Halloween comes early to Orlando

Monday, August 9, 2010

If you were in Winter Park on Sunday, you might have had an early glimpse at Halloween. The National Organization for Marriage held a "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally at the First Christian Church of Winter Park, a suburb of Orlando, FL and those who showed up to protest our rally let it all out in the strangest protest of the Summer for Marriage Tour yet.

This man put it all on but forgot the trick-or-treat bag. He stood there holding his sign and when he noticed I was taking his picture, he smiled and waved. Then he encouraged everyone to "smile for the NOM camera".

Few of them did but he was not alone. There were many protesters assembled in front of the church dressed in a variety of costumes, many of which were a size or two too small. Not to mention the face paint - the thick white face paint. I was confused if they were going for the "V for Vendetta" look, the "Internet Troll" look or if they just wanted to plaster on the make up. Either way their appearance did not help.

Who can look at a crowd of people holding signs and yelling about equality when they are dressed like that? Who is going to take them seriously? The mere costume itself draws people's attention away from their signs and off their message.

They weren't reading their signs or listening to their calls for 'equality', they were looking at their costumes and probably laughing at them. It doesn't bother me, though. If they want to dress like that it just helps the effort to protect marriage. Especially with those people still on the fence or undecided or apethetic people. Honestly, which side would you stand on?

And let's not brush this man aside as a fringe element of that protest. He was not alone. He was joined by a handful of other men dressed in the very same way. The dress, the face paint, the make up, the combat boots, the wedding veil, the biker gloves.

Here is another man dressed in another dress. This time it's pink and for extra fun and mockery, he's wearing a cross around his neck and black elbow-length gloves. Oh, and a purse and the especially large ornament on his finger he must have borrowed from Lady Gaga.

Now don't take this the wrong way. This has nothing to do with teasing these men or saying they can't dress however they want. I do want to point out that if you want to be taken seriously in the public square you should take a look at how you present yourself.

I would really like to know what the purpose of attending their protest dressed in this fashion was. I don't see any reason to do it. Sure, perhaps they like to wear women's clothing but that doesn't have anything to do with the debate over same-sex marriage and it didn't have anything to do with why we went to Winter Park yesterday.

Although there were more men dressed in dresses and white face paint that I could count with one hand, they were not the only group of protesters who came 'dresssed for the occasion'. These next two men dressed in a way that could only be attributed to their blantant will to mock Christianity.

Don't forget the setting. The First Christian Church of Winter Park. At least the men above may be dressed in a way that represents the sex they consider themselves to be. It was inappropriate and unnecessary for the event but what these two men did was just an attempt to show disrespect and disdain for the church.

I don't think anyone can argue that what these two wore had anything to do with same-sex marriage, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity or anything close to it. It was a real display of mockery - or they just turned out early for trick-or-treat.

So I assume they are trying to pose as angels as they stand in front of the church.

However, they didn't stop at that.

One of them actually took to the center of the road and stood in the middle of traffic. What was the point? What did they seek to achieve?

Why would they come to a protest, supposedly organized to push for their 'equal' rights and then mock the religious beliefs of not only those who were in attendance at our rally inside but the millions of Christians across the Nation?

Yes they did seem to be attracted to the middle of the road. The 'angel' you see above wasn't the only one to take to the street to greet the drivers passing by at 30 mph.

This second man almost tripped over himself as he ran across the street and in front of oncoming traffic sideways.

Not only did he not look both ways before he crossed like I'm sure his mother taught him to as a child, but he purposely jumped out in front of moving traffic.

It's not setting a good example for the kids that were at their protest. One of which they had yelling their twisted chants and holding thier signs.

"They're lost," one of our supporters told me as he stood nearby the church holding one of our "One Man, One Woman" marriage signs. He told me he would pray that they could find Jesus.

The marriage rally was held inside due to poor weather conditions.


Steve P said...

What's more offensive: A man in a dress or a bunch of "Christians" crusading against people they hate? I know who I, and anyone with a basic sense of morality and justice, would stand with.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Louis. Do you really want us to believe that you were all inside due to poor weather conditions? We can see the photographs. Why don't you own up to the truth: you wanted your rally indoors so no one could see the same kind of spectacular attendance fail you had in Atlanta and St. Louis when compared to the loving supporters of equality?

