those self-absorbed, low-information individuals who would call me “hater” merely for writing this essay, it IS possible to give homosexuals 100% the same substantive legal rights as heterosexuals without destroying such heretofore perfectly good words as “gay” and “marriage” in the process.

The question I have for both “sides” of the so-called “gay marriage” so-called “issue” is: why not do that? Why not do a more intelligent job of picking the “political” hills we want to die on? Seems to me the preservation of our precious First Amendment requires that. The unsustainable and unacceptable alternative to your words being "free speech" and my words being "hate" is for my words to be “free speech” while YOUR words are “hate”. And where would that leave us? Out in the middle of a field somewhere going at each other with swords and spears? Well-intended individuals with an IQ above room temperature might want to consider that.


For individuals who have enough intellectual curiosity and honesty to want to see past all the various intellectually dishonest manipulations of the gay propaganda strategy leadership, see such as:
The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard
No H8? -- Bombshell Book: Matthew Shepard Tortured, Murdered by Gay Lover
"'Uncomfortable truth' in Matthew Shepard's death
Matthew Shepard Murdered By Bisexual Lover And Drug Dealer, Stephen Jimenez Claims In New Book”.

Obviously the death of Matthew Shepard was tragic and unnecessary (in addition to being cold-blooded murder), but it doesn't deserve to function intellectually as moral and/or political support for the so-called "gay marriage" language manipulations.

I turn 70 in a couple of months, and will, therefore, be an "at risk" person. To me, it is morally and intellectually anathema (not to mention unequal protection of law) that it should be a graver crime to assault, beat up or murder me than to assault, beat up or murder any other human being. Yet that is the unsustainable point to where the morally and intellectually fraudulent "hate speech" and "hate crimes" manipulations have taken us. It IS long past time to stop all the BS and restore the U.S. Constitution to its rightful place as Supreme Law of the Land!


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Opinion of the Court in No. 13-4178, Kitchen, et al. v. Herbert, et al. - Read the 108-page decision for yourself!

10th Circuit Court: Utah’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional - Salt Lake Tribune - The talk string on this article is informative as to leftist sophistry. Facts and logic mean nothing to narcissistic agenda-driven propaganda dipshits.

10th Circuit Court's gay marriage ruling shows crack in legal unanimity - The Oregonian

Apology to an Anti-Chicken Bigot, by Mike Adams - Townhall

A Conservative Professor’s Long Quest for Justice Ends in Victory, by David French - National Review Online

A Federal Jury Speaks, and Academic Freedom Wins, by David French - National Review Online

‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ and the Power of Words, by Nancy French - The French Revolution

On another subject, I have included a rather interesting public polemics propaganda contest between Good-Old-Boy (GOB) statist (with a small "s") Megyn Kelly and GOB communist (with a small "c") Bill Ayers. Hopefully the duopoly lemmings who repeatedly vote for corrupt GOB candidates will try to actually learn something and not see it in the light of "Left v. Right" or "White Hats v. Black Hats". The idea is to watch and learn from their verbal jousting and manipulations. They are both trying to be "politically" clever and manipulative. Each is engaged in the propaganda activity of trying to persuade the audience that his/her propaganda is correct. Watch Ayers try to justify the radical behavior of his youth while Kelly pretends that the GOB government evil -- (by now almost every intellectually honest person knows that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a cooked-up government lie to get us into the Vietnam War, just as FDR, in possession of advance knowledge, let the Japanese successfully attack Pearl Harbor to get the American people emotionally willing to enter WW2) -- Ayers was fighting is morally legitimate. She does that by refusing to talk about government wrongdoing resulting in thousands of innocent deaths for no constitutionally valid reason, and by virtue of the fact she owns the discussion forum.

Interview With Bill Ayres [Part 1] with Megyn Kelly - Kelly File - YouTube video

Interview With Bill Ayres [Part 2] with Megyn Kelly - Kelly File - YouTube video

Catherine Austin Fitts-China the Big Concern, Not U.S. or Dollar - YouTube video


1. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. In other words, "politics" = manipulation. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership. That is also why I believe that a Golden-Rule-morality-based culture is an indispensable prerequisite to any remote possibility of maintaining a U.S.-Constitution-based rule-of-law society for any length of time.

2. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"1. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to merit following and obeying.

3. To paraphrase Wikipedia: "Sophism" = a false argument intended to deceive. "Sophist" = a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

4. The term "intense theoretical hyperelaboration" is credited to Kim Stanley Robinson at http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/economics. A good example would be a joke I wrote about how Alan Greenspan might answer the question, "why did the chicken cross the road?" A: "Chickens are what we economists call 'labor resources.' Aside from studying the consumer index, it is extremely difficult to track every little detail regarding the behavior of labor resources in the context of how those details might accumulate to affect a moderation in the overheating or cooling off of the economy, and how that, in turn, could increase inflationary pressures which would extrapolate over into the performance of the various currencies in the global money markets, causing undue concern on Wall Street, resulting in over-reaction and unwise legislation in Congress which the administration would be forced to confront in the interests of stability and national security. You may rest assured, however, that we will be monitoring the situation very closely to see if a clear answer to the question of why the chicken crossed the road begins to emerge in the near future."

5. As I stated on the homepage of this website, it bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential. To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.

Under construction . . .