A little story out of Salt Lake City caught my eye. It seems two gay men were walking home from a concert on July 9th and decided to cut through the Main Street Plaza adjoining and owned by the Salt Lake City Mormon Temple. It was there in the middle of the plaza that these two gay men decided they needed to take a little break from their stroll to share a hug and a little smooch on the cheek. It was at that time that security patrolling the plaza approached the two men and informed the pair that their homosexual signs of affection were deemed “inappropriate behavior” and asked the couple to leave.

I must admit I am not the least bit surprised that at that point the two men became argumentative and refused to vacate the premises. Guards were forced to handcuff the two unhappy but gay smitten smoochers and detain them until police arrived and cited the pair for trespassing.

Salt Lake City Police Sergeant Robin Snyder put the entire incident into perspective later when he told reporters “It doesn’t matter what they were asked to leave for. If they are asked to leave and don’t they are trespassing.”

It all seems fairly plain to me, but it is not so plain to the gay community and their supporters in Salt Lake who felt that the pair’s rights had somehow been violated and decided to hold a protest across the street from the Mormon Temple. According to reports some 100 protesters, some of whom wearing brightly colored lipstick, gathered near the Main Street Plaza to share kisses on both the cheek and mouth in support of the two men. Security guards and later police were forced to step in and disband the “kiss off”, preventing the crowd from entering the plaza.

The two original lip smackers were present but decided not to participate in the kiss-a-thon with one later telling reporters “I just wanted to get the message out. We’re very flattered and proud.”

Is this just an isolated incident of two love struck homosexuals being unfairly targeted and treated by the Church of Latter Day Saints, or does this incident serve a greater purpose? Is it by some strange coincidence that this confrontation and the following protest is being held at the same time that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a lawsuit against the United States of America claiming the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional and denies federal benefits to gay couples legally married in Massachusetts?

If it is only by coincidence that the Mormon Church and the state of Massachusetts are entering into some fairly public struggles with the gay community at the same time then it is a strange coincidence indeed. But if it is not by coincidence then what is the one factor tying these two seemingly remote entities together? Does the name Mitt Romney ring a bell?

What may seem on the surface seem to be two unrelated incidents may in fact be an early foray into a well planned effort to politically damage the leading Republican candidate’s challenge of the Chosen One in the 2012 presidential election.

Romney is the past Governor of Massachusetts and is a member of the Mormon Church. He has publicly stated his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and as Governor took a stand against gay marriage.

Now, I’m not saying this is part of a greater plan on the part of Democrats or the gay community. But when it comes to politics I’m just not a big believer in coincidence.

The drumbeat of homosexual marriage continues to reverberate through the states houses of congress across the country. After the Iowa Supreme Court overrode the will the people by declaring their state constitution amenable to homosexual marriage and the Vermont state legislature narrowly overrode the governor’s veto of the same issue, state office fillers are looking for a way to placate their homosexual constituency without causing a drop in their poll numbers amongst heterosexual voters.

In Illinois the state may soon be considering a bill proposed by Chicago Democrat Representative Greg Harris granting both homosexual and heterosexual couples the right to a civil union status. This civil union would hold all the same rights as marriage without being called marriage. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors designed to accomplish both of the above stated objectives.

The problem is it won’t work.

First off, the homosexual activists driving this debate will not be satisfied with anything less than a union called marriage. They don’t actually want the legal benefits as much as they want homosexual marriage accepted by law in all 50 states. Even if this bill passed and all the legal rights were granted, the homosexual community would still not be satisfied with a civil union and claim it was a second rate solution which treats them like second class citizens.

The reality is that the vast majority of the homosexual community would not consider entering into a marriage agreement. Monogamy is a difficult proposition in the heterosexual community. It is all but non-existent in the homosexual community. It is not about getting married for most of those actively seeking it, but rather a rallying cry for homosexual rights.

Secondly, the heterosexual voting bloc will not hold their representatives harmless once the true costs and ramifications of civil unions became apparent. They think civil unions will have no effect on married couples. They are wrong.

The first thing heterosexuals will notice is the dramatic increase in their already outrageous insurance premiums. As civil unions will be allowable between either homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend will become eligible for employer subsidized health insurance. This may ease the burden of the uninsured on the health care system, but it will have a profound impact on the employer’s costs of health insurance. Employers will be forced to either offer the same plan to civil union couples as they do for married couples or they will be forced to reduce or completely terminate the premium subsidy currently provided. It will also be almost impossible to check for fraud as the couples will not have the legal restrictions of marriage and it is unlikely anybody would change their name. The risk of fraud is so great it will likely influence the time new enrollees must wait before coverage becomes effective. Anybody with a sick friend can now claim a civil union and garner insurance benefits without the ramifications of dissolving a marriage. If the effective date is extended for civil unions it will by law be extended for married couples as well.

By law unmarried civil union couples will have the ability to qualify for insurance benefits for their companion’s children as well further increasing costs and threatening benefits. All this with very little ability to verify actual eligibility.

It will extend survivor benefits to a live-in unless a legal will is in place that specifies otherwise. This includes social security benefits tacked onto an already bankrupt system. It will open the door to all sorts of legal questions regarding property settlements in the case of death or even in the case of a breakup. A whole new set of benefit laws and probate laws will need to be established to accompany this flawed piece of legislation. Even children custody rights will be called into question.

Insurance and probate are just a few of the areas that will make civil unions unworkable. Just think of every other financial area that marriage entails and you can see how a civil union will have a detrimental effect. The idea that civil unions will be a cheap and easy alternative to traditional marriage is both shortsighted and patently incorrect. It will only reduce the current benefits enjoyed by married couples and increase fraud at every level. Once again, politicians are looking to appease their constituents by lowering the standards instead of increasing responsibility.

Cheap and easy. It’s fine when you’re talking about a TV dinner, but is that what we should be striving for in our relationships?

It has become blatantly obvious that some folks are just aching for something to offend them. And if need be they are more than willing to create something out of nothing. In Peoria it’s a sign in karaoke bar window that that has the Gay but not Happy community with their undies in a bundle.

The story being reported in the Chicago Tribune regards a bar that used to be a gay bar but is no more. The Quench Bar was located on Main Street for decades and was recognized by the locals as a gay bar. Ownership changed hands in the 90’s and the bar is now called the Elbo Room. The new owner decided to change the bar to a karaoke bar and while gay patrons were not refused service they were asked to keep their public displays of affection in check. Same sex make out sessions which had been the norm in the Quench Bar were no longer appropriate for the new owner. Even so the relatively small gay community in the area continued to frequent the watering hole.

I’m guessing it wasn’t difficult to discern the gay patrons from the straight patrons. Karaoke is bad enough but how many Broadway show tunes and Liza Minnelli songs can you listen to while you try to get a buzz off your rum and Coke?

In an apparent effort to increase his business with patrons more likely to sing Desperado than New York New York the owner placed a sign in the window of his establishment that read “We are NOT a gay bar. We are a karaoke bar!!! 7 nights a week. Diesel is down the street.” I can only guess that Diesel is in fact a gay bar and is located down the street from the Elbo Room. Either that or the owner is trying to help out a drunken trucker that lost his rig.

Either way, the sign went up and it was time to man the battle stations and prepare for incoming flak.

A gay patron named Nick Stroman snapped a picture of the sign and sent it out via text message to some of his likeminded friends. It wasn’t long before the bar had a group of gay but not happy boys and girls stomping their Doc Martins and Birkenstocks in disgust.

