More Twisted Tales From the Pink Rainbow

With militant homosexual activism growing in ferocity and intensity by the day, so too are the stories of bizarre and downright frightening homosexualist moonbattery. It is utterly staggering how so many governments, businesses and others have jumped onto the homosexual bandwagon, force-feeding the rest of society on their disordered agenda.

We learn daily about new cases of PC craziness and homosexual thuggery. I suppose we all knew that Western civilisation would eventually have to come to an end one day, but little did we know just a few short decades ago that this would take place primarily at the hands of the homosexual militants.

The cases of the homosexual wrecking crew are mindnumbing in their frequency and insanity. While I have offered plenty of recent examples of this, the following story certainly does take the cake. Just how utterly mindboggling. You would almost think it has to be a joke.

But tragically it is the real deal. It comes from California, a land known for its fruits and nuts. And behind it all is Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. He has long been known to be lost in space, but this one removes him from the galaxy altogether. Read and weep:

“The governor of California has signed into law a bill that mandates insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals. As previously reported, AB 460 was proposed this past spring by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, whose partner died of AIDS in 1994. He asserts that some insurance companies are discriminating by denying coverage to homosexuals because they did not have ‘an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.’

“Current law requires that spouses try to conceive for one year, and may claim coverage if they remain barren after that time. ‘Reproductive medicine is for everybody’s benefit,’ Ammiano wrote in a statement following the signing of the bill this month by Governor Jerry Brown. ‘To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. I wrote this bill to correct that’.”

Wow, I am still trying to recover from that one. So let me get this straight: those who deliberately choose to engage in a sterile lifestyle are being discriminated against and thus need taxpayer-funded fertility treatment. Ol’ Jerry might as well pass a bill requiring those who have taken a vow of silence to be eligible for voice lessons.

Umm, has anyone informed these meatheads in the California government that two men can’t reproduce, just as two bowling balls can’t reproduce? Will they mandate fertility treatment for bowling balls as well to overcome “unjust discrimination”?

I am not sure which has reached rock-bottom the most: our moral freefall or our utter stupidity. Can it get any worse? Sadly yes: wait – there’s more. Check out this headline: “A couple who rake in a staggering £53k a year in benefits are demanding a bigger house from the council because they are lesbians.”

The story opens: “Civil partners Lisa and Carrie-Ann Beaney currently live in a single B&B room with their four children, and claim that they are too stressed to work because of homophobic bullying. Lisa, 30, quit her job in McDonald’s after just three months because it made her too anxious, while Carrie-Ann, 23, has never worked at all.

“And due to tough new benefit cap rules their housing payments were slashed and the pair were evicted from their £850-a-month rented home. However, their £608-a-week B&B room is paid for by the taxpayer, and makes up a £53,000-a-year benefits handout on top of income support and child benefit. The pair now want the council to give them a bigger house for their brood.”

Yeah right. Hey, I get bullied all the time: can I demand a bigger house as well? I get subjected to so much heterophobic and Christophobic bullying, that by their standards the government ought to be offering me at least a mansion – and maybe a castle in Bavaria as well. Hey, I deserve it after all.

And the sporting world is not even exempt from gross moonbeamosity. Get a load of this homo-baloney: “U.S. athletes who want to participate in the Olympics must now take a vow that they will not engage in ‘discrimination’ based on ‘sexual orientation.’ USOC CEO Scott Blackmun said the committee changed the rules last week ‘to address the legislation in Russia prohibiting advocacy of non- traditional relationships among minors,’ its anti-gay propaganda law.”

So the IOC is throwing a hissy fit over Russia, yet this same body did zippo when the Olympics were held in Beijing. China’s reprehensible human rights violations mean nothing to the IOC, but pro-sodomy activism means everything to it, it seems.

Not everyone is keen about this idiocy: “Steve McConkey, a Christian pastor who ministers to top track and field athletes, says he worries that the new USOC rules may set the stage for discrimination against those whose religious beliefs oppose homosexuality and other non-traditional sexual orientations.

