Praise Homosexuality says Schools, Equal Protection Clause Says So

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Leftism understands, you go after the children.  The older generation will pass away, and society changes because the younger generation stands in the new camp.

In schools, for example, daring to stand against the liberal left progressives results in being shamed.  This is especially true when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

Students at Acalanes High School were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.  Any child that dared to stand against the agenda driven by pro-homosexual forces, were publicly shamed for disagreeing with the pro-gay speakers.

The Queer Straight Alliance at Acalanes High School, in Lafayette, lectured students in several ninth-grade English classes on Jan. 29 about LGBT issues, according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing the parents of the children that were shamed.

During the class, the students, ages 14 and 15, were instructed to stand in a circle. Then, they were grilled about their personal beliefs and their parents’ beliefs on homosexuality, PJI alleges.

“The QSA had students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice and whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said. “Students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated.”

The "Choice" to be gay, or gay from birth, is the key in the homosexual propaganda machine, because the whole viability of the fight depends upon the concept they push that homosexuality is something they are born with, and can't change.

With the argument used by the homosexual agenda, they have succeeded in creating confusion.  Is gay marriage a right?  Is the "struggle" for "gay equality" a constitutional civil right?  Does the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment apply to the fight regarding gay marriage?  Is marriage a State issue, or can the federal government force States to abide by the federal government's pro-gay agenda as we have been seeing in countless federal court rulings?

The basis of the Equal Protection Clause, written by John Bingham, big-government minded Representative from the State of Ohio, is at the beginning of Article IV., Section 2 of the United States Constitution.  Bingham intended for the clause to enable the federal government to force federal enforcement of the Bill of Rights upon the States, but Congress disagreed as revealed in the Congressional Globe (Congressional Record).  So, the courts worked to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, since technically, the 14th Amendment didn't.

Today's politicians have used the Equal Protection Clause to do more than just incorporate the Bill of Rights against the States.  The clause has been used countless times as an authority to push leftist issues into place, and then tell us, "It must be constitutional.  The courts say so."

Yes, under the 14th Amendment, as well as Article IV, Section 2, people are supposed to be treated equally under the law... especially when it comes to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But in the case of gay marriage, as much as the Democrats cry foul, the 14th Amendment is not being violated. Everyone can marry heterosexually. The law is the same to everyone. It's much like a store that disallows people who are not wearing a shirt to come in. It is not discriminating against people who don't wear shirts, but simply applying a rule equally to everyone that everyone must wear a shirt. That's why the gays push the "I was born gay" idea.

If you were physically incapable of putting a shirt on, then the "no shirt no service" rule would be unfair. But, everyone is capable of wearing a shirt therefore nobody is being singled out. Now, let's apply that to the homosexual agenda.  If it is impossible for some not to be gay then gays have a valid argument. But, if homosexuality is a choice, then the fundamental "man and woman" marriage laws at the State level are perfectly in line with the 14th Amendment. All people are to follow a rule regarding marriage that all people are capable of following.  Nobody is being singled out if homosexuality is a choice.

According to the framers of the Constitution, and wise men like John Locke, our rights are God-given.  In America, the concept of "rights" is a very important thing to us. So, to get what they want, the liberal left progressives simply label their evil desires "rights," and then demand that we give in or else we are being discriminatory.

One must ask, if homosexuality is not a choice, and it is something someone is born with and cannot change, then why are there so many former homosexuals running around, claiming they "chose" to no longer be gay?

So, with the reality of the existence of former homosexuals glaring at the agenda, not only is Homosexuality a choice, but it turns out, then, not to be a right.  Remember, if a right is God-given, would then that thing would need to be something that would be sanctioned by God in order to be a right. Correct? So, are things like abortion and gay marriage a couple of rights? The answer lies in the answer to "Would God sanction abortion and gay marriage?"

And if gays can change to being heterosexual, how is the "gay rights issue" a civil rights issue when in reality, homosexuality is a behavioral choice?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Students Opposed to LGBT Agenda Shamed in Classroom - Fox News

Ex-Homosexuals - Conservapedia

The Amazing Story of Stephen Bennett, Who Left His 'Gay', Gender-Exclusive Orientation

Former Gay Activist Marries Woman; Addresses Critics Who Condemn His New Heterosexual Lifestyle - Christian Post

Testimony from an Ex-Gay - Dr. Pipim

How a Gay Rights Leader Became Straight - World Net Daily

Christian Rapper Jackie-Hill Perry Comes Out as Ex-Gay Firebrand - Washington Times

NFL's Simmons Speaks of Former Gay Lifestyle and New Faith in Christ - CBN/700 Club