Three separate protests were held with a total turnout of about 40 people. Barbara Van Auken, a local councilwoman got involved and claimed she notified the bar owner that the sign violated state law. I question both Ms. Van Auken’s legal abilities and her motives. As I stated above, nobody was denied entry or service, the bar used to be a gay bar but was no longer a gay bar and the sign simply and plainly pointed that fact out. All it did was advertise the fact that this was now a karaoke bar. If that’s illegal than McDonalds should no longer be able to advertise that they serve hamburgers. As for the restriction on the public display of gay affection I would ask the learned councilwoman if they allow that sort of thing at the Peoria city council meetings. If so all they have to do is invest in a karaoke machine and some Peter Allen songs and they could solve the whole issue.

The real motive behind this feigned outrage became apparent when some of the protest organizers commented about going to Springfield to demonstrate in favor of legalized gay marriage such as was done recently in Iowa.

The local gay but not happy community has vowed to never set foot in the Elbo Room again. I can’t speak for the entire Peorian public at large but I’m guessing that even those locals that hate karaoke as much as I do will now stop by for pop.

At least until someone starts singing “Feelings”.

We are entering another PR blitz by those that would have you believe that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle. Having failed in every state where the question was placed on the ballot regarding gay marriage they have now taken that well trodden road of making up facts to match the story.

A few years ago it was the pandemic spread of aids amongst heterosexual couples that the gay but not happy public relations wing of activist organizations were trying desperately to push. Newspapers across the country dutifully printed the dire warnings of the almost plague like spread of HIV and aids in heterosexuals. Graphs and charts printed on the front pages of major newspapers showed an increase in incidence that resembled a NASA rocket being launched into orbit and stories from the four corners of the country focused on seemingly happy families now being destroyed because mom or dad got aids. Sexually promiscuous heterosexuals were flocking to clinics for HIV/aids tests and doctors were being deluged by patients that were sure their sore throat was the first sign of the deadly disease.

But it was all a well orchestrated ruse. Gay activists figured if they could get straight people worried that they might in fact get the disease more funding would be made available to find a cure. The real facts showed that the only population segment where HIV/ aids was increasing was within the homosexual community.

Nobody in the media bothered to check the facts before they ran with the story. An activist group would come out with some official sounding report and get a doctor to put his name on it and the next thing you know it was a full blown epidemic.

The same thing is now happening with gay marriage. The headline from the AOL Political Machine news segment read “Rick Warren Abandons Fight Against Gay Marriage?”. The accompanying story stated that Warren the founder and pastor of the Saddleback megachurch, and the pastor that Barack Obama invited to give the invocation at his inauguration had made a recent turnaround in his position on the issue.

The writer went on to state that the recent overturning of the governor’s veto by the Vermont legislature and the Iowa Supreme court decision that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional according to the Iowa State Constitution is further proof that public sentiment has changed. But his statements are as deceiving as the headline was misleading.

First, did you notice that the author conveniently included a question mark at the end of his headline. While the punctuation mark is not what first grabs your attention its purpose is clear, it changes the statement to a question although there is no question needed.

What Rick Warren said was that he has never been an anti-gay marriage activist. He doesn’t even address the issue. But the church which he founded like most evangelical Christian churches still maintains their position that homosexuality is a sin and that someone actively involved in homosexual activity cannot be a member of the church. Christians are taught to accept the person but not their actions. If a homosexual is willing to remain completely celibate of homosexual activity he or she can become a member. Warren has worked tirelessly to council and bring comfort to all those suffering and dying from HIV/aids, including homosexuals.

The further statements that the Vermont legislature shows some dramatic shift in public opinion doesn’t take into account the profound liberal views that have been part of Vermont state politics for decades. Let’s not forget that it is in Vermont that several towns have arrest on sight orders for George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes.

The action taken in Iowa was in the legal realm and not an indication of public opinion. It was the Iowa Supreme Court and not the state legislature or voters that made the decision.

Any state that has the power to grant homosexual marriage has the power to rescind it. It will eventually be up to the voters to decide who they want to represent them based on how they feel on this issue. All the unbiased data makes it clear that the majority of voters do not approve of homosexual marriage and maintain that marriage is between one man and one woman. Legislators who go against that will find out how easy it is to lose an election regardless of how long they have served.