“‘The policies are set-up for discrimination against gay athletes, but there could be reverse discrimination in the future,’ McConkey said in a statement, adding that it ‘is a matter of time’ before traditional morality is discriminated against by ‘the law of the land.’ McConkey said he found it disturbing that the Olympic Committee took no similar action in 2008, when the games were held in Beijing, where Christians are jailed or even executed for their beliefs.

“‘The IOC allowed the Olympic Games to be in China in 2008 while hundreds were in prison for being Christian and the country has 100 million underground Christians,’ McConkey said. ‘They did not speak up about this, but now a sin category is added to non-discrimination policies.’ McConkey summed up the difference in public reaction to the two host nations in one word: ‘Hypocrisy’.”

So what’s new? Just another example of blatant hypocrisy and double standards on the part of the homosexualist lobby and their many cronies in positions of power. We expect such nowadays. Just part of a world turned upside down by the militants and their supporters.

But keep your moonbat-o-metre handy. I will soon be back with more twisted tales from the culture wars crypt.

[1040 words]

21 Replies to “More Twisted Tales From the Pink Rainbow”

  1. When I hear about a company bowing to or pandering to the gay lobby, I completely stop buying their products. e.g. Oreos by Kraft.

    Our oldest daughter was asked to give a presentation at her public school this year about discrimination and especially against gays. She refused to comply with this and made it about discrimination against Christians with great examples (she is a student who competes at state level public speaking so it was very well done). She said when she’d finished there was complete silence. A few polite questions and that was it!

    She was also made to come up with a campaign promoting acceptance of homosexuality that she’d have to present at other public schools in the area but she prayed as this task was outlined to the group and then put her hand up and asked if they could change the subject of the campaign to another social justice issue instead. The leader said she’d put it to a vote and my daughter’s topic actually won so she did not have to do it.

    Jo Deller

  2. Thanks Bill. It’s so much harder being a teen these days so I am heartened when my kids show initiative and insight. My daughter also said after the speech about discrimination against Christians that a few kids came up to her and thanked her quietly and that the teacher who’s organised the task (a PE teacher) thanked her for a “different” viewpoint.

    Jo Deller

  3. So now Christianity is just a “different viewpoint” in the minds of some people. I heard that in parts of the UK, to read from the Bible regarding homosexuality is now regarded as ‘hate speech’. Sometimes I feel glad that I am nearing the end of my life, but then I think, I really can’t leave this mess for my children to have to clean up, so I keep on praying and voicing my opinion when able.
    God bless
    Joan Davidson

  4. How much worse will it be allowed to get before finally Our Lord steps in to bring the curtain down? It seems people are now able to absorb immense amounts of vile immoral stuff without batting an eyelid; and many have just shrugged shoulders and said “oh well, that’s life”.
    I do believe they think that nothing can be changed or will change; and that we’ll all be forced to accept sexual perversion as normal, whether we want to or not.
    If all opposition is gagged through the use of draconian law, however will the battle be won, unless through divine intervention?
    Chris Dark

  5. The examples you used Bill, would be laughable if they weren’t so serious.They illustrate the Prophecy I made regarding our Western Civilization being more wicked and decadent in less than two decades than were Sodom and Gomorrah.

    We as a Society let our guards down and allowed ourselves to become too desensitized to the smut on TV and other Media and we never spoke up about changing moral values or made our voices heard at the ballot boxes so if I have to call a spade a spade then we have only got what we deserve.

    We really can’t blame others because we were fully complicate in the development of this situation. Maybe we weren’t directly complicate but indirectly we were by our failure to speak out in the first instance. As they say “Now the Chickens are coming home to Roost”.

    Leigh D Stebbins

  6. Great stuff once again, Bill – 2 men are not infertile, they are incompatible!!

    As for the Lesbians in the UK, they do not sound mentally stable – the Government should be giving them medical help, not throwing more money at them.

    When is this madness going to stop??

    James Brimblecombe

  7. Surely Christians need to know that we are in times much like the ties of early Christianity. Christianity was able to spread in hostile times, and so can we. But far too many Christians are basically clones of the world.

