Louisiana Voice

There’s something intrinsically sick about an obsession over what someone is reading.

Michael Lunsford and his Citizens for a New Louisiana don’t want a “new” anything. They want control over others’ thinking. It’s the openly espoused agenda of the national Repugnantcan Party as so often expressed by the likes of Ron DeSantis.

It’s really unfortunate that this group finds it necessary to concentrate its efforts of censorship and repression in the name of Christianity and decency. It seems that he and his organization are pulling their talking points directly from the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy which, among other things, advocates the killing of gays and total domination over women – especially sexually.

Lunsford has never to my knowledge advocated killing anyone but he has spewed unfounded – and libelous – accusations toward decent, honest people who probably have a greater understanding of the real teachings of Christianity than he could ever hope for.

The man is an agent of hate and vitriol. It’s as simple as that. He’s sounding much like this idiot Nick Fuentes on TikTok, who actually calls for the burning of women at the stake. (Reader discretion advised: language)

Lunsford claims he wants a “new Louisiana,” and that’s commendable. There are so many areas in which this state could improve: teacher pay, healthcare, literacy, poverty, hunger, environment, corruption, crime, gender pay discrepancy, and the list could go on indefinitely.

But instead, he chooses to zero in on an effort to ban books – censorship – in open violation of the First Amendment.

My question to him is this: Why are you so concerned about what kids might read? As I said in an earlier post, straight kids more than likely aren’t interested in reading books about a kid with two daddies at home. And if a kid is gay, you ain’t gonna change him by banning books.

Lunsford probably (I don’t know this for certain) subscribes to the debunked belief that gays can be changed to straight through counseling and rehabilitation.

They cannot and let me say this unequivocally: Absent harassment from people like Lunsford (and, regrettably, me, when I was in high school), gays are probably happier and better adjusted psychologically that most of us straights who seem to find so much time to fret about gays and what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes.

I know several gays (one, a dear friend, recently died of a heart attack and I miss his humor and his terrific intellect) and they are, without exception, well-adjusted, productive, and creative.

Lunsford is so terrified that children will be adversely influenced – or molested – by gays. Here are the facts: in as many as 93 percent of abuse cases, the child knows the person already and 47 percent of abusers are family members. How are you going to protect against that, Lunsford?

Of course, as one might expect, a study conducted by the BAPTIST PRESS predictably says that gays are more likely to molest kids. But a likely more reliable source, the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, says that the risk of adult gays molesting children ranges from 0 to 3.1 percent.

If Lunsford is so concerned about protecting children, maybe he should take a look at the real sources of porn for kids: the Internet and cell phones. Porn is widely accessible online and kids do send sexually explicit photos to each other on their phones.

But you see, he can make more noise and garner more financial support by keeping his fight local and taking on innocent school librarians. That’s really low and sleazy.

Because of the Repugnantcan intellect of people like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Ted “Cancun” Cruz, Donald Trump (who the hell ridicules people with physical deficiencies?), and Lunsford, we have moved perilously closer to the mentality of a third world country.

As an illustration of how obsessed Lunsford is with his Quixotic library quest and to what absurd level he is willing to take his fight, he actually posted on Facebook a message that he is holding books he “unilaterally” (read: arbitrarily) removed from the Lafayette Public Library and that the public is invited to come to his office to view the books – “Appointment recommended.”

Could that be because he first wants to be sure he’s through reading them?

I don’t know. It’ probably a rhetorical question.