The gay activists know this so having failed to sway the public through vague threats and boycotts they now turn again to the faithful media who are more than willing to publish reports without fact checking. They figure if they can convince enough people to believe there is overwhelming support they will be less likely to oppose.

The backlash from this new ruse may be more significant than anyone is bargaining for. That goes for the gay activist groups, the state legislators and the news media.

On Wednesday December 10th the world as we know it is scheduled come to a grinding halt. At least that is the hope of some folks who have organized the “Call In Gay” day. A plan had been drawn up by some more radical gay activists to have all gay folks stay home from work and not spend any money, an economic boycott if you will, similar to the one held by Latino immigrants last summer. The date was chosen to coincide with the “International Human Rights” day. But a new less radical plan was presented to have gays stay away from work and volunteer their time at various community service organizations. This remarkable idea is the brainchild of a West Hollywood comedian/ personal trainer named Sean Hetherington and his boyfriend. I have to be honest, from this point the story almost writes itself.

The intended purpose is to show all the mean spirited straight folks just how important gay folks and the gay community are to society and the economy at large. It is also meant to convince the hate filled heterosexual community to reconsider their support of the recently voter enacted bans on gay marriage. Both the old boycott plan and the new volunteer plan are meant to have the same effect. Either way gays don’t show up for work.

It seems pretty simple on the surface. Show the world how important the gay community, their job performance and spending dollars are and people will be more likely to support their lifestyle and marital choice. Simple, but not based in reality.

I remember the non-stop news coverage of the Latino boycott. Picture after picture in the newspapers of protesting Hispanics carrying signs and waving the Mexican flag. Here’s what else I remember, the only reaction was anger shown by many Americans at the immigrants waving a foreign flag. What I don’t remember is any impact on the economy. Maybe some businesses had a blip in their operations, but I don’t recall there being any long term impact. Not because these Latino immigrants are not valuable, but rather because everybody knew they would be back. Most businesses did not go through the additional expense of looking to fill the vacant positions. The Latino’s took a day off, the news media went nuts and the rest of the country yawned. To believe that the gay community will have a greater impact and therefore impose greater public sympathy is simply not based in reality.

A few nonprofit agencies have posted opportunities for any volunteer minded gay person to spend a day collecting food or working at a homeless shelter. The nonprofits will be glad to accept the help but overall the impact will be minimal, and possibly have the exact opposite effect of what the organizers are looking for.

Volunteers are an extraordinary breed. They give of themselves for the betterment of others. Their only recompense is the good feeling they get by having done something for someone less fortunate. That will not be the case here. These volunteers are only doing it to gain something for themselves. It will not be done in the spirit of giving but rather in the self-serving spirit of getting. The important question to ask these single day volunteers is will the needy be any less needy the day after “Call In Gay day?

Economically there may be some heads that don’t get coiffed, some interiors that won’t get designed, some Congressional seats that may remain unsat upon or some Catholic masses that don’t get said. There may even be some trucks that don’t get driven as I’m guessing some lesbians will call off work too. But I have a sneaking suspicion that overall the economy will survive pretty much unscathed. And as for gay marriage, how in the hell is staying home from work supposed to change people’s minds about whether or not marriage should be between a man and a woman?

If you want to effect my opinion maybe these activists could start with the abundance of “Gay Pride” parades held all of the country. I have been to hundreds of what would be considered heterosexual parades and not one of them had floats where sex acts were being simulated. Maybe they could start with the gay community where 99% of the community members do not live a lifestyle conducive to monogamy much less marriage. The reality is that most gays don’t want to be married. This has just become a rallying call not a reality.

My guess is that “Call In Gay’ day will be far more a media event than a real event. It might turn out to be interesting though to those folks who work with somebody that they’re just not sure about. I can assure you, on Wednesday December 10th I could have double pneumonia, a migraine headache and a broken leg, but I ain’t calling in sick.