    Ian Nairn

  8. Thank you Bill, also to Jo Deller & your daughter – awesome Victory in the name of Jesus!
    Let’s all laugh at the devil – he is a loser & his wicked schemes will come to nothing – he’s the defeated foe!!
    As a disciple of Jesus, I am learning the importance of not being moved by these things but staying in & on the Word & staying in righteousness, peace & joy in the Holy Ghost.
    Barbara Hoc

  9. A new Canadian study by Douglas Allen shows children thrive best with married heterosexual parents, and worst with lesbian parents. Children from single and common law parents come in between. The evidence is incontrovertible: despite feminist and homosexual propaganda the sexes are not interchangeable.

    A review by Mark Regnerus is at:

    Antonia Feitz

  10. Dear Bill,

    I read your blog every time it is posted, either on my phone or ipad. However I have never commented on it as I hardly get on my computer to be able to write one…

    I praise God for you every day, that you have such a stamina and wisdom to write and post all that you do. I just wanted to thank you for the sacrifices you make to enable God’s Word to be heard. I know that I am only one person, but I want you to know that you are really appreciated. Thanks Again…

    Kylie Dunn

  11. Some of this would be moonbattery even if homosexuality were not involved. For instance:
    (1) Exactly why should the government stipulate exactly what a health insurance company should cover? What next: stipulating what travel insurance should cover? Infertility treatment, after all, is discretionary. Some people might be happy not to pay to be insured for it.
    (2) Four children for two women, aged 30 and 23! They must have started early. And these children presumably have fathers. How about making the fathers support them.

