By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Ernie marry Bert? That's a sick idea
How far will gay, lesbian and transgender groups go?

It's not enough that they won the right to conduct same-sex marriages in New York City. Now they want Bert and Ernie to marry.

Excuse me? I watched my fair share of Sesame Street as a boy and later as a father and I can't for the life of me remember any indication that the PBS puppets were gay.

I mean, in the delusional world of some, I guess they could be. After all, they have no spouses (but then again neither did Mother Teresa so what is the point?). The same minds invented the notion that Abraham Lincoln was a closet gay because often on the law circuit he had to bed down with other males. That was an accepted societal practice of that day that didn't raise eyebrows. I can assure you that Abe sharing a bed with another man was out of necessity and not because he had sex with them. I've studied a lot on Lincoln and he was most certainly attracted to women, even dumping one because she was too fat for his taste.

Despite having presented a petition to see the puppets tie the knot, Sesame Workshop assures the nation that the duo are "best friends" and "do not have a sexual orientation."

Nothing new here since in 1993 Sesame Street producers announced, "Bert and Ernie, who've been on Sesame Street for 25 years, do not portray a gay couple, and there are no plans for them to do so in the future. They are puppets, not humans. Like all the Muppets created for Sesame Street, they were designed to help educate preschoolers. Bert and Ernie are characters who help demonstrate to children that despite their differences, they can be good friends."

Thank you, Sesame Street and the ghost of Jim Henson. And may I emphasize that with a "DUH!"

These groups need a reality check. How dare they inflict their agenda on the innocence of American children. How sick.

I can just see the revisionists working overtime to find other "closet" gays on TV who were right there in front of us all that time but hid their sexual orientation. Maybe Jack Webb and Harry Morgan were doing a little more than crime solving on Dragnet. Maybe, just maybe, Adam 12's Martin Milner and Kent McCord were grabbing for a little more in their pat-down searches of males. Yeah, the Odd Couple - maybe they were called odd for a reason. Let's not forget the Lone Ranger and Tonto all alone out their camping among the tumbleweeds and rattle snakes. Did Buffalo Bob Smith have something for his wooden friend Howdy Doody?

We can politely ask that these groups stop this drivel but they won't. The agenda is to push acceptance of a lifestyle that cannot be sustained through the natural reproductive process.

Do I believe in being kind and politeful and respectful to all people regardless of who they are attracted to? Of course. Do I believe we should make overt attempts to convince school age children to embrace gay lifestyles? No, to the contrary, I vehemently disagree with the nonsense passed by our Legislature and governor (SB 48) that requires schools to educate students on the contributions of gays throughout history. The new law also forbids textbook materials that "contain any matter reflecting adversely" upon gays on the basis of sexual ID. Jerry Brown feels "history should be honest" and has condemned current textbooks as neglecting historical figures who were gay.

Keep in mind that any religious view of homosexuality - indeed sections of the Bible - are now outlawed in classroom instruction. The new law is reprehensible.

Why the consideration of sexual practices when looking at historical figures? You might as well pass a law stressing the contributions of, say, famous Christians who did great things for people of the United States. Or famous humanitarians who gave of their lives and money to help others. We all could stand to learn how to be more giving. Why does the state find it necessary to mention figures solely on the basis of sexual lifestyle?

I can't remember my teachers informing me of the sexual practices or preferences of any historical figure. We concentrated on their accomplishments. Alexander Graham Bell could have worn panty hose for kicks for all I know. It didn't matter to me; he was the inventor of the telephone in 1876. Nor would it have been germane if a teacher had pointed out that Martin Luther King had dalliances with at least three women during his marriage. His ideas on racial equality and fighting against racial discrimination that made him great, not his sexual prowess. I think it's a better idea to focus on what they did outside the bedroom and not inside.

Much hay has been made about Harvey Milk, the gay SF supervisor who was murdered by Dan White at San Francisco City Hall in 1978. As if Milk was the greatest figure in California history. A gay figure should not be celebrated because he was gay but because he did something important. I'm sorry but Harvey Milk and his celebrated "pooper scooper" law is hardly worthy of classroom mention to the likes of Father Junipero Serra who founded the missions and intended to spread Christianity in California.

Hear me out. In no way do I advocate discrimination against anyone for any reason. But respect goes both ways. Forcing all to endorse a certain lifestyle and accept gay marriage is just as disrespectful as a gay bashing someone over their religious convictions.

How do you feel? Let Jeff by e-mailing him at