BTW, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are an HIV/AIDS education activist organization. They do scary things like talk to people about preventing HIV and AIDS, in other words. I know that you would prefer to silence people who talk about such things in the public square. However, they've been around for a whole lot longer than your NOM organization and do a lot of good for the entire community. I guess you'd never heard of or seen them before now; I'm so glad you took the opportunity to be educated.

Bless your heart, Louis.


Anonymous said...

Steve P, it's not about hate. Christians do not hate gays. Nor do most Christians judge them. (I cannot speak for all, I can only speak for me, my family and my friends). Christians merely want to protect the sanctity of marriage and what it is. One man, One woman, sanctioned by God. Gays can have their own 'bonding' with all the legal ramifications and benefits as marriage, but let's leave "MARRIAGE" alone. One man One woman. As it should be.

Lying again Louis. The rally was held indoors as a Private Party so you could have comps who could and did refuse entry to anyone not on the NOM list. Try again.

Oh wait I forgot, me calling you a liar when you are in fact lying constitutes a personal attack in your book, so my message as always will never be seen. Tsk tsk.

Anonymous said...

Steve P: It's not just about men in dresses or Christians "hating", and if you wanna speak of morality, speak of morality universally, not subjectively. And its not only Christians who think homosexuality is immoral, naturalists and evolutionists [should] stand against homosexuality as well because it is "unnatural" and does not help progress the human race. But there is a bigger picture to look at: Sex is sacred, along with race and gender. We cannot make sacred ones nationality and gender, then desacritize sex because we have "tendencies" to do something. Men everywhere want to have sex with every beautiful woman, is that right? Men have tendencies to cheat on their wives, is that right? Men even have tendencies to marry multiple wives, is that right? If we allow corruption to destroy the foundation of marriage between one man and one woman, where does it stop?

Anonymous said...

Christians are not saying they hate anyone. We just stand for the traditional definition of marriage. It does uphold morality and justice. Good for the NOM rally going on in spite of these Halloween folks.

Deby said...

Good article! I'm close friends with a minister and his wife in CA and their church has received death threats, warnings, mockery and quite a lot of disrespect. The two sides of this debate have their own opinions, just like anybody else in America but when one side, (in this case those for homosexual marriage), blatanly tramples on the safety of others, they should be arrested. Forming a group for the purpose of threatening others is gang activity and should be treated as such. There is also the issue of hate speech. Those who practice christianity should be just as protected as any other group in the issue of hate speech. Perhaps christian-bashers should be hauled to court. One more thing to note and this is one of my own pet peeves...the word 'homophobic'. Putting the word 'phobe' at the end of 'homo' indicates a clinical phobic condition. Unless the person calling others "homophobes" knows their victim's medical status, they should be taken to court for liable and slander. They have not only called somebody an unproven medical condition but they have demeaned that person's status in pubic.

Anonymous said...

This is just another gay bashing.

Catherine said...

I love how the ones who are against all this are putting their names as anonymous. You're so brave to come on here and speak against what this site is about, but you're so much of a coward you cannot even let us see your name?

Timothy Kincaid said...

It's not about hate. Christians do not hate gays.

Christians are told in scripture to love everyone so therefore, by definition, they love gays, not hate them. Becoming a Christian means that everything you do is defined to be love, no matter what it is.

I repeat, Christians do not hate gays. When Christians seek to pass laws that won't allow gay people to marry, that isn't out of hate. It's just to protect the sanctity of marriage and what it is, not hate. It's love.

When Christians seek to pass laws that won't let gay people adopt, it's not out of hate, it's out of love. It's just to protect the children, not hate.

When Christians support decisions that give custody preference to heterosexual spouses, that too is love, not hate. It's to protect the children from exposure to gay people, who we love.

When Christians oppose non-discrimination bills in employment, it's not out of hate. It's just to make sure that good Christians don't have to employ those who are an abomination, whom, of course, they love.

When Christians oppose non-discrimination bills in housing, it's not out of hate. It's so that Christians need not be forced to allow sinners - whom they love - in the buildings they own.

When Christians oppose open service in the military, it isn't out of hate. They just don't want to have to be around homosexuals, whom they love.

When Christians at the AFA say that gay people should not be allowed to have jobs of responsibility, it's out of love, not hate. Homosexuals, whom they love, are devious and given over to hedonism.

When Christians in Uganda call for the execution of gays, it's not out of hate, it's out of love. They need to protect society from the absolute depth of depravity that are homosexuals, whom they love, and need to kill.