    Malcolm Smith

  12. Indiana Jones and the case of gay marriage

    by: Janet Albrechtsen From: The Australian October 30, 2013

    REGARDLESS of one’s views about same-sex marriage, there are serious questions about how we will get there, if we get there. A deeply anti-democratic strain permeates much of the debate. Start with some of the cant used by activists pursuing the gay marriage cause. They will, on the one hand, assure us that most Australians support gay marriage, yet in the next breath express ardent opposition to a referendum to change the meaning of marriage in the Constitution to reflect that apparent groundswell of support. Plain English translation: “Don’t ask the people. We, the political elites, will tell you what the masses think.” Gay marriage activists justify their anti-democratic posturing by arguing that a referendum will only whip up division and lead to scaremongering. Plain English translation: “We, the political elites, don’t trust the masses. They are too stupid to be trusted in a robust debate to come to the right conclusion.” Sooner, but more likely later, the High Court of Australia will settle the question of whether a referendum is required to change the definition of marriage in section 51(xxi) of the Constitution. If the court decides that a handful of unelected judges can redefine the meaning of marriage, it will reveal precisely the same contempt for Australian voters as the activists. The High Court determination will raise, in the most naked fashion, the sorts of political issues frequently considered by the US Supreme Court. And because redefining a social institution is an inherently political exercise, our highest court risks courting the same US-style controversy about the proper role of judges. The ACT parliament is certain that its Marriage Equality law passed last week is valid. The federal government is equally certain that the law is invalid on the basis that the federal Marriage Act covers all marriages and it specifically defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Moreover, section 28 of the ACT Self-Government Act 1988 says that a territory law is invalid to the extent that it is inconsistent with a federal law that applies in the territory. Even if the ACT law is validly enacted, the federal government has ultimate power under section 122 to override any law enacted by a parliament of a territory. Just as the Howard government overrode the Northern Territory’s euthanasia laws in 1996, the Abbott government has the power to override the ACT’s same-sex marriage legislation. While the High Court will not have to define marriage under the Constitution to determine the validity of the ACT law, the validity of a state same-sex marriage law will depend squarely on how the High Court defines marriage in the Constitution. The High Court may decide that marriage means what it meant when the Constitution was enacted in 1901 – a union between a man and woman. If so, that may mean the commonwealth has power only over marriages as understood at 1901. If the court adopts that traditional definition, it could mean the states then have power over other sorts of marriages – say, same-sex marriages. Alternatively, in a case that concerns a state same-sex marriage law, the High Court could decide that the Constitution must be moulded to fit modern developments – ergo marriage in section 51(xxi) can be redefined to include same-sex marriage. In that case, any state same-sex marriage laws will likely be invalid under section 109 of the Constitution to the extent that it is inconsistent with a federal same-sex marriage law. Last Friday, Ivan Hinton, the deputy national director of Australian Marriage Equality, told ABC radio: “The opportunity of having the High Court consider the issue of marriage equality is a wonderful opportunity to remove the politics from this issue.” Hinton is wrong. The politics of this issue will simply move into a new arena: Court Room No 1 of the 40m-high glass and cement building that houses our highest court. There, seven judges will answer a political question about same-sex marriage. We know from past cases that if the clever judges on the High Court want to get to a position, they will get there. Like judicial versions of Indiana Jones, exploring judges have discovered implied rights in the Constitution despite the clear absence of express rights. Redefining the meaning of marriage to include gay marriage is a seductive prospect for judges who prefer to play the more exciting role of social engineer. Camouflaged in judicial robes, these judges are social reformers, leading the charge from the bench for a more enlightened world, limited not by law but only by the brilliance of their own socially progressive imaginations. In the US, when the Supreme Court makes overtly political decisions, it’s called doing an end run around democracy. Take abortion law: had the matter been left to the people via state legislatures, abortion might well be a less contentious matter today. Instead, snubbing their judicial noses at the people’s right to decide big social issues, in 1972 the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade concocted a right to abortion in the US Constitution. That did not settle the abortion issue because when judges decide political, not legal, questions, they tend to inflame tensions. Redefining marriage from the bench has the same potential to provoke passions here as voters ask the obvious question: if a handful of High Court judges can readily alter the meaning of marriage, what is the purpose of section 128, which says the Constitution can be amended only by referendum agreed on in a majority of states by a majority of voters? As former High Court justice Ian Callinan wrote in his dissenting judgment in the 2006 Work Choices case, “The Constitution should not be construed to enable the court to supplant the people’s voice under section 128.” Citing a judge who respects the original meaning of the Constitution will send sections of the Left into a flurry of indignation about the need for a “living” Constitution that changes with the times. At the risk of annoying gay activists and activist judges even further, this assertion is best answered by delving into one of Callinan’s footnotes. The judge quotes a rhetorical question asked by the US Supreme Court’s Antonin Scalia during a 2005 visit to Melbourne: “Would anyone vote for a constitution which said: ‘Those general norms set forth in this document … do not refer to the people’s current understanding of what is embraced by those terms, but rather shall bear the meaning assigned, from time to time, by unelected and life-tenured committees of lawyers’?” It’s a question that gay activists and activist judges will not answer.

    Jo Deller

  13. Bill as ugly as things are looking (it’s like being in an immoral free fall) I find it somewhat encouraging. I believe we are witnessing the blossoming of the End Times. So that the Church would know the season of Jesus’ return He tells the disciples that it will be like the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, in a world that was busy living without God.
    Lk 17:28-31 It’s not a time to cower but to raise the standard and speak God’s truth into lives around us.

    Keith Lewis

  14. Reports from Britain suggest PM David Cameron regrets his support for SSM, saying it was the biggest mistake of his career and totally underestimated the trouble it would cause.
    I also take heart from the knowledge that most of the world will never accept SSM.
    It will not happen in China,India, most of Africa, etc. It is only happening in the decadent West.
    Des Connors

  15. Sickening.

    I just returned to Oz from a lengthy trip to Europe, and this homo-marriage thing seems to be the only problem (apart from floods, bush fires and the globull worming crapola)

    The ABC has to be dismantled. This is insanity. The homo’s are at best 2 to 3% of the population. Who is behind this racket and what are they hoping to achieve?

    Who is this Penny Sharpe who bangs the homo drums in parliament against the interests of the wider community?

    Warren Raymond

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: