Gifted Hands Mini Review Plus Digressions On Medical Marijuana, Gay Rights Vs Religious Rights And Remembering Crazy Anita Bryant

Written by Devtome contributor: Bomac


I recently streamed, Gifted Hands, The Ben Carson Story, starring Cuba Gooding Jr. on Netflix. My quickie review is simply that I tremendously enjoyed it and highly recommend it as quality family value entertainment that is filled with inspiration and positivity.

If this were just a movie, it would be excellent, but since it's a true story, it's in another stratosphere. Although, I may need to turn in my man card by admitting that there were multiple scenes in this watching experience, where I documented moisture in my upper facial area.

Not Seen On The Big Screen

By the way, it wasn't until reading some reviews after viewing Gifted Hands that I realized it wasn't a theatrical release. It was a truly well done, made for television production. I would think anyone involved with this content product would have left it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment.

I had to laugh at a review that said it was too, 'preachy'. There were a few, really scant, at that, references to Carson's faith and prayers. How silly, that in a biography of a deeply religious person, any hint of even tip-toeing around the individual's religious life is considered proselytizing.

A recurring theme in a number of my other contributions to the Devtome wiki is how I've awakened to the understanding that modern medicine (allopathy) is overused and in the vast majority of instances, I'm convinced it does more harm than good. Yet this film underscores the fact that there will always be a much needed place for allopathic medicine, and that when it's appropriate for the condition, there is nothing in the world that can hold a candle to it – not even close!

Medical Marijuana Vs Cutting Half Your Brain Out

That said, one of the areas where Carson was a trailblazing pioneer, hemispherectomies, a treatment for young children who suffer almost constant seizures, may actually virtually never be needed if marijuana oil (aka Rick Simpson oil, in the documentary, Run From The Cure)1) were legal and readily available. I mean, why take out half of a child's brain without first trying a natural solution that has no harmful side effects, and a proven track record? It was this use of cannabis oil that turned around CNN's medical expert Sanjay Gupta to the benefits of medical marijuana.2) I'd love to learn what Dr. Carson's stance on this issue is.3)

If I were a reporter, I'd make it a point to ask Carson his stance on how these children with the same massive seizure disorders that he would help by cutting out half their brains, were being cured with marijuana oil. After all, Carson is possibly running for President in the upcoming Republican primary and that is certainly a viable field of inquiry a lot of people would want to know, one way or the other, before voting for him.

Gay For The Stay

He is currently dealing with a bit of trouble over saying that prisoners having gay sex so readily during their time of incarceration shows that homosexuality is a choice. While I don't think it's nearly that simple, as a blanket statement, one has to admit, Carson's distinction sure makes it hard to deny that in many cases, homosexual activity is a choice. I personally never understood that, 'gay for the stay', choice, myself. I could be locked up for the rest of my life without ever making such a choice, but the reality is, an awful lot of people have always taken that exact option, including men who, outside of prison would be vociferous in negative judgement against homosexuality. I don't know what percentage of prisoners go down that road, but it sure doesn't seem to be tiny, by any means.

I have to admit, I've fairly often pondered the following: If for some bizarre reason, there were ever to be situations where some some gay men were put into women's prisons – or gay women were placed in a men's prisons, (never allowing any of the gay, other-gendered individuals to be in the same space), I wouldn't be surprised if some of the homosexuals in each gender made the choice to be, 'straight for the wait.“ Did I convey that sufficiently?

I'm saying that I could see some hard core 100% lesbians hooking up with men, and hard core 100% gay men, hooking up with women, even though it goes against their natural orientation. Nonetheless, regardless of all the actual, gay for the stay, choices prisoners make, or my speculative, straight for the wait, decisions I believe would be made – that, in no way, proves that sexual orientation is a simple matter of choice.

