After The Ball–The Eyes Have It


Proposition 8 Secret Weapon Triumphs Over The Gay Agenda

The activist gay agenda failed in California, at least for now.  There are a lot of people on the news running around, angrily pointing fingers and screaming angry epithets about Mormons and second class citizenship.  Yes on 8 was outsmarted and outspent, they were losing in the polls….why did gay marriage fail if the cause was so just?  Gay activists had the ball, how could they have lost it?  Was it really the Mormons’ fault?  Gay marriage is a civil right!  What cause is more just than that?

The rhetoric of the gay community is utterly appealing.  As a conscientious Christian, no one wants to be on the wrong side of scripture verses, or in the bigger picture, the wrong side of history.  I admit, the whole civil rights angle had me perplexed for quite some time, but the idea that behavior is a right is ultimately wrong.  The painting of an entire state in shades of bigotry, though rhetorically appealing, wasn’t plausible.  I don’t feel like a hate filled bigot, do you?  Doesn’t look like a bigot, doesn’t feel like a bigot…must not be a bigot, right?  I even looked it up in the dictionary just to be sure I was being objective.  Honestly though, the rhetoric is brilliant.

It took me some study to figure out just exactly what part of the righteous sounding argument was twisted, but it finally came through.  The wholesale selling of our country on the idea that behavior is a right was first introduced in the published gay activist agenda, titled “After the Ball.”

I’ve heard many in the gay community say,  “Agenda??? We don’t have an Agenda!!”  To you I say, let’s be honest.  We all have an agenda.

The gay agenda was basically laid out in the late 1980s in the book called “After the Ball,” by Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  It is a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior from abhorrence to acceptance — in a decade-long time frame.

What?  Never heard of it?   I bet it’ll sound familiar once you read it, since it’s the source of the rhetorical twists California has been deluged with for the last several months.  There are six main points to the plan:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.
2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” They have demonized the beliefs of Christians who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.
3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.” That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.
4. “Make gays look good.” That’s what they’ve done through media campaigns, through television programs, like “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.
5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to “muddy the moral waters” by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.
6. “Get funds from corporate America.” In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how far their moral influence has spread through use of corporate funding.

Perhaps if every single point of the published gay agenda had not been pushed into near fruition you might have some ground to stand on in claiming these authors, and others like them, had no influence over the gay community. As it is, the only shocking thing is that we haven’t seen it sooner. My eyes have been pried wide open by this election fight.

Any objective observer can see the eerie prescience of “After the Ball.” The strategy was and is, brilliant.

Honestly I wish we had such stratagem on our side, but we don’t. Now, first I have to say that we couldn’t have done it without the tremendous support of the ethnic groups in this state.  Blacks especially supported us in some places by 70%, but they did that on their own.  People of color in my circle of friendship weren’t interested in campaigning, and our Hispanic brothers and sisters looked at us like we were campaigning to keep the sky blue.  They knew what they knew and didn’t see what the big issue was.  That’s just not something we could have planned on.  Kudos to the communities in this state that still remember family values, it’s our white communities we struggled with.  As far as sheer strategy though?  I’ve heard a lot of talk about the “Mormons” “interfering” in the election.  Well let me tell you, there were a lot of Mormons in the coalition, but that wasn’t all.  Perhaps they were part of the secret weapon, but what was that secret weapon?  Good people.

California’s Secret Weapon–Plain Good People

The one thing pro-family groups have that can’t be beat are their armies of smiling, happy people who are honestly living their lives, and it shows.  In contrast with what we’ve seen the last three days parading through our streets, that’s where our brilliance is. It’s in our eyes and faces, more than our strategy.

it's in their eyes.

Our brilliance is in the goodness of our souls. It shows through in our eyes.

You can’t buy the kind of advertising the public saw when teenagers decked out in black drag and piercings  with their “No on 8″ banners gave for proposition 8.  It really makes a contrast.  That was the first troubled clue as to who was supporting gay marriage.  The other was their behavior.  Vandalism, anger, rage….it was in their eyes.  No one can hide the bitter anger of the gay community.  That bitter anger is not from the righteous oppression of religion as they would have everyone believe.  It is because as the scriptures say, “wickedness never was happiness.”  It is that simple.

It is the great lie of our generation that you can do as you please and find happiness.  Happiness is not in bowing to slavish selfish desires.  It is in living your life loving and serving others.  Look in someone’s eyes.  You can see the contents of the soul there.

I’ve heard ad nauseum about the hatefulness, bigotry and horrible oppression of those who oppose gay marriage.  I will grant that there are some who are just as dark of conscience as any, but those are by far the exception.  You can see it in their eyes as well.  No matter how hard you try, you can’t lighten the windows of a soul steeped in misery.