In fact, it doesn't matter how inhumane or cruel that Christians are actually treating gay people, it's always out of love. Because Christians don't look to see what is loving first and then do it; rather they just know that no matter what they do, it's out of love not hate. Because they call themselves Christians, which gives them carte blanch to do ANYTHING and call it love.

And that "do unto others thing", well when they throw that out the window, just remember that they do it out of love.

Timothy Kincaid said...


With all due respect, I call your bluff.

I think that you are being untruthful about "death threats." I think that is absolutely untrue. Such threats are serious, illegal, and reportable.

So who, exactly, is this minister? Names, please.

Oh, and Deby sweetie, hate-speech is completely legal here in these United States. So when y'all ratchet up the vileness, we just have to take it. So does your preacher friend.

As for your magic dictionary which gets to create new definitions, well it makes you seem pretty ignorant. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

In your case, I'd say "aversion to" pretty well covers it.

Steve P. said...

"We don't hate gays, we just think that letting them form families will destroy America and we need to protect our children from them. We're only basing this on the Bible, which says they should be put to death." Whatever helps you sleep at night "Christians".

Anonymous said...

This is a very good blog...keep up the good work. I actually read the past blogs, but it's interesting to see all the hate and bigotry against Christians on your blog. People may not comment, but we ARE reading and taking note of this.

Anonymous said...

Hey thanks, Catherine for trying to call anonymous people here cowards. Just realize that not everything posted on the internet MUST be associated with a name. Come on, get a life. Posting stuff anonymously can be fun every now and then. Try it some time.

Deby said...

Timothy Kincaid: To address your issues (and it is SO cute how you refer to me as sweetie...do I know you? lol)

1. Of course death threats are illegal, yes they were reported, finding the actual individuals who gave them is another issue. While I won't give you the name of the minister, the baptist church is located in Indio, CA and you can do your own research.

2. While hate speech may be legal in America, hate speech that incites violence or causes harrassment can indeed be argued in court. Here is the CNN report on Supreme Court Justice Kagan's interpretation of what might constitute illegal speech (such as you can't say you have a bomb, there's a fire, etc even in joking around...so no, all speech is not legal and some is in a gray area such as hate speech) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

3. Yes, a phobia is a medical condition. Just because somebody believes a BEHAVIOR to be unacceptable does not mean that same person is afraid of, hates, or discriminates against that PERSON. Behavior and people are two seperate issues 'sweetie'.

Yes, I do know you. ROFL

Steve P said...

Anonymous @ 6:38: Calling people out on their hate and bigotry is not hate and bigotry. I suppose you're one of those people who thinks it's rude to call someone out on their rudeness.

mantronikk said...

Jesus defines marriage as being between one man and one woman in Matt.19:4-6.

Lana said...

Any real Christian does not hate anyone because Jesus said to love our friends and our enemies. All mankind has sinned and we believe in the concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin. We stand for truth and righteousness. To say you are a moral person means that you acknowledge the existance of God because He is the source of all morality. He created moral values and any sense of it comes from Him. As for justice, overturning a majority vote is the only thing unconstitutional and unjust in this scenario. Do not say that Christians standing for our beliefs is wrong and the protesters and those on their side are right because in every demonstration and protest I have heard of I have always seen derogatory signs, comments, and inappropriate attire and behavior. This issue is not about rights. Gays have the same rights as anyone else. The issue is what is marriage, and the majority of California agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. You have the right to marry within the confines of it's definition just like everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Anyone taking bets that ONE anonymous person is posting all these nameless comments?
Anyone wanna go double-down that its Louis?

Deby said...

Timothy Kincaid, I answered all of your 'points' as I do not bluff, but, for some reason, it isn't printed yet. I don't know why.

Anonymous said...

Lana said: All mankind has sinned and we believe in the concept of loving the sinner but hating the sin.

Yeah, too bad that you don't know your scriptures well enough to understand the source of that quote. I'd challenge you to show me chapter and verse in the Bible, but you'll be an awfully long time -- because it isn't there.

The man who said that was Mahatma Gandhi.

In your rather lengthy list of what you say that Christians believe, you have failed to include the only three things Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef commanded of his followers: feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted (ill) and love your neighbor as yourself.

How are you doing on following those commandments? Please let me know how denying equal protection under the law to GLBT people fits into those commandments.

Bless your heart, Lana.


Anonymous said...

Lana wrote: This issue is not about rights. Gays have the same rights as anyone else. The issue is what is marriage, and the majority of California agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. You have the right to marry within the confines of it's definition just like everyone else.

This response is disingenuous for a variety of reasons. First, 7 million people voted in favor of Prop 8. This is far from being a majority of Californians. It's barely the size of a large city in this state. 6.4 million voted *against* Prop 8. The actual difference is a mere 2 percent. Hardly a giant mandate, statistically speaking.

Second, telling someone they have an equal right to marry someone to whom they are not attracted and do not want to make their life partner? That's rich. How many people got to vote on *your* marriage, Lana?

As for the religious freedoms comment, I suggest that you revisit the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Why should you and your church be allowed to stomp roughshod all over the religious freedoms of me and my church, which permits same-sex unions? Why do your beliefs trump mine under civil law? Please show me the statute. I'll wait.


Anonymous said...

Lana wrote: As for justice, overturning a majority vote is the only thing unconstitutional and unjust in this scenario.

No, ma'am. You are 100 percent incorrect. Every single piece of legislation is subject to judicial review. A state law cannot violate the US Constitution. We live in a Constitutional Republic, with the rule of law. Please look up Marbury v. Madison if you are unclear as to what judicial review means.

I am constantly shocked at the number of people who fail to comprehend how our governmental system of checks and balances functions.


Steve P. said...

We live in the United States of America, not the United States of Jesus. Your debates about scripture belong in a forum about religion and church policy. We're discussing CIVIL law here. The notion that all morality comes from god is nonsense and a sad statement on how you feel about human nature. Religious doctrine actually distorts true morality as evidenced by not only the persecution of gays but by the fact that just about every major war in history, including the ones we're presently engaged in, and the worst examples of genocide have been rooted in religion. There are many atheists in this country with a far higher moral code than any of you patting yourselves on the back for your supposed devotion to Jesus. You claim to value religious freedom but that's bull. What you really want is to live in a theocracy where your beliefs rule the land and trample over the rights of everyone else. Your view of what this nation should be is more aligned with countries such as Iran, far from the values of the U.S.A. that you claim to care about. Seriously, no more playing nice. If you want to use your beliefs to justify a crusade against me and make me a second class citizen under the law, don't expect me to respect you or your chosen religious behavior.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" wrote: And its not only Christians who think homosexuality is immoral, naturalists and evolutionists [should] stand against homosexuality as well because it is "unnatural" and does not help progress the human race.

Except that you're wrong. There is a principle of evolutionary fitness called reciprocal altruism, which is absolutely necessary to the survival of any species. Perhaps this article from a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal will help you to better understand: http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf

Fiona64 (anthropology major)

Timothy Kincaid said...

Fiona, you are correct that "love the sinner hate the sin" is not in the bible, but it was St. Augustine who coined the phrase, not Ghandi.

Augustine's letter 211 (c. 424) contains the phrase Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, which translates roughly as "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." Ghandi did use a variation.

Timothy Kincaid said...

This issue is not about rights. Gays have the same rights as anyone else. The issue is what is marriage, and the majority of California agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. You have the right to marry within the confines of it's definition just like everyone else.

Ya know something, Lana, that actually isn't true.

If a gay man marries a woman, it's considered fraud. If there are inheritance questions or rights he seeks to claim, they are presumed to be invalid. The Catholic Church - and most states - consider his orientation to be justification for annulment. And if he marries a foreigner who then tries to move here, that is a criminal offense and he could go to jail.

Not only that, my dear, but even you wouldn't recognize such a marriage. If your sister married a gay man, you would say that it wasn't a "real marriage", wouldn't you.

From the state to the church to the community, no one really recognizes marriages between gay people and straight people. The truth is that in the 45 States, gay people are legally entitled to marry no one.

Steve P said...

To expand on Timothy Kincaid's excellent points, the Iowa Supreme Court, in its unanimous ruling, specifically addressed the claim that gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex:
"It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
In a hypothetical world where same-sex marriages were the ONLY ones recognized by the government, you have to admit that you would view the law as discriminatory towards heterosexuals. And it would be.
Imagine another hypothetical situation: A majority of the citizens of some U.S. state amend their constitution to prohibit practicing Christianity. This is not a perfect analogy, since unlike sexual orientation, religion is a chosen behavior, but ignore that distinction for the moment. Would you argue that since no one was allowed to practice Christianity, including practicing Muslims, Jews and Hindus, no discrimination against Chritians would exist? Of course not. It's indefensible because, just like marriage, freedom of religion is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Post a Comment


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition