15 October 2011

My response to Eugene Delgaudio's email

Yesterday I received an email from Eugene Delgaudio, President of anti-gay group Public Advocate.  Here's what I sent as a response:

Dear Eugene,

I was a bit surprised to be receiving this message from your organization, as I did not recall signing any petition as you mention below:
Thank you for your recently signed petition.  I am excited to know you are an American who is willing to take a stand for pro-family values.
Then I remembered that I had been directed to your website by left-wing blogger PZ Myers, in one of his frequent exercises in demonstrating the futility of internet surveys.  I participated in your survey in order to help skew the results away from the statistics you were fishing for; it appears you interpreted my pro-equality responses as "signing" your petition.

I'd like to take the time to respond to your message, and to address some of the claims you've made.

Here at Public Advocate, fighting for and defending the family values our nation was founded on is what we are all about.
I apologize if I've led you on in any way, as we seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes "pro-family" values.  I also fail to find any mention of them in our Constitution; there's a whole lot about rights and liberty in there, but nothing regarding the role of family structure.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting pro-family organization with a history of victories against the growing radical Homosexual Lobby, look no further than Public Advocate of the United States.

Founded in 1981, Public Advocate quickly took center stage as the nation’s leading family advocate with over 400,000 united pro-family activists.

Time after time, Public Advocate has beaten back the attempts of the Homosexual Lobby to pass legislation aimed at making homosexuals a special class of citizens.

But, victories these days have been harder and harder to come by.
Please forgive my ignorance of your organization's existence, but I don't think I've heard of a single court or legislative victory that can be attributed to Public Advocate.  It could be that Google is controlled by the gay lobby and is deliberately censoring reports of your victories, however.  Would you be so kind as to provide a citation?

Which is why I so excited to have your signed petition!

With it, I will prove to Congress that the American people still hold traditional family values dear.
Again with that whole "petition" thing: I took your online survey and selected your strawman "pro-gay" choice on every single question.  If that makes me a supporter of your cause, then by analogy my atheism makes me a Catholic, a Theravada Buddhist, and a Sunni Muslim all at once!  I would hope that Congress requires greater evidence than a list of names and email addresses from an online survey when they consider the weight of your viewpoint.
And if you believe the threat of the Homosexual Lobby is being blown out of proportion, think again.

At this very moment, individuals and organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars that comprise the Homosexual Lobby are working to pass their radical agenda.

Here are just a few names and organizations you may recognize: Tim Gill, Barney Frank, Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, Cindy and Meghan McCain, The Advocate, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.

All of these people are working towards what they call “equal rights” for homosexuals, when in reality, the rights they are trying to acquire would be unique to homosexuals only.
What unique rights are we talking about here?  I've only ever seen LGBT activists ask for two things:
  • the freedom to be "out" without fear of arrest, discrimination, or suppressive violence;
  • the freedom to enter a legal marriage contract with no difference in rights, restrictions, or privileges regardless of the sex or gender identity of their partner.
If you could provide an itemized list of "special rights" which you believe that the LGBT community is seeking, I would greatly appreciate it.
A Thought Control bill was just recently passed.  This bill puts into law regulations that deem so-called “hate speech” as illegal.

This has me worried, and I hope you are too.  Because who is to say what language will be considered hate speech?

Don’t believe me?  In Canada and Europe pastors have been thrown in jail for preaching Biblical teachings against homosexuality.

This very well may be the reality of Thought Control in the United States.
I've heard of such cases being prosecuted in other countries, and I do indeed stand firmly against censorship regardless of how wrong someone's opinion is.  I don't think that anything short of threats of or calls for violence against individuals or groups should be considered "hate speech", and I will stand with anti-censorship organizations in opposing such legislation.  Sorry, but this isn't going to get me on board with your agenda.
I hope you know how serious this issue really is.

Which is why, as President of Public Advocate, I have devoted my life to protecting family values and defending our freedoms.

I want to leave a legacy I am proud of, knowing the United States is still the nation I grew up in.
I have a feeling we're about to get to the good part.
But without your support, this year alone we could see Barney Frank’s so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” put into law.

We call this the “Gay Bill of Special Rights” because it doesn’t eliminate discrimination, it destroys workplace protection from radical homosexuals whose only mission is to spread their agenda.

If passed, the Gay Bill of Special Rights would require workplaces to meet a quota of homosexual employees, forcing employers to choose a radical homosexual over a potentially more qualified candidate.

And no workplace will be exempt.  Churches, daycares, nursing homes, private schools, you name it, all will have to adhere to these regulations.
You clearly don't know how to do simple research before spouting your opinions on matters that don't affect you.  Go read the text of Rep. Frank's bill.  It's not very long.  Done?  Good, I'd like to direct you to a few key passages:
  • Section 4, paragraph (f) - No Preferential Treatment or Quotas
  • Section 6 - Exemption for Religious Organizations
  • Section 8, paragraph (b) - "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a covered entity to treat an unmarried couple in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits."
I couldn't find any special rights for homosexuals in there, and these three items seemed to specifically prohibit giving any one sexual orientation any special privileges.  Your arguments ring hollow, Eugene.
And Obama is even looking to push for the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" this year, which would remove the protection our soldiers have from the Homosexual Lobby.

And even the Healthcare bill is filled with numerous paybacks to homosexuals, giving lower healthcare premiums to “unmarried” homosexuals than married couples, all paid for at taxpayer expense.

I hope you understand this threat is real. . . and imminent.
Eugene, I'm not sure what protection you think our soldiers need from those among them who happen to be homosexual.  When good patriotic Americans couldn't serve their own country solely because of their sexual orientation, a great injustice was being done.

As for the Healthcare reform law, I'll admit that I haven't read the thing; it's longer than every novel, news article, and blog post I've ever read in my life combined.  However, every executive summary I've ever read of the law failed to mention mandating lower premiums for unmarried partners compared to married couples.  Point me to the section of the code that accomplishes this feat, and I will read it.  I do hope this isn't more of the paranoid ranting that is your modus operandi.

I did some Google research on you, Eugene, and I have to say I'm a little weirded out.  You seem to have a following among religious right wingnuts, but mainstream culture doesn't appear to care that you exist; it amazes you when social progressive bloggers post your drivel for the purpose of refuting or mocking it.  You resort to reporting what appear to be wholly fabricated assaults against your property and person in order to make yourself look like a victim as you support legislation to victimize LGBT Americans.

I've enjoyed writing you, Eugene, and I hope to hear from you again.  Dialogue about controversial issues is the best way to arrive at the truth, and with the internet to check citations we can keep one another honest.


Matt Foss

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License