The good ol’ times of St. Patrick Days ,filled with the innocent wearing of green and leprechauns from out of DARBY O’GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE (as well as some stout or whiskey for those over 21) seem to be over, or at the very least, drawing to a close. What else can be concluded when the mayors of New York City and Boston—home of two of the largest St Patrick’s Day parades in America—both boycott the event? What crime did the committees charged with organizing the two cities’ parades commit to deserve such strict punishment (since everyone knows that if the MAYOR [and most of the city council in New York’s case] don’t attend, all the festiveness is sucked away faster than the federal government spending our money)? The organizing committees in both cities did not allow homosexual individuals to march in the parade under their own banner. For this, both mayors refused to partake in the St. Patrick’s Day parades as well as any future parades.
This, unfortunately, is not the first time that this happened in New York. In 1991, 1992 and 1993 then mayor David Dinkins refused to march in the parade, in order to stand in “solidarity” with the “Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization”, which boycotted the parade. The ILGO has gone the way of the dinosaur but, just as George Lucas decreed that every Sith lord must have an apprentice and successor, a group called “Irish Queers” has stepped up to fill in the void and the predictable talking points were used: the “exclusion” of homosexual groups made the parade “explicitly anti-gay” and an “exclusionary religious procession”; “Irish Queers” also asserted that the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Irish-Catholic fraternal organization, had “redefined” the parade from a “public celebration of Irish pride in our shared culture and history” into a “demonstration of homophobia”(which was quite a feat since, as Matthew Hennessy pointed out at crisismagazine.com, the Order is no longer the sponsor of the parade). Heated rhetoric indeed…and all based on lies.
This is because individuals who are homosexual have NO “right” to march under their own banner in the St. Patrick’s Day parade, to put it “in words as clear as the sun in its meridian brightness” to quote General Washington. There are several reasons for this truth. In the first place, it apparently needs to be asked: What is St. Patrick’s Day celebrating? Notice that the day is not dubbed, “Irish Day” or “Irish Ethnic Day” or “Leprechaun Day” or “Green Day”; it is St. PATRICK’S Day. And who was St. Patrick? None other than the Apostle of Ireland, the man who brought Christianity to the Emerald Isle; today (as the name implies) he is recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. As the name of the day implies, St. Patrick’s Day (which is on his actual feast day) is first of all a CATHOLIC holiday (meaning that “Irish Queers” actually got something right when they called the parade a “religious procession”) and the Church teaches (truly and correctly) that homosexuality is a grave sin. Why then should homosexual individuals be allowed to march under their own banner in defiance of the teachings of the Church to which the holiday belongs? Ernest van der Haag, writing in National Review in 1991 put it quite well when he wrote:
“The St. Patrick’s Day parade celebrates not only Irishness but Catholicism which frowns on homosexuality. No doubt many of the marchers privately do things incompatible with Catholicism or merely irrelevant to it. But they do not seek to march behind banners such as ‘Irish Adulterers’ or ‘Irish Stamp Collectors’. Does homosexuality have any more to do with being Irish than stamp collecting or adultery?”
Even if you forget about the Catholic element which permeates the day (again, it is called St. PATRICK’S Day for a reason) and concentrate only on the celebration of the Irish ethnicity, homosexual individuals have no right to march under their own banner. The reason lies in the phrase “celebrate Irish ethnicity”; as Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny (who did march in New York’s parade) said, the day is a celebration of Irishness and NOT sexuality. And yet sexuality is what the Velvet Gestapo wanted to celebrate up front and center by marching under their own banner since the homosexual lifestyle (which is what they wanted to celebrate) is innately sexual. Just look at homosexual “pride” parades. Toronto trustee Sam Sotiropoulos, for example, recently became a new target for the Gestapo when he asked the Toronto police to simply enforce the law against public nudity which was flauntingly being broken at these parades which advertise themselves as “family friendly”; Danny Glenwright, the managing editor of the homosexual news agency DailyXtra, said that adult public nudity was simply “queer people celebrating their sexuality” and that “its roots [the parade’s] are in protest and sexual liberation”; Lauren Strapagiel, editor of Canada.com, practically foamed at the mouth when she said that “In-your-face-sexuality is the point of the damn thing” and that there are “worse things than seeing a penis flopping down Yonge Street”. I wonder if she was referring to the mock sex acts, sadomasochism and sexual bondage which also take place at these parades (as shown by photographic evidence). And this “in-your-face sexuality” of the homosexual culture/lifestyle is not merely confined to parades. Ronald G. Lee, a former practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle showed that it is integral to the lifestyle itself in an autobiographical piece entitled “The Books Were a Front for the Porn: The Truth about the Homosexual Rights Movement” which was published in the February 2006 issue of NEW OXFORD REVIEW. The title of the piece comes from the setup of Lobo’s, a homosexual bookstore in Austin, Texas where Lee lived as a grad student. In the front of the store, Lee wrote, were all the books; biographies, histories, memories, all from the homosexual POV. But behind that front was another section—the pornography section. As Lee says:
“Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo’s. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.”
Lee’s story is full of such insights. As another example, he recounts his joining the Dignity Yahoo group (supposedly a Catholic group for homosexuals) which at the time had several hundred subscribers. Lee writes that another young homosexual man who had recently joined the group asked if anyone in the group attached any importance to monogamy. Except for Lee’s affirmative, the young man in question later told Lee that he had “received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning…telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about.”
Finally, the charge that the parade was “explicitly anti-gay” is a crock. How can something be “explicitly anti-gay” when homosexuals were allowed to march in it—they were simply not allowed to march under their own banner? Neither were Irish pro-life groups. Neither were Irish NRA groups. Neither were Irish groups who understand the real definition of marriage. Is the parade also explicitly anti-life or anti-gun? So why all this sound and thunder? Why was the Velvet Gestapo clamoring to be treated differently and more specially than anyone else?
Firstly, there were the common reasons of power and intolerant bigotry. The Velvet Gestapo is the überbully which relishes flexing its disproportionate muscles to get what it wants and silencing those who do not toe their line. Take the St Patrick’s Day parades; it did not get its way but it still cowed Sam Adams and Guinness beers into not participating. Look too at the plethora of lawsuits which have been filed against Christian photographers, bakers and florists who have politely refused their services for homosexual “ceremonies” due to religious beliefs. Instead of adopting a “live and let live” attitude (which the left tells us we must adopt under the banner, as it were, of “tolerance”) the Velvet Gestapo not only took them to court but as in the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon, destroyed their business and threatened their children. Or look at Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A; Cathy has recently said that he will keep silent about “cultural issues” due to the bullying that the Gestapo has subjected the restaurant chain to after his 2012 comment’s that he and his family, as Christians, believed in the Biblical definition of marriage. Cathy did not utter a word against homosexual individuals in his exercise of free speech but the Gestapo went into full attack mode nevertheless (as per usual) and, in fact still have Chick-fil-A under their microscope.
But there is a deeper reason: the re-creating of reality in their image. This is a well used tactic of the entire left, and one that is used by the Gestapo with gusto. For example, during the Phil Robertson bruh-ha-ha last December, the inappropriately acronymed GLAAD, characterized Robertson’s comments as vile, “extreme” and insisted that Phil’s position was not one shared by “real” Christians. Now, one of the necessary characteristics of a Christian is that he believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God contains several direct condemnations of homosexual behavior, such as the recounting of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis; Leviticus 18:22 (“You must not lie with a man as with a woman. This is a hateful thing”); 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (“You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God”); Jude verse seven (“The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural…”). Furthermore, the early Fathers of the Church, such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, Cyprian of Carthage, Arnobius, Novatian, Clement of Alexandria, ALL spoke unequivocally against homosexuality. How, then, can GLAAD say that “real” Christians cannot believe what Phil Robertson espoused? Logically, it cannot; only by transforming the Christian sexual ethic into what it wants it to be can it be done. In this way, those who are only Christian in name become the “real” Christians and the actual Christians become the “false” Christians, and bigots to boot (shazam!) and, since the illogical assumption is that one does not have to listen to a bigot (since how does bigotry—or claimed bigotry—destroy the logic of an argument or evidence given in proof of that argument) the real Christians and Christianity are shuttered to the margins of society.
Another example, this one in the realm of science, came in 2012 when Dr. Mark Regnerus, sociologist at the University of Texas, published his New Family Structures Study (NFSS) which showed that children raised by parents who were or had been engaged in homosexual relationships, were severely handicapped in numerous areas of their lives. The Velvet Gestapo raised the expected hue and cry: The Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD called the study “flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound…that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents”; the AMERICAN PROSPECT called it “appalling and irresponsible”. The best, however, came for the keyboard of an assistant editor of the NEW REPUBLIC who said that Dr. Regnerus was a “retrograde researcher” and that the NFSS should “MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE END of Mark Regnerus’s CREDIBILITY WITH RESPECTABLE NEWS OUTLETS”(emphasis mine). Now, the University of Texas reviewed the data AND methodology of the NFSS and gave both a clean bill of health so, again, how could the NFSS be “flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound”? Again, it couldn’t have been but it is what the Velvet Gestapo was FORCED to call it sinnce it opened a crack in the façade (that homosexual parenting [one of the natural endpoints of undefining marriage] is just as legitimate as the real thing). Therefore, since the scientific and sound NFSS study did not toe the Gestapo’s line, it was dismissed as “junk science”.
And so it was again: a parade that celebrates Catholicism and the Irish ethnicity was “homophobic” and “anti-gay” simply because the parade committees said that Irish, homosexual individuals, had to follow the rules as everyone else. Better enjoy that green beer; one of these days, the Gestapo might demand that it be made rainbow for “tolerance’s” sake.