SpongeBob SquarePants is gay. He’s been outed. But the creator of the fictional character, Stephen Hillenburg, won’t admit that SpongeBob is gay. He says that Bob is an “asexual oddball.” Dick and Lynn Cheney sympathize with his denial. In fact, they suggest Hillenburg join PFLAGS – Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gay Sponges.

According to Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, SpongeBob is gay and part of the pro-homosexual agenda.

The absurdity of this is only surpassed by the fact that Dobson made this charge during a dinner for members of Congress – and none of them walked out.

First, sponges are asexual. They can reproduce asexually. They also can be hermaphrodites. Single sponges not only produce both sperm and eggs but are “broadcast spawners.” Marine biologists report that these sponges can indiscriminately release sperm in such profusion as to “turn seawater smoky white.”

Not only is the scientific proof against Dobson, but the creators of the “SpongeBob SquarePants” show claim that their show is about tolerance and that SpongeBob is not gay despite the fact that he often holds hands with his starfish friend Patrick.

While all this seems amusing, it’s no laughing matter to the kids who wear SpongeBob apparel at school and now get made fun of for wearing a “gay” T-shirt. A lot of kids are putting SpongeBob back in the closet.

It’s no fun for licensees of SpongeBob’s merchandise to see their inventories rendered worthless because of religious zealots and the media who love to quote them.

The message to manufacturers and creative folks is simple: Don’t create any character that has any traits religious folks might deem “gay.” Otherwise, you’ll be sorry.

Do the makers of such products have any recourse against this extortion? In fact, they do.

For example, during the ’90s, multimedia artist David Wojnarowicz created art works designed to bring focus to the affects of AIDS on gay men. He attempted through his work to expose what he viewed was the failure of the United States government and public to confront the AIDS epidemic in any meaningful way.

For a few months in 1990, the University Galleries at Illinois State University presented a comprehensive exhibition of his work, entitled “Tongues of Flame” and published a 128-page catalog, which contained reproductions of over 60 of his works as well as essays.

The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) awarded the University Galleries $15,000 to help pay for the exhibit and the catalog.

Learning of the grant, the American Family Association (AFA) published and distributed a pamphlet that reproduced 14 fragments of the works. These 14 images, with three exceptions, explicitly depict sexual acts.

The AFA entitled the pamphlet “Your Tax Dollars Helped Pay For These ‘Works of Art.’” It stated in the introductory sentence that “the photographs appearing on this sheet were part of the David Wajnarowicz [sic] ‘Tongues of Flame’ exhibit catalog.” The envelope in which the AFA pamphlet was mailed states that the “[p]hotos enclosed in this envelope were taken from the catalog of the ‘Tongues of Flame’ exhibit” and is marked “Caution – Contains Extremely Offensive Material.”

When the artist learned that his works had been misrepresented, he sued and he won.

The AFA claimed that its pamphlet was political speech for the purpose of challenging the use of tax monies to subsidize “offensive” and “blasphemous” art by the NEA.

Ironically, as a result of the pamphlet and other appeals for funds, the AFA raised $5.2 million. Perhaps this explains the real reason why the AFA, Focus on the Family and Jerry Falwell use commercially recognizable icons like SpongeBob, Harry Potter and Tinky Winky. Like any other trademark infringer, they use the name for their own benefit. It’s really a tactic to generate money. In the meantime, they kill the market for these toys.

The court found that artists and authors retain “moral rights” in their work. Artists have the right to exclusively control how others may use their work. In short, some state laws that exist in New York and California prohibit groups like the AFA from making multiple copies of an artist’s work and altering it.

The court found that the AFA had modified images contained in the pamphlet so as to damage the artist’s reputation as a serious artist and his earning potential.

It sounds like SpongeBob and his creators have a new adventure to pursue.