Hate is unproductive, homosexuals are not our enemy

Hate is unproductive, and homosexuals are not our enemy.   I have had years to consider this.   I have had many homosexual friends, starting with my lesbian cousin that I grew up with.   I have often been accused of being an enemy of homosexuals, and especially by my gay cousin.  Despite all of my efforts to resist laws that punish homosexuals over decades, and even after having good close friends who were gay.   It’s not that I approve of, or condone the gay lifestyle.  In truth, I think that the homosexual lifestyle is counter-productive in society.   It’s not that it is all bad.  There is nothing wrong with loving someone.  I think that love in itself is a noble cause, and even justified, and there is no reason or justification for me or anyone else to judge the worthiness of the love between two people.   Love is complex and deep, and there is nothing simple about it.  I won’t pretend to put myself on a judgement seat that I do not belong in, to analyze or judge the love between two people.
But with that being said, I think that there are negative attributes of the homosexual lifestyle in the USA, and in other areas of the world.   When I look at the AIDS contagion, it is an epidemic that primarily effects the gay community.  It also is found within high rates of intravenous drug users, and even slightly in the heterosexual community.   By simple means of deduction and reason, it is clear to see that HIV/AIDS is found in gay populations around the world in higher rates than in other demographics, specifically in gay males.  I have researched the United States CDC (Center for Disease Control) studies, and studies from other areas from around the world.
The results in almost every study show that gay males make up around 2% of the population, and that they have over 50% of all AIDS infections in almost any given population, and that they have more than 60% or 70% of new HIV infections.

Study data;


Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.




In Africa, where the first known AIDS contagion was located it is known that new HIV cases are found in gay sex participants, but many studies ignore this fact, and some completely fail to report the facts on this.  Reference a New York Times article in 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/health/21glob.html?_r=0.


This is an article that I wrote recently on gay rights;

Now with my personal beliefs, and my personal mission.  I have fought back on resistance to gay marriage for decades, because I believe that a committed relationship is much better in many ways than a non-committed relationship, especially among people who are known to have a high contagion of AIDS.
For decades I have made social media videos, wrote legislators, and petitioned as much as possible to reduce laws and restrictions on gay marriage.
This was not as a favor to people that I know, and it was not a way to seem compassionate.  I believe that scientifically speaking and in regards to freedom and liberty, it is the right thing to do.

I know many people who go along with popular opinion, and people like Hillary Clinton who at one time was completely against gay marriage, and now that popular opinion has changed, she is completely in favor of gay marriage.  This change in her, happened over a very short time.   I have also saw this type of change in friends and family of my own.  My sister and even my mother have went through this transformation.

However I have always, bar none, been in favor of gay marriage.

In the ongoing saga of “rights”, “special rights”, and now “gay rights”.

I have never had a neutral position on this issue.  Or the issue of any “special rights”.  From the time I was 15 years old, I have expressed my opinion.   Some folks find it to be dangerous territory, a taboo topic, or simply not worth their time.

But I think this is one of the most important issues that our nation discusses.   “Rights”

Not necessarily “gay rights”, or “minority rights”, or “majority rights”, but “civil rights” in general.

Even though this topic is already settled in our constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Where as “all men are created equal” (in the eyes of the law), and the 14th Amendment gives these parameters;

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

Yet we continue to bicker about “rights” and who should be “more protected” or have “more rights” than the other.   Why?  Again this has already been decided, and fairly in my opinion.

When it comes to gay rights, we often hear of a few things.

  1. Marriage rights
  2. Hate crime protections

There are other things, often covered as sub-topics beneath the two issues listed above.   Such as adoption rights, and end of life rights, next of kin rights, etc.

So on topic number 1.  I have always said that the government should not be in the business of marriage.

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If a State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Albama, 373 U.S. 262)


So how do we address the subtopics if the government doesn’t regulate marriage?
How do we grant “next of kin rights”, or “estate settlements”, or “adoption”.

The fact is, that marriage does not have anything to do with those issues.

Those issues can be taken care via civil contracts, such as “living will”, “civil unions”, and many other legal contracts that relate to relationship “rights”.

Marriage has been a religious institution since long before the beginning of the first American colonies, before the British Government, and long before written history was established.   With marriage being a religious institution, I do not believe that the government has any reason to be involved.   There is a 1st Amendment in our country that gives religion the ability to practice these religious functions without influence or coercion of government.

When we read about the intentions of the founding fathers, and the interpretation of the establishment clause as well as the intent of the first amendment.   We do not find that the intent was to bound or restrict religion, but rather to bound or restrict government in regards to religion and free expression.

So in order to hold to the principles that define liberty, and that protect liberty.  The government can not regulate marriage.  Nor can they license marriage.  Not can they force or prevent marriage, marriage standards, or marriage law.

I have always said that if a religion such as the Unitarian Church or others wish to marry a gay couple, that they should not be forbidden from doing so.  And if a church such as the LDS church wants to deny a gay marriage, they should not be forbidden from doing so.

In light of the issues with county clerks denying their signature from appearing on a gay marriage certificate, this should not even be a topic what-so-ever, because the government should not by definition of constitutional law be involved in marriage in the first place.   Nor should the government force someone against their will to sign a marriage license (which is illegal in the first place).

On topic number 2, hate crime protections.   This is another redundant and specifically illegal notion.   According to the 14th Amendment each US citizen is granted EQUAL protection under the law.  Special rights, and special protections equate to un-equality.

For example.  If there are hate crime laws in place that favorably protect a straight person, but not a gay person in the same way.   So for this example a straight couple gets beat up badly by a gay couple, and the reason for the beating is their sexual identity, and the perpetrators get charged with “hate crime” and gets an additional 25 years added to the sentence because of the special protection laws.   But then the straight couple gets out of jail, and finds a gay couple (maybe not the same people) to exact revenge for what happened to them.  And they get charged with assault and not additional charges for “hate crimes”.  That is not “equal protection”, and therefore that violates the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment.

But since assault is a crime, then there is no need for “hate crime laws” that violate the constitution.  Assault is assault.

These “gay rights” causes that call for specific and unique protections of gay people is not creating a community of good will and equal rights in the USA, it is tipping the balance and in my opinion creating hard feelings and ill will.

These issues were very obvious to me when I was a homeless kid in Seattle, when I was a teen.  I lived on Capitol Hill in the “gay district” where over 60% of the people that lived there were gay.   I was blessed to have had a gay councilor at the homeless soup kitchen that I use to go to, who was a Christian man.  I learned a lot about the culture there as well.  I had friends who were of all creeds and backgrounds.   So I indulged myself a lot in the debate.   I made up my mind a long time ago that the ego and pissing match mentality of “more rights for some” or “less rights for other” is only tearing our community in the USA as a whole apart.

Reference this article to see why gender discrimination laws become unproductive.

When “gender discrimination” laws become acceptable, idiotic things like banning “ladies night” becomes acceptable.

I made a series of videos when Proposition 8 was a topic in 2008.  I tried to make a difference in persuading people to rethink their position on gay rights.
Because as I stated above, I think it is in societies best interest to relieve all restriction on marriage period.