“Friends! Brethren! Countrymen!–That worst of plagues, the detested tea, shipped for this port by the East India Company, is now arrived in the harbor.” -Boston, November 29, 1773

Intolerable Acts. The very sound of such words reeks of a tyrannical villainy that exceeds the “run of the mill” oppression normally associated with a bloated, out of control government. However, it also reeks of something else: A people who believe they deserve better and are unwilling to tolerate the tyranny, regardless of the ramifications of resistance. Despite the insistence from our president otherwise, we descend from a good, decent and independent people. However, our government, unable and unwilling to acknowledge this fact, is re-instituting a policy of Intolerable Acts, and we need only consult our wise ancestors in order to discern the remedy.

In colonial times, an arrogant English monarchy, its’ treasury having been depleted by the French and Indian War, decided it could recoup its’ losses by levying a series of new taxes on their American colonies. The Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Act of 1767 along with the infamous Boston Massacre agitated the colonists, but when the Crown to tax tea, the colonists revolted. They refused to pay the taxes required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. Parliament then retracted the taxes with the exception of the tax on tea, this remained as a demonstration of Parliament’s right and willingness to tax the colonies.

In concocting a scheme not unlike the political shenanigans of modern times, they gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Parliament then reduced the tax the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The scheme would actually allow Americans to get their tea at a cheaper price than before. However, if the colonies paid the tax on the imported tea, they would be acknowledging the English Parliament’s right to tax them. It was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deprive themselves of their tea. It was a big mis-calculation. Our ancestors were not so easily deceived by Parliamentary trickery.

In Boston, the arrival of three ships loaded with tea ignited a furious reaction. On December 16, 1773 as many as 7,000 agitated locals gathered about the wharf where the ships were docked. The colonists demanded the ships leave…without paying the tea taxes. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without paying the tea taxes. A stalemate? No, our ancestors had a surprise for  the English Crown. 200 men, many disguised as Indians, marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters. This was the first, and most famous tea party…but by no means, the last.

In early 2009, within the first month of the presidency of Barack Obama, his administration sought, and acquired, the single biggest booty in the history of theft, when the newly elected Democratic majority pilfered the United States Treasury for 787 billion dollars under the guise of an economic stimulus. The fact that the United States did not have 787 Billion dollars was not an impediment, they simply borrowed and printed the money. The public, having just voted out a republican president and majorities in congress for, among other things, excessive spending, reacted with hostility to this intolerable action. Suddenly, taxpayer tea-parties started popping up all across the country. The movement led to a massive display of over a million people at a demonstration in Washington DC on September 12, 2009. Millions more were participating in similar events nationwide. This government was put on notice that it has our attention, and it has earned our contempt.

However, the Obama administration, like King George’s before him, does not handle criticism well. If you will recall your history, the English Crown responded to the Boston Tea Party by imposing a series of laws sponsored by British Prime Minister Lord North in 1774. These laws, known as the “Intolerable Acts,” were the harshest laws ever imposed by Parliament against the colonies. They included:

1. QUARTERING ACT: Allowed British troops to stay in houses or empty buildings if barracks were not available.

2. QUEBEC ACT: Granted civil government and religious freedom to Catholics living in Quebec. This was a direct insult to Americans in the colonies, who had been denied the same sorts of rights that the Quebec residents were being granted.

3. MASSACHUSETTS BAY REGULATING ACT: Made all law officers subject to appointment by the royal governor and banned all town meetings that didn’t have approval of the royal governor.

4. BOSTON PORT ACT: Closed the port of Boston until the price of the destroyed tea was recovered, moved the capital of Massachusetts to Salem, and made Marblehead the official port of entry for the Massachusetts colony.

5. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT: This allowed the royal governor of a colony to move trials to other colonies or even to England if he feared that juries in those colonies wouldn’t judge a case fairly.

Whether it be through arrogance or ignorance our current president has revived the spirit of the “Intolerable Acts.” In fact, when comparing the policies and initiatives of the Obama administration and his congressional democrat catspaws, to that of the British Crown’s colonial impositions, there is an eerie similarity. It would appear, however, that the modern version is exponentially more…intolerable! Let’s have a look at them.

1. HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT: For some reason I see this as having considerable similarity to the 1774 Quartering Act in that it has the potential to be the most intrusive trespass of government into our lives. Almost every aspect of your life can be controlled through government administered and regulated Health Care. Everything from what you eat to where you live can be evaluated to determine your health risk. By rendering the health care system a slave of government regulation, it will come to pass that government bureaucrats will have a say in EVERY aspect of your behavior. Behavior viewed as risky, such as eating at fast food restaurants, consuming soft drinks or even sexual behavior, will be vulnerable to regulation with just this act alone. Privacy and freedom be damned! They might as well be living with you in your house, just as the British soldiers who were being quartered in our ancestors homes, against their wishes.