What Republicans And Christians Should Do Regarding The Same Gender Marriage Issue

In a separate Devtome post I explained why I feel that if gay marriage had been an issue in the time and setting of the story of Jesus, he would not have tried to use his influence to prevent it from becoming law. In fact I said he'd vote yes on a gay marriage initiative. When it comes to gay marriage, without repeating that entire post, I will say that Republicans and/or religious people could fare much better politically, by stating that they they don't agree with gay marriage but they don't think it should be illegal. I mean, even if you believe it's a sin, you must know that not all sins are crimes, (at least outside of Sharia law.) Therefore, if something isn't a crime, it simply shouldn't be illegal. We don't deny people equal rights due to sinning.4)

Religious or otherwise traditional individuals may choose not to take part in it, but that doesn't mean they have the right to deny other people their God given free will to make their own choices and deal with whatever spiritual, eternal consequences there may be. That general concept is one of many distinctions in the story of Jesus that the Pharisees could never get a handle on.

People who are against same sex marriage simply need to wake up and smell the prevailing winds of change. Whether they are concerned with sin, or simply historical tradition – either way, by the day – they are literally becoming a dying breed, and it won't be long before most people view them the same way they view people who believe there should be laws preventing Caucasians from marrying non Caucasians. They will be judged as anachronistic embarrassments. (However, that is not the reason they should change their stance. The reason, as stated above, is that we don't punish people or deny them equal rights, for exercising their God granted free will to sin. Honoring God's free will is not condoning actions you believe to be sinful. It's simply letting God be the Judge.)

What About Forcing Religious Vendors To Work Gay Weddings?

However, as far as I'm concerned, it's another conversation altogether when it comes to forcing various vendors, like photographers, to work same gender weddings. What about their right to decline jobs that they feel detract from their religious convictions? If some heterosexual swingers were getting married, and there were plans for the ceremony and party to include nudity and fondling, people with religious convictions would turn that down if they have dedicated their lives to glorifying God as they understand God, and if they believe that God would not want to be a part of such a ceremony.

It has nothing to do with some kind of bigotry or bad wishes for the people. It's simply not what they are comfortable doing. There are numerous scriptures in the bible to say homosexual activity is a sin. Most Christians probably interpret and extrapolate such scripture to infer that they would be sinning to be a part of such a ceremony. Yet laws are being passed and enforced to make people with such religious convictions accept such jobs, or face consequences that could include civil and even criminal liability, and potential even force them out of business if they refuse to be forced into going against their deeply held religious beliefs.

Mixed Feelings

I have such mixed feelings about this. Although I must say, as much as I support same gender marriage rights, most of my feelings on this issue reside in the camp of people who believe they should be able to have the right to turn down such jobs based on religious beliefs. I also wish that gay activists didn't feel the need to force the issue, and I wonder how far they intend to go.

My belief is that as long as there are no laws forcing churches to hold same gender wedding ceremonies, religious individuals should simply live and let live when it comes to gay marriage. Yes, be on record with their beliefs that it's sinful, but don't deny people their free will or their equal rights under the law. However now that I see gay activists are actively searching for people with religious convictions who would prefer to not work gay weddings, not because they actually want to hire them, but simply to find them and report them and publicly expose them and perhaps sue them, I can't help but think the future trend will be to try to force religious people to hold same gender wedding ceremonies in their churches, synagogues and mosques.

Why So In Yo Face All The Time?

I find this gung ho activism troublesome. It is not in the spirit of live and let live. It's more like trying to force public acceptance. It would be like having a group of flaming gay men wearing hot pants with their butt cheeks hanging out parading around church picnics, making out with each other just because they know that church people don't want to be around such activity or to have their kids witness it. What's the point? It creates more resistance, not less.

I have to believe that most gay people wouldn't want to give their money to people who don't wish to be hired by them anyway. In many cases, (if not most instances) they would likely prefer to hire gay vendors and support their own community. I can't imagine if I were getting married that I would want to seek out a Muslim owned photography business if I knew the owners really didn't like being around people who didn't believe Mohammed was a blessed prophet.


Yet, on the other hand, I realize that society changed for the better when racist restaurant and other business owners were forced to either, allow all “races”5) to be customers, or to close their doors. When people mix together it becomes apparent that we are all alike in many of the most fundamental human ways. Even if business owners never changed, many customers who had always been segregated got the benefit of shopping, eating, and working with people who looked different from them.

