Mixed Doubles: Our New Civil Rights Struggle

Mixed Doubles: Our New Civil Rights Struggle
By Mike Adams
6/4/2012

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. For eighteen years, I’ve been playing singles tennis. But, recently, I decided to switch to doubles in an effort to attenuate some back and knee pain I’ve been experiencing on the hard courts. So my friend Gary Faulkner and I decided to sign up to play doubles for the local tennis club. Gary, being somewhat effeminate, decided we should sign up for mixed doubles. Although technically a male, Gary likes to occasionally play the role of a female.

Unfortunately, the Wilmington Tennis Foundation (WTF) rejected our request to play mixed doubles. They insisted that the definition of mixed doubles requires a man and a woman. They further insisted that the terms “man” and “woman” are determined objectively. In other words, it isn’t enough that someone plays the role of a woman. She actually has to be a woman to qualify as a woman. In the wake of the WTF reaction, Gary plans to file a complaint with the Obama Department of Justice.

For those who are not Swift enough to detect satire, Gary Faulkner is not really my friend. To the contrary, he is a gay rights activist who is deeply distraught over North Carolina’s recent passage of Amendment One limiting the definition of mixed doubles – oops!, I mean marriage – to unions involving one man and one woman.

Gary Faulkner’s strong emotional reaction to the vote is perplexing for two reasons: 1) He insisted that Amendment One was “unnecessary” prior to its passage, and 2) He was already married before the amendment came up for a vote. Both of these points are important and deserve separate treatment below.

First, anyone following the Amendment One controversy in North Carolina knows that it was necessary to pass in order to keep judicial activists from redefining marriage by judicial fiat. Gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner know that blocking the judiciary with a constitutional amendment was the only way to preserve the institution of marriage from Marxist social engineers who want government, not family, to be the foundation of society. Were the amendment unnecessary, Faulkner would not be so emotionally distraught in the wake of its passage. In fact, Gary Faulkner hasn’t been this upset since Victor Willis of the Village People married a woman.

Second, heterosexual gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner do not lead the march for same-sex marriage out of a love for gay people. Most do it out of a hatred of Christians. Faulkner, who has a well-documented history of making hate-filled and defamatory statements about Christians, has a political motive for supporting same-sex marriage. He wants marriage re-defined. Then he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies stripped of their tax-exempt status. Finally, he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies shut down in the name of “equality” and “tolerance.” The result would be a nation in which the only Christian churches remaining would be those that have abandoned basic Christian principles.

It’s been a hard few weeks for Gary Faulkner. But he holds out hope for the future by referencing the fact that young people are more supportive of same-sex marriage than older people. That’s because Gary and his Marxist contemporaries have gained the kind of control over the schools that they have not yet gained over the churches.

Of course, the fatal flaw (and I mean that literally) in Gary Faulkner’s grand vision for America is that he and his Marxist contemporaries have been pushing abortion as steadfastly as they have been pushing same-sex marriage. The problem with abortion is that it produces an aging population that does not replenish itself. As people age, they have a tendency to discard silly emotionally-driven ideas – like the idea that 96-98% of society’s conformists should re-arrange themselves on behalf of 2-4% of its deviants.

If Gary Faulkner were not such a champion of abortion rights, 53 million more people would have been born since 1973. About two million of them would have been homosexuals eligible to marry someone of the same sex. And, who knows, some of them might have played mixed doubles in their spare time.
_____________________________________________________

To read another article by Mike Adams, click here.