Whew. It has been a long journey, but we finally find ourselves at the last part of this series concerning Stonewall Jackson and the Stonewall Gay Rights movement. Our comparison has found that far from being a civil rights matter in the way it is portrayed--that is to say compared and analyzed concerning the rights of African Americans being denied during the Civil War--that the roots of the movement are very, very far from being anything at all about that narrative. Whereas the rallying cry around the Gay movement concerns "love" we find that it directly violates the concept of "love" put forth in the Bible which concerns laws meant to preserve a people and a nation. Worse, we find that the literal mafia is behind the origin of the "rights" movement.
One of the pieces of history that is not well known concerning the Civil War involves the Catholic Churches role in the conflict:
During the American Civil War, Catholics oriented themselves to John Hughes (the Archbishop of New York) in the Union and to Jean-Marie Odin (the Archbishop of New Orleans) in the Confederate States. Abraham Lincoln asked Pope Pius IX to elevate Hughes into the College of Cardinals, but Pius declined to do so. A decade later, Pius did elevate John McCloskey, Hughes's successor, to the College of Cardinals.
Pope Pius IX never supported the Confederacy, but he did call for peace and offered mediation. He stressed the necessity of emancipation. Confederate diplomat Ambrose Dudley Mann met with the pope in December 1863 and received a letter that he mistranslated as addressed to the "Honorable President of the Confederate States of America." This was simple courtesy, though it had no legal effect. The Confederacy used it in propaganda to claim papal support. For example, Robert E. Lee thought the pope was "the only sovereign... in Europe who recognized our poor Confederacy". In fact, no diplomatic relations or recognitions were extended in either direction. In his dispatch to Richmond, Mann claimed a great diplomatic achievement for himself; he believed the letter was "a positive recognition of our Government". Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin told Mann it was "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus did not assign it the weight of formal recognition. 
So, the South officially was not recognized by the Confederacy right? Well, wrong:
In the year 1857, the money power of old Europe cantered in the House of Rothschild. Disraeli represented them in England; Napoleon III in France; Bismarck in Germany and Mazzini in Italy. According to Mr. John Reeves, who wrote on page 228, of an authorized biography entitled: "The Rothschilds, The Financial Rulers of Nations," based on research in their own archives, there was a famous meeting in the City of London in 1857. The great Rothschild family was assembled from the countries of Europe for the marriage of Lionel Rothschild's daughter, Leo to her cousin, Alphonse, son of James Rothschild of Paris.
Disraeli is reported to have said:
"Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild a name familiar in every capital of Europe and every division of the globe. If you like. we shall divide the United States into two parts, one for you, James, and one for you, Lionel. Napoleon will do exactly and all that 1 shall advise him."
Thus, in London, we see a plan fostered by the money power of Europe, moving in on America, and pitting the North against the South under the old principle of "divide and conquer." The North was to become a British colony annexed to Canada, while the South would go to Napoleon Ill of France!
"Napoleon's object was to assure the predomination of the French over the Latin races and to augment the influence of these races in America. Napoleon decided to recognize the independence of the rebellious American States and repeatedly urged the British government to join him in so doing," according to Mackenzie in his historical research entitled "The Nineteenth Century."
Judah P. Benjamin was chosen by the Rothschilds to do their work in the United States and he was the first adviser to Jefferson Davis, the President of the Southern Confederacy. Benjamin has been called “the brains of the revolt.” He was also Secretary of State of the Confederacy under Jeff Davis.
The Confederacy consisted of eleven Southern States bound by a written Constitution, modelled in part after our own Constitution. It was founded on the fundamental principle that each one of its eleven constituted States had the right to secede from the Union, or to separate from the other 23 out of the 34 states of the Union.
Nevertheless, at the instigation of Benjamin and under pressure of Napoleon, Texas and Louisiana were placed on the bargain counter in exchange, presumably, for Napoleon's aid. The latter was supported by Disraeli of England, who had assured the Confederacy of the support of Britain behind the nine remaining States, after Texas and Louisiana were to be ceded to France.
Who do the Rothschild's work for? Well, clearly for themselves, but often in alliance with Rome. So officially, no, there was no recognition of Rome involved in the south, however ACTUALLY they were pulling the purse strings which is something Lincoln wanted to address.
What does this have to do with anything? Because it establishes that the Roman Mafia was at work long before the Stonewall Riots. In fact, Rome was very near the issue concerning gay marriage becoming legalized:
The retired Vatican ambassador to Washington wrote a bombshell letter last summer calling on Pope Francis to resign on the grounds that he had tolerated a known sexual abuser. As that letter was published, Viganò turned off his phone, told friends he was disappearing, and let the church sort through the fallout. 
The article continues:
Viganò also spoke in detail about one of his most contentious beliefs: that the sexual abuse crisis would be "far less severe" if the "problem of homosexuality in the priesthood were honestly acknowledged and properly addressed."
The question of whether homosexuality has anything to do with abuse has divided the Vatican hierarchy. Studies show there is no correlation between sexual orientation and the likelihood to commit abuse. Francis has emphasized not homosexuality, but the vast power chasm that priests take advantage of when abusing younger victims. But people like Viganò raise the point that 80 percent of clerical abuse victims are male, and the majority of those are 14 and older.
"Given the overwhelming evidence, it is mind-boggling that the word 'homosexuality' has not appeared once, in any of the recent official documents of the Holy See" on events dealing with abuse and youth, Viganò wrote.
He said a "gay mafia" among bishops, intent on protecting themselves, was "sabotaging all efforts at reform."
What? A GAY MAFIA? Would this be the very self-same gay mafia that was involved at Stonewall? The one that the dialog exists that it is about love and civil rights, but is actually full of homosexual predators?
Is there a cabal of "bad people" trying to split our country up AGAIN and passing "love" off as "thinly veiled hatred of the laws of the constitution and our land?"
Apparently, this Bishop organized a meeting with the Pope to Kim Davis over her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
How'd that go?
On 24 September 2015 during his visit to the United States, Pope Francis met Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On 2 October, Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that the office of Viganò had extended the invitation to Davis. Chief Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi depicted the meeting as one among many brief introductions rather than an audience.
On 30 August 2018, Viganò released a statement of his account of the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis. He claims that the meeting was a private meeting and it may have lasted as long as 15 minutes, he also confirms that the Pope "embraced her affectionately, thanked her for her courage, and invited her to persevere."
Juan Carlo Cruz, a survivor of sexual abuse who met with Pope Francis, alleged that Viganò "nearly sabotaged the visit" by having Francis meet Davis. "I didn’t know who that woman was, and he snuck her in to say hello to me — and of course they made a whole publicity out of it," Pope Francis said, according to Cruz. Cruz stated that Pope Francis said that he was "horrified" and that he then "fired that nuncio." Viganò replied by releasing a letter to LifeSiteNews, stating that "the pope knew very well who Davis was, and he and his close collaborators had provided the private audience." Subsequently, Vatican spokesman Lombardi and Thomas Rosica confirmed that the evening prior to Francis' meeting with Davis, Viganò had indeed spoken "with the pope and his collaborators and received a consensus" regarding the meeting. Shortly after the meeting, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington informed a reporter that both he and Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, then-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had advised Archbishop Viganò against arranging the meeting. Father Lombardi stated that Vigano had organized the meeting and "inserted it in the context of the pope's many and quick greetings at his departure from the nunciature," which "certainly did not allow the pope and his collaborators to realize the significance of this meeting.
It sounds to me like de Pope--he is a lyyingg. The question is why would the Pope lie about this issue? Well, because he is an enemy of moral law. It is well known Francis received Jesuit training, and it is also well-known that Jesuits often have "agendas" other than the "good of the church". If you can break up the fundamental unity of the family, then you can violate the basis of the covenant and start to "take over" while everyone is divided over the insanity that follows.
When viewed from this lens, the Gay Rights movement sounds more like a conspiracy by a mafia crime family designed to target people who do not support those values. This is very, very far away from the truth of the Civil War and the Civil Rights matter that it appertained to.
Does that mean every single gay person is part of a gay mafia? No, absolutely not. However, it does mean that the "rights" that were "fought for" are nothing of the sort and everything to do with a much larger, disturbing picture.