The Queens’ Censors: The End of Art & the Pansex Regime

Is homosexuality and “human rights” going to bring about the end of art in the United States?

Robert Gagnon the notoriously straightforward Bible scholar recently pointed to this editorial from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

It’s been nearly a decade since Jon and Elaine Huguenin left home and family to make their life in the West. They moved to Albuquerque and opened a photography business, specializing in weddings. Jon handled the finances; Elaine was the artist—and was good enough at it to make her reputation, in just a few years, as one of the best in the city. Hers, people saw, was much more than just a professional grasp of light and focus and composition. She had … the gift.

Most of you probably know who Elaine is. She is the person of Elaine’s Photography whom the Supreme Court abandoned to the tender mercies of the New Mexico “Civil Rights” regime. What makes this editorial compelling is that it clearly shows that Elaine is basically being persecuted for resisting mind control.

A great photographer uses her imagination, her informed observations, her personal understanding to capture not only a scene, or a moment … but the life within that moment. Its meaning, its themes, its true character. That’s why any great photograph is as much a window into the soul of the photographer as it is into those people preserved in the picture. In trying to force Elaine to take their pictures, the couple was asking her to sacrifice the very elements that made her talents so uniquely attractive to them. In suing her, they penalized her for being what they wanted in the first place.

And now, the courts of America are allowing them to do this: to tinker with the soul of an artist, in the hopes of bringing that same art out of a very different soul.

What kind of society are we becoming? Recently, a friend led me to this “Poem of the week” column from the Guardian. I assume that most of the staff at the Guardian, perhaps all of them, have a very different view of what is going down in New Mexico than I do. That is what makes the observations in that column doubly ironic.

The poem of the week was “Tichborne’s Elegy” by Chidiock Tichborne. Tichborne was either “a terrorist or a Christian martyr, depending on your point of view.” He was executed for a plot to assassinate the Protestant Queen Elizabeth to replace her with the Roman Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Allegedly the evening before his execution he wrote an amazing poem.

However, the column also points out that there was an official reply poem created. Why was that necessary? The original poem did not at all, as far as I can tell, attempt to justify the writer or his cause. It was simply a poem about impending and premature death. But somehow the very fact that the poem showed a criminal’s humanity was enough to make the powers that were desire a poem that would somehow nullify the original. Columnist Carol Rumens writes for the Guardian,

The “Decasyllabon” lacks the force and skill of the original. There’s no larger perspective, no sense of compassion. Its author lamely tries to appropriate Tichborne’s metaphorical grand slam, only to say nothing more interesting than that the young traitor got all he deserved. I’m not sure what conclusion might be drawn from this, beyond the fact that Tichborne had the greater poetic talent. It might be that death makes a better muse than hatred, except that hatred has inspired plenty of fine satirical poems in its time. Perhaps the real trouble is that TK was not writing from any strong personal emotion at all. He was simply voicing the politically correct and safe sentiments of his age, conscious that the Queen’s censors were looking over his shoulder.

And there we are. Centuries after Reformation-era England, after the Revolutionary War and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are right back where we started, with “the Queen’s censors” (literally, if one uses one of the euphemisms from the homosexual/transgender world) looking over our shoulders.

As the Alliance editorial concludes:

To secure Christians’ endorsement of their choices, those pressing the new social agenda are willing to suppress human dignity, rewrite the Constitution, erase religious liberty, and close down our businesses. In time, if we persist in resisting, even these will not be enough. On the other hand, if we yield … the price will continue to rise.

And what will we be left with? Nothing honest. Just lame attempts at art “simply voicing the politically correct and safe sentiments” of our new state religion.

I question how many homosexuals would really want to live in the world they are creating. But people don’t think.