So yes, I would not be surprised that as a result of being forced to work some gay weddings, some religious vendors who are intolerant might start to become more tolerant, somewhat similar to the way, intolerant parents of a gay child often grow toward tolerance after the son or daughter comes out to them. On the other hand, I'm sure that would not always be the case, and it might not even be the norm. It could foster resentment on top of intolerance. It will result in many people feeling forced to closed down their businesses. If gays are preaching the message of acceptance, perhaps they could consider accepting the fact that there are people who don't feel right about taking jobs working at same gender weddings. Why is it, among so many gay activists, acceptance only seems to be a one way street?

That is not to suggest that every religious vendor who doesn't want to work same gender weddings is actually intolerant. I know many, if not most, hard core liberals and gay individuals may disagree, but I submit that this situation is different than a person who is deeply racist.

Not All About Hatred

Racists are often hateful. Hatred is not usually the motivation among Christian wedding vendors who desire the right to discriminate against accepting gay wedding jobs. 6) I'm sure some religious people, including some self identified Christians, hate gay people, but it's ridiculous to pretend that they all do. There is, no doubt, a quite significant percentage of religious people (perhaps the majority of Christians, actually) – who have no hatred for homosexual individuals. They are often the very best of neighbors to them. They have homosexual friends and they pray for them just as they pray for their family members. They are not lying to anyone, including themselves, when they say they love the homosexual but not the homosexuality.

Many Christians would absolutely risk their life for a gay person, exactly as they would do for a straight individual. Many of those same Christians simply want the right to respectfully decline job opportunities working same gender weddings, and to not have to shut down their businesses as a result of their convictions. Whether accurate or not, they believe it is what God wants of them. That is quite different from an ignoramus who thinks he's sharing wisdom when he constantly repeats that, “The only good nigger is a dead one.” Yet so many liberals and gay activists love to lump some very loving Christians into the same group as those assholes. It's not realistic and it doesn't further the cause of tolerance to misjudge and mislabel people in that manner.

It's Quite A Quandary Though

Not all discrimination is bad. We discriminate with our choices of friends, activities, spouses, donations to organizations, art, entertainment, food, and so on. You might think that when it comes to groups of people that all discrimination should be illegal, but stop and think about that. How about the group of people who never pay their bills? Should companies be forced to give them credit cards? Or what about groups of people with violent criminal histories? Should you not be allowed to discriminate against such a group member who wants to fill a job vacancy you are hiring for?

Some people might say that they are okay with outlawing discrimination based on skin color or gender, but it's going too far to include sexual orientation. That is related to what we've been discussing here, but not entirely. We have zeroed in on forcing people to not be able to turn down business, serving gay weddings.

I believe the vast majority of religious individuals who are wedding vendors who prefer not to work same gender weddings, probably do not support the right of people and businesses to carry out a blanket discrimination policies against homosexuals. For instance, if they owned a grocery store, they would not seek the right to put up signs saying, “Homos aren't welcome here, so get your pansy asses the hell of this store.”

They aren't looking for laws saying that anybody who wants to rent a hotel room from them has to sign an affidavit promising they are not attracted to people of the same gender. They don't think that companies should have a check mark on their job application forms for people who are gay, so they can choose to only hire them if they were to open an exclusively gay division of the company. Wedding gigs are a special case because with extremely few exceptions throughout what we know of human history, marriage has always been heterosexual; and because religions have always proscribed homosexuality; and in some vendor's cases, because they become an integral part of the activity, virtually as participants.

Should There Be Special Laws For Wedding Vendors?

There is no doubt that the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, et al, would consider that subheading, above, downright laughable, sad and troglodyte, but I think it should be open for discussion, because the societal change of gay weddings is virtually uncharted territory in known human history. This is something entirely new to humanity, on a mass scale. It, very likely, won't be too long before all 50 (or as Obama would say, 57) of the states will sanction gay marriage.

It's not simply that it's an unprecedented massive social change that is at play here. It's the clash of this change with deeply held religious convictions. The United States was founded on the right to worship as one sees fit. The tradition of the scriptures which tend to say that marriage is between people of the other gender, goes back thousands of years.

Then there is the fact that some of the type of wedding vendors play such an incremental role in the wedding that it's different than a gay person simply coming in and buying merchandise from you store. Photographers and wedding planners are very much a part of the event. To some extent, flower vendors who actually come to the event to set up and take down the arrangements are also included in the category. What about ordained ministers who have a private business, making themselves available to private weddings outside of their church? They no longer have the right to that extra income, because they don't want to violate their personal mores and spiritual convictions?

Here you have people who steadfastly believe it's a sin against God, and yet they are being forced to sin. This seems entirely justifiable for laws that would make exceptions for discrimination when it comes to same gender weddings.

How About The Religious Activist That Proved A Double Standard?

You may have heard about the activist who decided to test the waters7) by turning things around. He evidently targeted gay owned bakeries. He asked for cakes with bible verses against gay sex. (There actually aren't bible verses against gay marriage, but the meaning is generally interpreted as to extrapolate to marriage.) When bakery owners refused, he took them to court.

He lost. It does seem to exemplify a double standard. Religious people who believe it's a sin for them to make a cake with two grooms or two brides are penalized or forced to do so, but gay bakers (or otherwise gay rights sympathizing bakers) are allowed to discriminate against religious customers who ask for bible verses they disagree with to be put on their cakes. The discrimination laws say that discriminating based upon a person's religion is illegal. Period.

Sure, you can argue that the gay baker would be willing to sell him a cake without the bible verses. Therefore it's not like he is refusing to sell cakes to Christians. However, it can also be argued that the Christian photographer would be willing to work the wedding if they would change it to a man and a woman. It's not that they refuse to work with gay people, just gay weddings.

Furthermore, something the gay baker doesn't have going for him or her is there is no religious conviction inspiring him/her to refuse to fulfill the Christian's cake order. It may be a deeply held belief, but it's not a religious one. There are no discrimination laws about people with deeply held, non religious beliefs.

Over The Top

Some people are referring to the over the top type of super aggressive gay activism as the gay mafia. For many years there have been instances in school sex education programs where young children are being indoctrinated to learn about homosexuality. In many instances, they are actually taught the mechanics of anal sex, in the primary grades, and in some instances, even in kindergarten.

These activists would call me a hateful homophobe for being against such activism and class curriculum. That's rather ironic since I'm a staunch supporter of same gender marriage rights.

Now the trend is to tell young children that they may be the other gender. They say, just because you have a vagina, you may really be boy. Or just because you have a penis, don't let that stop you from being a girl.

They are creating gender confusion where none would have existed. It's one thing to be accepting of people who feel their spirit got assigned the wrong body.8) It's something else entirely to expose young children to any kind of sexual acts as well as to create gender confusion.

People Still Discriminate In Spite Of Laws

I have no doubt that people of color, as they say,9) experience discrimination throughout their lives, despite the various laws against it. I'm sure many black people are not sold houses, strictly because of the skin color. The same holds true on missing out on jobs or admissions to groups and organizations.

I guess that is reason I have never been too upset by the reverse discrimination of quotas, and Affirmative Action. I feel it's more or less fair, to make up for all the discrimination that continues despite the equal rights laws. I would always say that they should exist until there is fair representation, or at least, until there is significant movement toward that goal, but it never seems to happen, so I'm not sure what the answer is.

As I get older, I'm looking more for policies that offer a hand up, as opposed to a hand out, and I'm wondering which one Affirmative Action is. But that's not really the point I intended to bring up. I was going to say that despite the fact that there is a lot of discrimination still going on, the group we have been discussing here, Christian vendors, seem to be in a position that makes it more difficult for them to get away with discrimination, less so than many other people.

For instance, the person selling her home can claim that a previous looker came through with a higher offer, and generally speaking, no one is going to be the wiser. The company hiring somebody can say they chose the most qualified candidate based on many different factors including the interview process. It's all but impossible to prove you didn't get the job because of your protected status.

However, if you book your wedding with a photographer, without telling her it's a same gender wedding, but then when she discovers it, she refunds your deposit, it's going to be hard for her to hide the reason. Moreover, she may not lie, because as a Christian, she is convinced that could send her to hell – thus, she couldn't hide it anyway.

My Homophobic Loss Of Cash

If I were a photographer, I most certainly would not turn down money for gay wedding gigs, but a few decades ago, I did lose some gay cash due to my own homophobic issues. In the late 80s. I was driving a cab. There was a gay male club that often called for taxis. If the customer wasn't out there waiting for me, I never would go in and try to find out who called. I lost a number of fares that way.

After several minutes of sitting outside the door, if nobody came I would radio dispatch that it was DOA, dead on arrival. I actually didn't even like going into straight bars searching for my customer, but at the time, I absolutely couldn't handle doing that in a gay club.

I didn't mind having them as customers. My experience with them was virtually 100% positive. They were not problem customers, In fact, I used to have people give me grief when I'd tell them there was no smoking. It got to be that I knew I would not get grief if the person was gay or if she were black. Truly the most polite customers I had were black and gay. If they happened to be gay and black, they usually would even do the driving for me while I slept in the back seat. (OK, just kidding about that part.)

These days I would be much more inclined to go in. What's the difference all these years later? I guess more experience dealing with gay dudes. I suppose I must have feared that everybody got groped as soon as they walked in, or something. Plus, I also considered the possibility of someone seeing me coming out of the door and thinking I'm gay, but I can tell you, I didn't dislike them and I certainly didn't hate them.

How Can Christian Wedding Vendors Safely Opt Out Of Gay Wedding Gigs?

If I were a Christian wedding vendor who didn't want to do gay weddings, here is what I think I would do. First off, whenever someone would ask me if I would book gay wedding jobs, I'd say yes. That's because people who really don't even want to book them are going around looking for vendors who who say they won't accept them. Each person who does that, probably will only ask you once, but who knows how many people will do that.

I would make connections with other photographers and check to see if they were willing to work gay weddings. I'd tell them I might be sending some work their way. When gay wedding gigs came in, I would ask the date and tell them I will call them back shortly, once I confirmed I had availability that day. Then I would call one of the photographers I had spoken to before and get a commitment for the job. At that point I'd call the client and say that I am busy that day so my partner would be working it and tell them she would be calling them shortly.

If that was a set up and the customer asked me to clarify what was going on, I'd tell them the truth. I would say I was trying to protect my business and be true to my convictions without being trying to be offensive to them. If they say they are seeking legal address I would let the chips fall where they may. I'd be prepared to start looking for a replacement income stream. If it wasn't a set up, it would likely work quite nicely.

Since I was not taking/making money, I'd of accomplished my goal of staying true to my convictions, and the client would be satisfied because I made sure to funnel the work only to good vendors.

NO doubt, that would not work for a lot of religious vendors. They would still feel like they were party to the wedding, and/or that they were deceptive about the transaction. If I were in that group, I'd have no other choice than to pray for God's will and prepare for another line of income.

My Anita Bryant Experience

This topic has streamed my consciousness back to the time I met the MILF, Anita Bryant. A decade prior to my taxi days, I was a reporter on my home town weekly newspaper, while taking journalism in junior college. Anita Bryant was campaigning to influence the Dade County commission to codify the right of apartment renters to discriminate against gays, as well as the school board to not hire gay teachers. The reason she took the activist role was because one of the commissioners, Ruth Shack, had asked for her endorsement when she was a candidate.

Bryant quizzed her and said she would not endorse her if she supported anti discrimination laws for gays, since she believed that gays would be a bad influence on kids, and that Christians shouldn't have to rent to gays if they didn't want to. Shack promised her she wouldn't vote for anti discrimination laws, so Bryant, a somewhat popular singer and TV presence as the face of Florida orange juice, endorsed her. She won.

Then shortly after Shack was on the commission, she broke her promise to Bryant by voting to include sexual orientation in the nondiscrimination ordinance. It passed, and that made Bryant feel like she was responsible for homosexuality being condoned in her county. So she started a campaign to repeal the law. I wasn't assigned to write about it, but I took it upon myself to cover the event and see if my editor would publish my report. I went to the hearing where the commission was going to vote to repeal or not.

Smack Dab In The Middle Of Gay Activists

I got there early and there were only a few people in the seats. I sat about 4 rows from the back, in the middle. Later, a large group of people came in and sat all around me. I found out they were gay activists. The guy that sat to my right asked what my interest was. I told him I was there as a reporter for my paper.

I basically interviewed him before the proceedings got under way. It was quite eye opening, both what he had to say, and then the comments of the activists who spoke during the meeting. I was from a Christian home, and I had gone in, leaning toward believing that Bryant was doing the right thing, but by the end of the meeting, I was definitely leaning the other way.

One of the activists who spoke publicly mentioned the fact that gay teachers generally don't announce they are gay to begin with. It didn't even need to be addressed. He spoke about the myth that gays are more prone to molesting children than non gays. He said that psychologists no longer considered homosexuality as a mental illness, and that nobody should be denied a roof over there head because of what they did with consenting adults, just as good teachers shouldn't be denied their careers for the same reason. It all made sense to me.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

One funny thing happened. After the gay activist filled in all the seats, Christian activists filled in the back, in the standing room. I saw a friend of my mom's, who sometimes visited our church, but she was there with people from her church. I saw her look at me and then talk to her friend as soon as she spotted me.

I just knew she was saying that she knew who I was. So, I felt the need to get up and go over to her and make sure she knew I didn't come with the gay activist group. (Not that there is anything wrong with it.)10)

What Does Anita Bryant Have To Do With Cody Gifford's Mom?

I have friends who laugh at me when I admit various crushes I've had. For instance, Anita Bryant, Penny Marshall, Kathy Lee Grifford and one of the 1975 Sears Roebuck catalog panty hose models. Oh, you're laughing too? Whatever, bro.

Before I left the commission chamber, I ended up getting a short interview with Bryant. I forgot what I asked or what she said. I do remember lusting after her in my heart, as Jimmy Carter would say.11)

I went into work and turned in my article, only to find out that one of the main writers had already covered it. He wasn't there and didn't get an interview with Bryant though, so as far as I was concerned, I had scooped him.

The commission voted 5-3 in January of 1977, in favor Dade county ordinance 77-4, sponsored by her (former) friend, commissioner Ruth Shack. It extended the same anti discrimination rights to homosexual women and men that previously protected women and ethnic groups. Bryant successfully spearheaded the drive to repeal that aspect of the law via voter initiative in June, winning by more than a 2 to 1 margin.

The Irony

She probably would have never even started her anti gay rights activism in Miami, let alone taken it on the road, if not for Ruth Shack having asked for her endorsement, promising she would never support a gay rights ordinance. Bryant was initially very reluctant to be the face of such a campaign, but was persuaded, in large part, by a sense of guilt that she was partially responsible for the ordinance, since she had endorsed Shack, and Shack not only voted for the law, but was the commissioner who solely proposed it.

Funny how things happen like that, and the events they lead to. That whole anti gay thing effectively ended Bryant's secular career. It inspired a boycott of Florida orange juice which lost her that steady six figure gig along with various other jobs. The previous year, 1976, she had pulled in $700,000 (more than $3 million today), but within a few short years, virtually everything had dried up. There was also lot of personal pressure that contributed to the dissolution of her marriage in 1979.

The divorce brought with it a rather powerful backlash from many of her former supporters. Much of it was so strong and negatively emotional, it had the effect of causing Bryant to rethink many of her actions. She said, in an interview in the Ladies Home Journal that while she would have done it again, she definitely would have done it differently.

She said, “The church needs to be more loving, unconditionally, and willing to see these people as human beings, to minister to them and try to understand.”

