Is Michael Reagan for real?

Are we in Mississippi circa the 1960s?

I ask that question because of a column I read today by conservative Michael Reagan entitled Conservatives don't hate gays, just agenda (http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061021/OPINION01/610210329/1014/OPINION).

Mr. Reagan is commenting in blogger Michael Rogers and his outing of in-the-closet Congressmen in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.

Mr. Reagan's piece is the usual load of nonsense about "the gay agenda" and such but he does something I found very interesting.

These comments are from the column:

I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won't allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters . . .

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That's absolutely untrue. What we don't support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.
And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

Now I am a gay man, but I am also a black man. Therefore, I am very sensitive and extremely cognizant about several things when it comes to issues of race and the like.

The thing that strikes me about Reagan's column is how he sounds like the racists in the 1960s. You know who I am talking about. The ones who would say things like:

"Our niggras were alright until them Yankees up north and that N A A C P and the rest of them outside agitators got 'em all riled up."

It seems that the phrase "radical gay agenda" has replaced "outside agitators" but the connotation is still the same.

I wrote Mr. Reagan a letter expressing those very concerns. I don't think he will write me back. But if he does, I am anticipating that he will talk about how dare I compare the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to today's gay rights movement. How dare I say the two are similar.

But Mr. Reagan, how can the movements not be similar when the ignorance of their opposers are pretty much the same?