If you think I’m exaggerating, consider this example: The United States Department of Health and Human Services has already conducted a study to determine the health risks of firearms. Once the Health Care Reform Act becomes law, the U.S. Constitution will not be able to stop government bureaucrats from issuing a finding of “endangerment” and then, by fiat, they will restrict or deny you the right to possess or own firearms in the name of reducing health care costs. Why do you think progressives are salivating at the prospects of passing this damnable law? In one stroke, they can assume dictatorial control over EVERYONE’S life.

The Health Care Reform Act is not the product of a limited constitutional government, but instead is an attempt at limiting freedom. The president claims passage of this would be an historic achievement on behalf of the American people. This colossal invasion of a centralized  “command and control” apparatus into the health care system will unleash a tyranny that will ultimately destroy the doctor-patient relationship, ration health care and stifle medical innovation. Do you believe this is being done for YOUR benefit?

TOLERANCE ACT: As with the Quebec Act of 1774, this intolerable act involves recognizing “rights” or status for certain groups at the expense of others. This is best displayed with the recent signing into law of Hate Crimes legislation that, among other things, allows for homosexual victims of crimes to be classified as a protected class of citizen and therefore crimes against them are subject to greater punishment than crimes against others not listed as a protected class. This atrocity is an offense to the idea of equal justice under the law. Worse, is the fact that someone who criticizes the homosexual lifestyle on religious grounds can find themselves charged with a Hate Crime should any harm come to a homosexual, in spite of the fact that the religious speaker wasn’t involved in the crime. This effectively invalidates free speech protections. It appears that some people are now more equal than others to the point that they are legally beyond criticism.

But it doesn’t stop there. Equality engineering is also at the heart of the homosexual marriage agenda that is poisoning our political discourse. Homosexuals insist they are being discriminated against because their “relationships” are not recognized as a marriage. They see only their individual rights where marriage is supposed to be defined as a union. When two homosexuals combine 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2. Yet when a man and a woman combine in a relationship 1+1 equals a lot more. Not just in the children created, but in the mutual sacrifice of the couple in raising new citizens. Every successful society throughout history has recognized this marriage based family model as the centerpiece of its civilization. How can homosexuals claim their relationships are equal to that? Their demand to reduce marriage into nothing more than two individuals’ self-interests is not only selfish, but evil and intolerable.

But the Tolerance Act just keeps on giving. This myth of equality is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s war on American exceptionalism. Obama, always trying to level the playing field, would deny the United States its’ role as sole superpower to instead have us be just one nation among the cooperative of world nations. Obama is also trying to destroy the relationship between excellence and reward in our own country. Achievement is, in his sight, a sign of inequality and unfairness that requires correction. Community organizing and pandering to parasites super-cedes constitutional protections for individual rights and freedom. As the schoolchildren sing: all are equal in HIS sight. Therefore, he justifies granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, tolerance of Islamo-fascism, and racial preferences for jobs and college admissions as a form of reparations for America’s alleged past transgressions. Intolerable.

THE CZAR ACT: Like the Massachusetts Bay Regulating Act before it, The Czar Act unlawfully concentrates federal power in the executive branch of government. Unelected Czars appointed by presidents without congressional approval has been a growing problem in recent administrations. However the Obama administration has more Czars than congressionally approved cabinet members…39!! With thirteen more projected for future appointment! This is a massive delegation of authority to unelected bureaucrats. Their rules have the power of law…made by regulators, adjudicated by regulators and enforced by the executive branch. It is essentially a shadow government that answers only to the president. Take a look at his appointments, a more wretched hive of left wing villainy could not easily be found…