When it came to women's issues in the church and Christian families she said, “The church needs to wake up and find some way to cope with divorce and women's problems that are based on Biblical principles. I believe in the long run God will vindicate me. I've about given up on the fundamentalists, who have become so legalistic and letter-bound to the Bible.”

Did She Really Say That?

However, during the heat of the various anti gay rights battles, before the softening of her stance, she did a Playboy interview. Personally, I'd of much preferred a pictorial. Parts of the interview was pretty amazing – not in a good way. She wasn't satisfied with simply keeping it legal to discriminate against homos. She believed in a form of, let's call it, Christian Sharia law.

You know how I earlier said that Christian's should say that homosexual sex is a sin but it's not a crime? She actually wanted to make it a crime. To borrow a line from Quentin Tarintino, she wanted to go old testament on their ass. She literally called for putting homosexuals in prison for the crime of consenting adult same gender sex. The interviewer asked her about people who may have simply experimented with it but decided that wasn't for them. She had that figured out. Oh yes.

A person could have 3 same homosexual encounters. They would be given a pass. Once they had the fourth experience, then Katie bar the door. All bets were off. They were gay and needed to be punished for their crimes. Of course, I'm sure she hadn't thought through the fact that there would be no way to know who all was gay, let alone who had gay sex 3 times verses 4 times, or how the sentences should be meted out. As Kathy Griffin would say, that woman is, “legit crazy.”

She also felt that gay men are often guilty of cannibalism when they swallow sperm. During this era, people gave her graphic explanations of gay sex acts and even showed her pictures. She hadn't even thought about the sperm thing until then. I guess, she still had no idea that more heterosexual women were guilty of that than are gay men (due to outnumbering them.)

She had publicly spoken about enacting laws to make crimes of adultery and cohabiting without being married. I guess it's no more crazy than putting people in jail for doing drugs that aren't on the legal list, but that doesn't mean it's not pure insanity. She was basically calling for the Christian version of Sharia law.

You may be thinking that this is indicative of a hateful nature. I disagree. It does exemplify, though, the kind of thinking that often happens when you give up critical thinking for strict religious beliefs that state there is one book with all the answers, and that everything in that book is to be interpreted in a literal fashion and there is no other truth but what is to be found in said book and with said literal interpretation.

I remain convinced that Bryant's activism was not inspired by a personal hatred of gays I believe it's all about the fact that the bible, which she believes is the literal, infallible and only word of God, says that same gender sex is a sin and an abomination against God. I'm sure she believes gay people who don't repent, ask for forgiveness and quit their gay activity, are going to hell, and I think that saddens her to no end. I believe that she believed that her activism was keeping people out of eternal hellfire.

I would say there was no shortage of naivete and ignorance that motivated her, but not any personal hatred whatsoever. Indeed her oldest son, Robert Green Jr., said as much (regarding her lack of hatred) in an interview in the Windy City Times, in 2012.12)

Final Thoughts On A.B.

There may be an upcoming biopic on Bryant's life done by and to be shown on HBO. It evidently is written by a gay man. She says that it's not going to be the typical media bashing content that is so ubiquitous, but it's going to really show her true motivations, for once. I can't help but think that she is being played. If it really happens, I don't think she is going to like it.

Besides the homophobic stuff, it will probably also go into significant detail about the employees and vendors and taxes that she and her second husband (and high school sweetheart) Charles Dry have evidently left unpaid in 3 different states and 3 comeback attempts in recent decades. They would file for bankruptcy, pack up, move elsewhere and repeat the process, while, according to some people, maintaining a nice personal lifestyle all the while.

You can say what you want about Ms. Bryant, but nothing will change the fact that she must have looked delicious in the Miss America 1959 swimsuit competition. (As the 1958 Miss Oklahoma, she was second runner up for Miss America.)

Reviews | Television | Movies | Health | Politics | Political Philosophy | Religion | Rights | People | Law

I'm afraid his religious convictions may get in the way of taking the most compassionate and logical stance on this issue. I hope I'm wrong, but it's so common for Christians, and probably adherents of most other religions) to be against the use of medical marijuana due to its use as a recreational drug. It's absolutely bizarre that the bible doesn't prohibit alcohol, a much more harmful substance and certainly less medicinal one, yet so may Christians assume that Jesus would be against medical marijuana. Perhaps if there was a story regarding how He turned straw into marijuana, like the story of Him turning water into wine, more Christians would be open to not denying people the positive health effects of this natural substance. I wonder why they think Jesus turned the water into wine in the first place. Water is a better thirst quencher and it can't get you drunk and turn you into a violent, homicidal jerk the way wine can. For that matter, neither does marijuana. I recently heard the wife a couple who own a restaurant I frequent proclaim how happy she was that the vote for medical marijuana was defeated in our state and that she hopes it will never happen. All I could think about was all the people who have had miraculous life changing and often life saving turnarounds with their health due to marijuana, and how sad and disgusting such a level of ignorance this otherwise nice individual was all too happy to wear on her sleeve.
And I reminded the readers that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
I use the terms, races, for want of a better word. There is one human race. Perhaps when extra terrestrial disclosure is made, we'll be forced to use the term in a more accurate manner, but we'll still need to come up with a better word for this connotation. Sometimes I used the phrase, “subdivisions of the human race.”
Incidentally, I'm adamant in my belief that hatred should never be made illegal. A crime is a crime. Don't create special classes of hate crimes. It leads to unfair, selective enforcement, as well as censorship and denial of rights. In multiple countries there are people serving hard time for publishing data that indicates the number of Jewish people killed in War War 2 has been historically exaggerated. That is more than a slippery slope toward fascism. It is fascism, plain and simple. Plus, you can never stop hate with laws and punishment.
That kind of acceptance is wonderful. Think of former Olympic great, Bruce Jenner. He's making the transition to being a she instead of he. It would be sad if s/he gets bullied, beat up, etc. Live and let live. There is genuine gender identity crises and there are various ways to help people deal with it. Creating confusion among children is a disservice. These curriculum should, in my opinion, not be placed in grade schools/elementary schools, let alone, kindergarten. As an aside, in metaphysical circles, it is sometimes spoken and written about that much gender confusion stems from spirits who don't hang around in the between life stage long enough, because they are in a hurry to get back and reincarnate on the physical earth plane. One of the good things about being open to identifying someone with male genitalia as a female, and vice versa, is it helps all of us to be reminded that we are spirits in the material world. We are humans before we are male or female. And, most of us have have lives as both genders, although we may predominately choose one much more than the other.
It's interesting how the term, people of color, is not considered racist terminology, but, colored people, is… with the exception of the name of the group, National Association Of Colored People.
Seinfeld reference, of course.
Hey man, she was a pretty woman with a tight body. But does that terminology, “lusting in my heart,” ring a bell for you? If you are old enough, you may remember that in the Playboy interview that came out before the election of Carter as POTUS, he mentioned that he lusted after women in his heart, and that he knew the Lord forgave him. A couple years later, I had moved to Los Angeles where I got work as a security guard on the graveyard shift at an independent movie studio space, that was the site of the former Columbia Pictures and Screen Gems television. The interview department of Playboy had an office there. I had the master key. This was before the days of ubiquitous security cameras. Almost all security guards on midnight shifts who had master keys would snoop around. I was no exception. I accessed cassette tapes of several of the recent Playboy interviews. I remember some of them; Marlon Brando, Raquel Welch, the original cast of Saturday Night Live, and Jimmy Carter. They edited the interviews published in the magazine. The actual interview was not in the order that it was presented. I remembered in the magazine, Carter had made the lusting admission in the middle. In reality, it was at the end of the interview. In fact, the interviewer had thanked Carter for his time. You could hear he was packing his things up and then Carter just said it. Perhaps he thought it was off the record. I don't know, but it was interesting that he kind of just blurted it out almost as the last thing on the tape. Would you believe I made a copy of all the tapes and then went on to lose them?

QR Code
QR Code gifted_hands_mini_review_plus_digressions_on_medical_marijuana_gay_rights_vs_religious_rights_and_remembering_crazy_anita_bryant (generated for current page)