One woman stopped her car at one of the waves we attended and thrust out a check to the nearest person who looked to be in charge.  “Here!” she said, “I’ve been watching both sides of the issue (the no’s were on the other side of the street), and you guys are just awesome.  I know it’s late in the game but take my donation and keep up the good work!”

This time we did it.  We came together, showed our solidarity and our strength, next time will we see it coming as clearly?  Today our eyes are open.  Keep vigilant.  We have the ball, but the game isn’t over.


For more on the activist gay agenda see Activist Michael Swift’s strongly worded article:

Michael Swift: “Gay Revolutionary”

from Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987

on how he envisions the ideal world for gays….not for the faint of heart:



  1. wondering said,

    November 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    very interesting – wasn’t the Michael Swift article meant as satire though?

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    If that is satire, it’s pretty sicko satire. Wikipedia goes over the ins and outs of the satire discussion if you look up “Gay Agenda.” I wasn’t convinced that there weren’t seeds of truth in that satirical fantasy he paints.

    There are extremes in all movements. I would say this qualifies as extreme, but people ought to know that it’s out there. As is the Man Boy Love Association who is still advocating for lowering the age of consent laws. So, if that’s satire, it’s too close to the truth to be amusing.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Here’s the closing comment from a news story on the protests today:

    Some say the election margin was a victory.

    “I’m very sad and there’s a lot of crying tonight,” said Bonnie Osborn of Sacramento. “But then you have to remember how close the election was. This was unthinkable a few years ago. It will happen.”

  4. ivoteyesonprop8 said,

    November 9, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    I love this post! Thanks for sharing. I love the pictures too. Sign holding was my favorite of all of our Prop 8 activities. ~Mikken

  5. November 9, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Once again, more brilliance from Beetle! As always, thanks for your insightful comments.

  6. Cathy Lim said,

    November 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    By their fruits ye shall know them. Is his image in your countenance… It is absolutely true that one look in someone’s eyes and a glance at the expression on his or her face speaks powerfully. Is it possible to feel peace and happiness in their presence, or just hate? It is ironic that the No on 8 protesters are waving signs about hate; sadly, they are the propagators of that hate, not their “opposition.” Happiness comes from living righteously. One doesn’t have to be perfect to be happy and at peace, but deliberately breaking the law of God will certainly never bring peace and happiness.
    Great blog! Our family moved to California in time to vote and I am so pleased we were able to be just a tiny part of the Yes on 8 movement.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    November 10, 2008 at 12:48 am

    Our family loved waving signs. It was contagious. You’d spend an hour or two waving and smiling and whooping, and when it was all over you just felt like the world was a better place. Just seeing all our neighbors out in the streets with us was heartening. On Halloween my kids all got together with their friends and went trick or treating. This was their own spontaneous door approach, “Trick or treat! Yes on 8!” every time. Trick or Treat! Yes on 8!

    Good memories there.

  8. marcia said,

    November 10, 2008 at 7:35 am

    Hi, this is my first visit to your blog. My son is serving his mission there in The Santa Rosa mission and has said the members there have been amazing in their hard work . I so appreciate the pictures and the words to the worries we have seen glimpses of on the news. Thank you for the coverage and showing the contrasts of the faces on both sides. We pray for all of you every day.

  9. James said,

    November 10, 2008 at 9:20 am

    I love the post, it really brings to light what some of the fundamentals of this fight really are.

  10. November 10, 2008 at 10:13 am

    What a terrific blog! Thanks for setting the record straight on this hot button issue. Wow, so true. The ‘eyes’ have it!

  11. Joe Creston said,

    November 10, 2008 at 10:46 am

    What will the response be when Religion is eliminated via popular vote? It’s coming…

  12. Delirious said,

    November 10, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    EXCELLENT blog! Wow, you are a gifted writer, and this blog says everything my awkward fingers want to type, but can’t seem to get out. :) You have made some really important points that I wish all of America would read. Keep up the great work!

  13. amy said,

    November 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    The stark difference between those protesting for gay rights and those wanting to protect their families is astounding. Their true colors are shining through.

  14. Rick said,

    November 10, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    My son pointed me to this excellent article. What great photos too. I regret I didn’t dash off to Salt Lake and snap a few photos of the protesters. But then again can you imagine me saying, ” Excuse me, I blogged in favor of Prop 8 and sent money, I hope you don’t mind. Now can you stand still while a get a picture of you carrying your signs and shouting at the temple goers.” I’ve started a blogroll called “Pro Marriage Posts” and added you as the first link, if that’s OK with you.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    November 10, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Thanks. I’ve realized lately that though prop8 is over, it’s just one battle in the war. We stirred a hornet’s nest out there. They’ll be back to fight another day. Thanks for linking.

  16. revright said,

    November 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    “Behavior is not a right.” Amen and amen! It is funny to me that “gay” people can actively choose a godless, immoral lifestyle, deliberately eschewing matrimony with the opposite sex as God intended, then expect everyone else to legally enshrine their behaviors. By making the godly choice, we “straights” have justly had our right to behave as husband and wife preserved for 5000 years!

  17. Joe Creston said,

    November 11, 2008 at 7:57 am

    Give me a break. With the divorce rate as high as it is, you are living in a dream. Behavior — look at the behavior of straights and how they disrespect marriage.

  18. mkw70 said,

    November 11, 2008 at 9:30 am

    I am utterly taken back by this article, especially where it is written that “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

    Gays are normal & stable. I know plentry of heterosexual people who are abinormal & unstable. I am married with children & take medicine to help me b/c I have PPB that has lead into a chemical imbalance.

    I am just really saddened about this whole thing.
    I am Mormon but I didn’t not support Prop 8, much like Steve Young’s wife. For me, gays have the right to love who they want & they should benefit just like heterosexuals. The only thing they do differently than heterosexuals goes on behind closed doors so who cares.

    This is in no way a flame. Just stating my opinion & how sad my heart is.
    This article is brillantly written!!!

  19. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Joe, even if people disrespect marriage, that doesn’t change why it was instituted. For the happiness and stability of our families, children and society. All those reasons still apply. If anything the current trends reinforce the need for marriage to stay whole.

  20. alan said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:22 am

    What? Do you think when someone is gay he is given “After the Ball” as some manual they are suppose to read and follow? I doubt most gay have ever heard of the book.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Actually, what I’m saying Alan is that even given these slick awesome tactics and arguments by the gay activists, we still were able to reach the people, and contrary to what the gay community is saying, it wasn’t by appealing to their darker side, in fact just the opposite.

  22. Duane said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:32 am

    I agree that marriage is an institute for the happiness and stability of families, children and society. But, obviously, it is not solely for procreation as we do not remove the right to be married if a couple is infertile, elderly or chooses not to have children. A a gay man, I am not a sexual deviant trying to undermine the institute of marriage. I love my nieces and nephews as there is no tomorrow, I pay my taxes (and a lot of them because we file singly), I give both time and tithe to my church, I want better schools and education for the kids as I believe children are our future and should be a priority for our society, I reach out and help my neighbors at every opportunity given. I have been in a loving, committed relationship for 11 years and am in a registered domestic partnership. But separate but equal is not equal as my relationship is seen as less than that of a hetero relationship–we are not married. All I am asking is for the opportunity to let the world know that my relationship means as much to me as any other relationship and is just as important to me as anyone else’s is to them. Thanks for reading. Peace.

  23. Duane said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:48 am

    I’d like to respond to revright who posted on November 10. I understand that it may appear that all gays live a godless and immoral lifestyle but it just isn’t so. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have been in a loving, committed relationship for 11 years. I tithe regularly and spend a lot of time reaching out to people letting them know that God loves all. True, I am not normal. But if you take a look at the world around us it is filled with abnormalities. Take the fact that one out of every 100 babies are born with ambiguous genitalia (both male and female parts). Usually, surgery is performed to make them ‘normal.’ God made me abnormal too–I’m among the small percentage of people whose wiring got crossed so I am attracted to my own sex. I didn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. I have met thousands of gay men and women in my lifetime and not one of them chose to be that way. The only people who claim that gay people choose to be that way are straight. As a straight person, you cannot choose to be gay. It is completely foreign to you, probably revolting and is in no way even a possibility. So it is with me and being straight. Thanks for reading. Peace to all.

  24. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:50 am

    Are the terms adoption and childbirth question of separate but equal? I can’t bear children naturally, so when I adopt a child I should have the right to demand that everyone call it child birth?

  25. Joe Creston said,

    November 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

  26. lahona said,

    November 11, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    No one argues that parents of adopted children love them any less than parents of natural born children. That is not being brought into question. But natural childbirth and adoption are still two totally different things. To try to call them the same thing would be confusing.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is totaly and completly different than a civil union between homosexuals. It is not because they love each other any more or less, or that the rights of homosexual couples are not equal. They are called by different terms because they are different.

