|
|
|
A Federal judge -- yes, prepare for the worst -- in Massachusetts --
worse yet -- has declared that it is no longer libelous or slanderous to call
someone a homosexual, since some courts have handed down decisions that have
the effect of de-criminalizing homosexual conduct. To supporters of the
decision, and presumably to the judge herself, this equalizes homosexuality with
religion and ethnicity, which are natural conditions, so that mentioning them
only means one is offering a description, not an insult. (This seems a little
optimistic to me, since, for instance, an Arab calling an Arab “Jewboy” or “
Jew-lover” in the Gaza Strip would be enough to set off mob violence, but we’ll
let that go for the moment).
The judge didn’t go so far as to say it would be a compliment to call someone
a homosexual, but the idea must certainly have occurred to her. Perhaps she’
s saving it for her next decision, after the world has had time to absorb the
wisdom of this one. Also she seems to have exhibited a typical lawyer’s
syndrome in basing her reasoning strictly on the question of the legality or
illegality of homosexual conduct. That’s the way lawyers think: if there’s no law
about something or other, then it doesn’t exist. Therefore, if it’s no
insult to call someone a homosexual because there’s now allegedly no law against
it, then it can’t be an insult to call someone a coward or a miser or a slob
because there has never yet been a law prohibiting cowardice or stinginess or
sloppiness. And yet the Supreme Court has said there are such things as “
fighting words” and hasn’t said they only apply if they impute unlawful conduct,
not just unfortunate habits.
Now if “fighting words” exist, they must be insults, even though there’s no
law…well, you see what a tangle it becomes, just because the Massachusetts
judge tried to make her decision look rational when it had nothing to do with
rationality, but only with her preconceived notions of what the peasants should
be told to do, which was to honor and cherish homosexuals as creatures of the
dawn, superior in every way to the louts among whom they are forced to live.
Not that she actually wishes them to show up in her own family, but at a
certain distance she finds them very useful for demonstrating her acceptance of
alternate lifestyles, in contrast to the narrow prejudices of the rabble.
“Bigotry and prejudice” according to her are the drives that have previously
shaped the attitudes of the masses towards the homosexual community, which
she now proposes to reform in the light of her superior wisdom. Although not
mentioned by the judge, this implies removal of restrictions on homosexuals in
the armed forces, teaching in schools, mentoring Boy Scouts, “marrying” of
course, cross-dressing, in short, I believe, elimination of all impediments to
the free and open practice of delicious mischief, as it used to be called.
But why not, if the only opposition comes from those guilty of “bigotry and
prejudice” as the judge charges? Well, although I don’t believe she’s capable
of understanding that there might be some more substantial reasons for
opposing the onward march of gay power, I’ll present some here which have nothing to
do with either anymore than her decision has to do with law.
First though, let’s look at the question of defamation. Okay, it’s no
longer an insult to call someone a “homosexual” (polite) or a------(impolite) or
a------(impolite) or a number of other equivalent terms. But what about
referring to their actions? What about accusing someone of engaging in one of the
most popular ones? You know what I mean. You mean to say that if I accuse
someone of that I’m not insulting him? Does he know? Does he care? Will I care
after I get up? If he sues me on top of that, will the judge care? I mean a
real judge, not some Massachusetts meshuggina. No way he will.
Obviously the lady judge will have to refine her decision, so that the whole
range of expressions relating to homosexuality will be considered
non-insulting. Fighting over these will be enough to occupy a generation of lawyers.
There are such a lot of expressions after all.
Practically all of them are uncomplimentary, which should have impressed the
judge, but probably wasn’t even noticed by her. If it had been, it might have
occurred to her that there was a reason for all this antagonism. Could all
these people through all these centuries have been wrong? Or were they
exhibiting the reaction of a healthy organism to the introduction of an unhealthy one?
Inversion is not healthy, after all. AIDS is no accident. It comes from
perverting one’s body to uses for which it was not intended. For years we’ve
been treated to warnings of how no one is immune and how it’s going to wipe out
heterosexuals the same as gays, but it hasn’t happened except to drug addicts.
Not that AIDS is the whole story. Gays suffer from a rich variety of other
afflictions too, both mental and physical. Suicide is common.
They hurt themselves and they hurt others as well. In New York we’re
familiar with the cases where their male pickups turn on them and often leave them
for dead in their rooms. We’re not as familiar with homosexual murders of young
boys, such as in Arkansas and in (yes) Massachusetts because those were
suppressed by the media, but we know all about the campaign of seduction carried
out by the moles they introduced into the Catholic Church. This was gay
liberation in action. Every last victim was a male. Every perpetrator was a
homosexual pedophile. It was all planned, seminaries were taken over, and whole
platoons of “priests” were ordained who had no other reason to take orders but to
get access to boys.
The looming scandal here is the one a few years off, when the children placed
in the custody of gay couples grow up and escape them and tell their stories
of what was done to them by their perverted parents. Society will have to
devise some new form of punishment to take care of the judges who sent these
children to a living hell of abuse and degradation
One time I said I wouldn’t write any more about this subject, but I didn’t
say I wouldn’t answer anyone who takes aim at me. Judge Gertner did. She said
anyone with my ideas was guilty of bias and prejudice. I answer that with
the words in my title, which were the ones used by Harry Balogh, the ring
announcer at the Garden, when telling the crowd to lay off the ethnic slurs aimed at
the fighters. No prejudism. I’ll drink to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