1. Herb Allison (TARP Czar)
2. Alan Bersin (Border Czar)
3. Dennis Blair (Intelligence Czar)
4. Ron Bloom (Car Czar)
5. John Brennan (Terrorism Czar)
6. Carol Browner (Energy and Environment Czar)
7. Adolfo Carrion Jr. (Urban Affairs Czar)
8. Ashton Carter (Weapons Czar)
9. Aneesh Chopra (Technology Czar)
10. Jeffery Crowley (AIDS Czar)
11. Cameron Davis (Great Lakes Czar)
12. Nancy-Ann DeParle (Health Czar)
13. Earl Devaney (Stimulus Accountability Czar)
14. Linda Douglass (Dis-Information Czar)
15. Joshua DuBois (Faith Based Czar)
16. Arne Duncan (Education Czar)
17. Kenneth Feinberg (Pay Czar)
18. Daniel Fried (Guantanamo Closure Czar)
19. J. Scott Gration (Sudan Czar)
20. David Hayes (California Water Czar)
21. Richard Holbrooke (Afghanistan Czar)
22. John Holdren (Science Czar)
23. Kevin Jennings (Safe Schools Czar)
24. Gil Kerlikowske (Drug Czar)
25. Ron Kirk (Trade Czar)
26. Vivek Kundra (Information Czar)
27. Mark Lloyd (Media Diversity Czar)
28. Douglas Lute (War Czar)
29. George Mitchell (Mideast Peace Czar)
30. Ed Montgomery (Auto Recovery Czar)
31. Lynn Rosenthal (Domestic Violence Czar)
32. Dennis Ross, (Central Region Czar)
33. Gary Samore (WMD Policy Czar)
34. Todd Stern (Climate Czar)
35. Larry Summers (Economic Czar)
36. Cass Sunstein (Regulatory Czar)
37. Michael Taylor (Food Czar)
38. Paul Volcker (Economic Czar)
39. Jeffery Zients (Government Performance Czar)
40. Van Jones (Green Jobs Czar) Oops, this self described COMMUNIST resigned after it was revealed he was a 9/11 truther. Apparently, however, being a convicted felon and a communist was just fine with this administration.

Worse, even than the proliferation of these unelected overlords, is who they are. These Czars are among the most radical, totalitarian leftists this country’s godless institutions of higher education have ever produced:

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, is a eugenicist that has laid out plans in his book, Ecoscience, for forced sterilizations and forced abortions as a means of population control. He stated that population control laws could be constitutional, under the right perception. Holdren also proposed such atrocities as forced adoptions for babies born out of wed-lock and claims that forced sterilization of women would be easier to enforce than men. What a guy, huh? He might appear reasonable, if only by comparison, to the half-wit Cass Sunstein who is Obama’s regulatory Czar. He has publicly stated a desire to impose regulatory agendas such as outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption. That’s right, he wants your cat to have the legal right to file a lawsuit against you. Of course your cat will be represented by an ACLU attorney who is a quackaloon liberal that talks to cats and knows what they want. I have a cat and if they have their way, she won’t just think she’s in charge..she will be!

Harold Koh, Obama’s pick as Legal Adviser to the State Department, is a self-described trans-nationalist who has openly stated that judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal “norms.” So much for national sovereignty! Applying Sharia law in US courts is more than acceptable to this man, and, in his child-like world, the United States constitutes an “axis of disobedience” along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq. Moral relativism at its finest.

“In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson

Now you know what he means by “mischief.” Unfortunately, our constitution is bound in chains by these unconfirmed, unelected and unconstitutional parasites that are sucking our freedom away right in front of us. Are we really powerless to stop this or, worse, are we just indifferent?

CAP AND TRADE ACT: Not unlike the Boston Port Act of 1774, the Cap and Trade legislation pending in the Senate would punitively restructure our economy based on the false premises of man-made global warming and the alleged climate debt that Western industrialized nations “owe” the world for emitting C02 into the atmosphere. The progressives, who bear a hatred for our petroleum based energy economy, have clicked their heels and repeated three times “there’s no energy like wind and solar, there’s no energy like wind and solar, there’s no energy like wind and solar.” All we are waiting for now is the wizard to make it all work.

The Senate, however, is balking at passing this economy killing legislation so the American Politburo, masquerading as the Obama administration, has circumvented the law. This of course is what all progressives do even as they expect you to follow the laws THEY create. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a finding of “endangerment” for carbon dioxide. That’s right, a naturally occurring ingredient in the breath we exhale is now labeled as dangerous. By issuing this finding the EPA, under the authority of the Clean Air Act of 1990, can therefore regulate all carbon emissions nationwide.

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” -White House Official under condition of anonymity

Command and Control is the dream of all liberals. They know what’s best for us and are righteously indignant at having to constantly explain their “good” intentions and get the consent of the governed. So they threaten EPA regulation in an attempt to not only blackmail the Senate into passing disastrous Cap and Trade legislation, but also to express their willingness to act dictatorially if they wish. This, in spite of the fact that the Clean Air Act of 1990 is congressional legislation that congress can amend or rescind if they wish…and they better do it fast. This administration is fast rendering congress irrelevant. A dictatorship, always the result of liberalism, is on our horizon.

IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT: This is EXACTLY like the 1774 Intolerable Act that bears the same name. This allowed the royal governors to move trials in the interest of “fairness” as defined by the government. Does this sound familiar? The announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he is going to give 911 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his co-conspirators civil trials in New York City has re-opened this intolerable wound. Once again we have the spectre of progressive moral relativism being imposed on the citizens of the United States. An enemy combatant, that does not even acknowledge the rules of the Geneva Convention, is going to be tried as an ordinary criminal, with the full accompaniment of rights and protections of an American citizen. History is indeed repeating itself.

This administration came in hell-bent on prosecuting the military and intelligence apparatus that so successfully kept a repeat of the 9/11 attacks from occurring for seven years. Apparently this Attorney general, with the approval of his boss, believes the terrorists had reasonable grievances against the United States and now he has given them a worldwide platform from which to advance their cause. In the process, the progressives will get to put the United States on trial, particularly the Bush administration and the CIA, and portray the United States as a villain deserving the “social justice” that the terrorists administered.

Do not think these trials will serve any other purpose. Other countries don’t give enemy combatants the right to a civil trial. This passes for original thinking in this administration. Terrorists should be tried in military tribunals, as had already been agreed upon and which then senator Barack Obama supported. However this administration cannot even bring themselves to call them terrorists! They are consumed with the politics of American guilt…and it is intolerable!

In a culture that celebrates victims and their victimization, we must now accept that we too have become victims. Victims of a progressive  attempt to fundamentally transform America either through our acquiescence to these intolerable actions, or through a deliberate attempt to over burden our government and economy with more debt and expectations than it can possibly handle. The collapse of our economy excites progressives as it will create an opportunity to rebuild a new America in their own image. An image of command and control, where those who know better do our thinking for us. Our portion is obedience.

This strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis, has a name and is well documented, and revered, among the elitist, progressive American left. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. I urge you to discover it for yourself. Read it, learn it and fight it.

Progressives, socialists and liberals of all stripes talk a good game, but they are not the type to sacrifice anything for their beliefs. They speak often of the poor and weak in our society but you will never see a liberal take a vow of poverty and dedicate himself to helping them. They simply exploit their misery to further their quest for control. Remember this the next time a liberal invokes Jesus or tries otherwise to conceal himself in religious foliage in an attempt to guilt his victims into accepting social policies that encourage parasitism.

Destroying the United States is their objective and “by any means necessary” is their moral code. They want the rest of us to accept poverty  in the name of “equality” and “social justice” while they appoint themselves as bearers of the burden of managing our lives for us. This is the ultimate Intolerable Act.

Friends! Brethren! Countrymen! That worst of plagues, progressivism, has now infested our government rendering it intolerable. We must exterminate this government…by any means necessary! -Sidney Allen Johnson

Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration’s desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like…Christians! I bet you weren’t expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being “right” always comes with a price…

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state’s Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of “activism” in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex “marriage” in the state. Iowa’s high court said same-sex marriages “could begin” in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. “The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa,” King said. “This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law.” He called it the “most activist opinion that I have every read.”

Citing the court’s boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women’s rights, and equating same-sex “marriage” with those issues, King called the statement “a self-assigned confession of activists. It’s the will of the people that’s supposed to lead the way,” he said. “The constitution is not supposed to change unless it’s changed by the people. The ruling should “infuriate” every Iowan, he said. “I don’t think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law.”

Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren’t an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being “right,” and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things “right.” Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not “fix” it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.

Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section. - White House Website

Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a “protected” class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.

All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.

I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of “manufactured” intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling   majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being “right.”

The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. “Sola Scriptura” (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several “wars of religion” throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were “right.” As I’m sure our homosexual friends would agree, being “right” entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.

These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more “pagan” traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn’t you say?

The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show “tolerance” and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were “right.”

Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist “illegitimate authority.” Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.

The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.

Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles’ plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel’s back could bear. There would be no more.

The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.

August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.

What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were “baptized” in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word…anarchy.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that  values its traditional way of life.

Homosexuals often try to link their “efforts” to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of “traditional” values and the Huguenots stood against an “illegitimate authority.” Both were convinced they were “right.” Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an “illegitimate authority.” Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are “right.” They pursue “hate crimes” legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.

The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with…nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can’t claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be “haters” and “intolerant.” The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are “right,” is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.