  27. WaltzInExile said,

    November 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    beetlebabee @24 – you’re confusing apples and oranges. A much better question (although I’m sure you’ll disagree) is: when you adopt a child (a state-governed process), do you refer for the rest of your life to “my adopted child” (and therefore single out the differentness of that child, and also imply that child’s inferiority to one you bore yourself)? Or do you still get to call that child “MY CHILD” if you so desire, concomitant with all the rights of parenthood given to people who bear their children, rather than adopt them? Would you like it if someone proposed a law to prevent you from referring to that child as “my child” because it offended their idea that the only children you get are the ones God chooses to bless you with (or not)?

  28. November 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    @ Duane #22 and 23: I want to give you a big hug, wherever you are. I was raised a Christian and for the life of me I can’t understand how it jives with “Christian” values to deny marriage to two consenting adults.

    @ Lahona and many others: If you want to get into “this coupling is a totally different kind of thing than that coupling,” you may as well deny government-sanctioned marriage to observant Muslims. One may argue that a traditional Muslim marriage is veeerry different than a modern Christian marriage, yet you don’t see the government restricting which religions can have civilly sanctioned unions…

  29. Duane said,

    November 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Wow, great example Nymph. The government would never restrict Muslims from getting married because they are not practicing Christians. I also agree with waltzinexile that the adopted child analogy does not hold. No one would argue that the adopted child is adopted–it is what it is what is. But once adopted, the child takes on the title and status of son or daughter; society does not differentiate and the law sees no difference between an child adopted and one conceived by the couple. There is no ‘separate but equal’. Similarly, I am a gay man and if I was allowed to marry no one would dispute we were a same sex couple. It is what it is what it is. But, as married, I would have been seen as having the same status as any married couple in the eyes of my family, the eyes of society and the eyes of the law. As it stands, my registered domestic partnership is different from marriage in all areas–family, society and legally. By being registered with the state, my partnership affords me about 400 rights, of which I am extremely grateful. But marriage affords the heterosexual couple about 1,400 rights. As you can see, ‘separate but equal’ is not so equal. Thanks for reading my post. Peace.

  30. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Honestly if you feel the term for same sex partnerships is less than equal, the proper fight is to make it more equal rather than usurp a term that is already defined.

  31. lahona said,

    November 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Seperate but equal is possible a good example of this are mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms. Men are not better than women, women are not better than men. But they are given different bathrooms because they are different. Seperate but equal. To combine them would be totaly inapropriate.

  32. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    The adopted child analogy absolutely holds. There are some who see my children differently than I do. For me, there is no difference. For other people, they want to know why my children look different, why they have different noses. Our family deals with comments that our biological daughter looks just like her mommy, and the uncomfortable lack of comments about our sons. It’s just life. Nothing is exactly equal. We celebrate adoption in our home, we build it up and show people that it is equal, and then we don’t sweat the small stuff.

    In California, same-sex couples have every right that married couples have. Under federal law, it’s a different story. I have no objections to same sex couples celebrating civil unions. Take them, run with them, make them your own. Fight until you have legal rights the same as married couples. Unions or Marrieds, they are what they are. Different. It’s ok.

    What’s not ok is asking everyone to condone the morality of your choice and punishing them if they don’t by legal action.

  33. Duane said,

    November 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Then were we, as a nation, right in requiring African Americans to use their own restrooms, their own drinking fountains, their own restaurants, their own clubs?

  34. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I don’t see how that applies Duane. No one is advocating that gays be treated any differently.

  35. lahona said,

    November 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Duane, you are completly missing the point of my analogy. Do not confuse the civil rights movments of the 1960s to the passing of prop 8 and the fight over marriage. They are totaly and completly different issues. Gay marriage is not about civil rights. The best evidence of this is the african americans overwhelming support of prop 8. They above above all other groups who supported prop 8 would have recognized your struggle as similar to thier own if it was. But it wasnt and they went out of their way to say so. For more on this topic you need to refer to beetle’s post last month, “Is same sex marriage a civil right?”

    No ones rights were taken away, no one was made into a second class citizen. Homosexuals still have all the same rights as heterosexuals. Civil unions have the same legal status as Marriges in California. They are called by different names because they are different institutions. To state my privious argument, thats why we have mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms. Men are not better than women, women are not better than men. But they are given different bathrooms because they are different. To combine them would be totaly inapropriate. To combine civil unions and marriage would be inapropriate because they are different. Now if you believe that civil unions are not equal to marriage, then you need to fight to give civil unions the same rights that marriages have. Do not seek to change the definition of marriage.

  36. lahona said,

    November 12, 2008 at 5:35 am

    I stated civil unions are DIFFERENT than marriage. I never said that they werent equal. Under California state law, they are equal. If you believe that civil unions are not equal to marriage, then you need to fight to give civil unions the same rights that marriages have. Do not seek to change the definition of marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: