The latest dispatch from Bizarro World

by Don Wheeler

For those of you who haven't visited nospecialrights.com, here's the masthead:

'Three fundamental concerns are driving the formation of the new citizens organization:

I. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on all businesses and property owners, with a particularly negative impact on faith- based and faith-inspired businesses and property owners.

II. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on every citizen's constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

III. The negative impact of the practice of homosexuality on the individuals who practice it and on the rest of the society.

The main multifaceted emphasis of the group is to defend Traditional Marriage as 'between one man and one woman', to respond to the controversy at the University of Notre Dame regarding homosexual activism at several levels, to respond to 'special rights for homosexuals' ordinances as they come forward in the Region and to facilitate help and ministry for those suffering from the ill effects of the homosexual lifestyle."

In other words, these people wish to impose their religious dogma on everyone else. They should just be honest and say so.

So here's the latest hallucination from Bizarro Superman.

Unintended Consequences: Post Sugarcoats Homosexual Thuggery Against Philadelphia Boy Scouts

Nov. 26, 2007

To: The South Bend Common Council

From: Patrick E. Mangan
NoSpecialRights.net Task Force& Citizens for Community Values of Indiana PAC

The special rights ordinance was a bad idea in 2006 and it is still a bad idea today . . . The Council was right to turn down the ordinance then and will be right in turning it down again. If you truly care about those suffering from same sex attraction as we do, join us in lovingly opposing the homosexual agenda and offering help and healing to those willing to experience freedom through Jesus Christ. I have been ministering to homosexuals for many years and have lost friends to Aids too. There are many former homosexuals living happy healthy lives today. Those who continue in this dangerous, destructive and deadly lifestyle are likely to suffer the consequences of an unnecessarily early and painful death through medical and biological complications associated with the addictive sexual behaviors of homosexuality.

OK Patrick, you got the name of the ordinance wrong and that pretty well sets the tone for everything you say. I care for those people suffering from born again evangelism and I've seen the damage that those people have done to those around them. Many have recovered and are leading productive lives, I'm pleased to report.

The unintended consequences of promoting the homosexual agenda in Philadelphia and Boston has been the persecution of and demise of organizations who formerly performed great service for their communities. The article below from my good friend Robert Knight highlights the plight of the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia who are now in the cross hairs of a militant homosexual City Solicitor. The cardinal sin of Catholic Charities in Boston and the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia was that they disagreed with what homosexuals believe and what they do. Most people not only disagree but are actually repulsed by the specific details of homosexual sex acts. The obvious health risks and widespread repulsion are why there is very little public discussion of these practices. The details are not pretty or harmless. That is why Dr. Sergio opted not to present you with the graphic details of the precise addictive behaviors during his presentation last year. And the truth is that the psychological harms may be even more destructive than the obvious physical and biological problems.

What is this guy smoking? What does this have to do with amending the South Bend HRO. Patrick should quit buying those gay porno magazines if he doesn't like the descriptions and the pictures. And you have to grin when he tells us he's not presenting evidence to back his claims because he's afraid we can't take it.


The alleged discrimination against the GLBT community is a myth. The only real pattern of violence against homosexuals is from other homosexuals. And this seems to stem from the many addictive behaviors engaged in and synergized by the homosexual lifestyle. Namely psychological problems and substance abuse charged by sexual practices that turn violent. That is what is supported by the facts. When you lay aside the emotionalism of the addiction and consider the real facts, no one can make a serious argument that we ought to promote this lifestyle. And it is a particularly spurious argument to compare these repugnant practices to the dignity of one's racial and ethnic heritage. That is why many minority leaders reject the comparison with understandable disdain. It is why leaders like Ed Henry, Ray Thomas, Juan Manigault, and Michael Patton have already voiced their opposition to this bill.

Even if his first sentence were true, it doesn't matter. The HRO, unamended, leaves open that possibility. I'm not sure where he got lost on the violence rant and once again he asserts the facts support his view although he can't be bothered to present any. But it's the last part that is particularly loathsome.

The language he chooses really gives him away - "minority leaders". That's a term used by someone who feels he/she is in the the majority - and the majority calls the shots. The facts are that people like him made these sorts of charges, complaints and claims about African Americans when I was kid. Some still do. People like my mother took their sons to protest marches and rallies to ensure that discrimination in housing for African Americans ended in our home town. Discrimination is always lousy, regardless of the target.

It is not discrimination that the GLBT community is experiencing from the community at large, it is disagreement. No one has denied their right to come forward and make their case. No one has tried to outlaw their speech for promoting dangerous and aberrant sexual behaviors. They on the other hand want to outlaw disagreement and punish it. Most people disagree with what homosexuals do and what they believe. In a pluralistic society, disagreements are to be expected and accepted. Trying to force people to agree is not an exercise in diversity, but rather a deceitful and militant attempt to enforce uniformity through persecution. This is simply not supported in our Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to 'not be disagreed with'.

Talk about changing the subject. Every word is utter nonsense, but more importantly, it's also irrelevant. I repeat - without repair, the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance leaves some humans out. Also, The Constitution of the United States as amended, contains many protections from the tyranny of the majority. Maybe Mr. Magan should take time out from reading his Bible and put some study time on The Constitution.

However well intended some of our Council Members may be who support this, they are wrong. The unintended negative consequences to our constitutional freedoms of speech , assembly and worship far outweigh the outlandish and unsubstantiated claims made by GLBT activists and the Mayor that this will benefit the community.
While the initiation of this discussion during the holy season of Christmas seems particularly offensive and insensitive, citizens of faith will engage the discussion as an opportunity to offer the hope of a new beginning this Christmas to those seeking to be free of the chains of homosexuality and the GLBT lifestyle. We encourage those seeking freedom to visit CCV's website www.VictimAssistance.info or to call on a Bible believing Church or faith based ministry who can help them.

However malevolent Mr. Mangan's intentions are, the issue breaks down rather cleanly to basic civil rights for the citizens of our city vs. conservative Protestant dogma and the claim that people who believe this theory can impose their will upon the rest of us. And don't buy this nonsense that Mr. Mangan speaks for Christians. My father's father was a Congregationalist Minister and my mother's father's father was also one. I know for a fact that my grandfather would be with me on this issue and not with Bizarro Superman.

Let's be clear and direct about this. This is nothing but hate speech. Or breathtaking ignorance. Or both. It's a disingenuous attack on people who are merely seeking a minimal amount of legal protection - protection that most of us don't even have to think about.

Right now, through inaction, we're saying BS is right. Is that really what you think?

Democracy is not a spectator spot.