• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!



    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Archive for the 'Teh GAYZ!' Category

Joe Farah Working for bin Laden?

Posted by s.z. on December 17th, 2010

Joseph Farah accepts Sandy Rios’s assertion that soldiers will just opt out of the military if “don’t ask, don’t tell” is shoved down America’s throat. And he raises her, by urging all patriotic, freedom-loving young men to desert, so that the gays have to fight our current two wars all by themselves.

Here, let’s let Joe explain it to you:

So what’s next if the U.S. military opens up its ranks to flaming homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, lesbians and other sexual deviants du jour?

Then maybe all of those young Republicans who were so gung ho to get us into war in Iraq will finally have no excuse not to enlist?

The real answer, per Joe and some guy from the Family Research Council Hate Group is that almost 25% of the troops and the reserves will take their balls (ahem) and go home.

But that’s not good enough! Joe says that everybody who is not a cross dressing lesbian flaming poofster deviant should just quit the military. That will teach everybody who believes is equal rights a thing or two!

As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave – in droves.

If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America’s national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will. It’s just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can.

This message brought to you by World Net Daily, the Better Dead than Pink Society, and Al Queda.

It’s been a long time since America used its military wisely anyway.

The military should be used to destroy America’s enemies. Period. End of story. That’s not what the politicians did in Iraq. That’s not what we’re doing in Afghanistan. That’s not what we did in Vietnam. That’s not what we did in Korea. The results from those military campaigns of planned stalemate are in for all to see.

Yeah! The last time America used its military correctly is when we nuked Japan. And if we aren’t ready to totally annihilate the middle east, our troops might just as well stay home and blockade abortion clinics.

Besides, the whole “DADT” thing is all just a ploy to destroy marriage. So, instead of capitulating to it, we might as well invite the Chinese to invade us — because even though they are commies, they don’t tolerate gays. And tolerating gays is the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone.

This move by the politicians, by the way, is not even about what’s best for the U.S. military. That was clear from the hearings in Washington in which no one could articulate a single advantage to the sissification of the U.S. military. It’s about promoting a political agenda of softening up America’s morals and preparing for the next shoe to drop.

The next shoe, in case you don’t get it by now, is transforming marriage from an institution between a man and a woman to one of anything goes.

So, young patriots, if DADT is eliminated, you should desert, and then report state side to welcome our new commie/terrorist masters. It’s the only moral, patriotic thing to do.

I hope the best and brightest in the U.S. military recognize the stakes and make the decision to rejoin the civilian ranks at home where the ultimate fight for liberty, morality and self-government is about to take place.

It’s time for a civil war, and you best and brightest should be in your civvies, ready to fight on the side of decency, no-sissification, and self-government! And then, once the “no rights for gays” side secedes from the union, maybe they can get slavery back.

Sandy Rios: Gay Soldiers Are All Turncoat Spies For Sparta!

Posted by scott on December 16th, 2010

Sandy Rios used to be a Concerned Woman for America, but now she’s President of the Culture Campaign, leading one to conclude that she’s no longer Concerned for America, or no longer a Woman.  (It’s possible she got the idea from Lady Gaga, of whom Sandy observed, “We have to speculate on whether she has a male member or not, or whether it’s been cut off or not.”  We just have to!  Just as it would be irresponsible not to speculate that Sandy haunted medical waste bins for a solid year, collecting discarded foreskins before finally assembling a Frankenpenis in her rumpus room, and fusing it to her groin during an electrical storm.)

Phew!  I feel much more responsible now.

You’ll be unflabbergasted to know that Sandy doesn’t want Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  She doesn’t even want them to vote on it, because of reasons.  Lots of reasons, reasons that change like the seasons (sorry, I’m still overwhelmed by all the clever poetry in the Robin of Berkeley thread).  Sandy has learned the one great lesson of the Iraqi War debacle: if your casus belli begins to smell, toss it out and replace it.  Improvise!  Think on your feet!  Freedom is messy!  (Although you’d think adding gays to the mix would help make for a more presentable Freedom, since they’re all so tidy.)

As it was with the Weapons of Mass Destruction ➔ Ridding Mesopotamia of People Shredders ➔ Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy! continuum, so it is with the Principled Objection to Gays in the Military, which has had more rewrites than Tootsie, and more sequels than the Toro-san series.

No Stand Alone Amendment on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The Senate should reject any stand-alone amendment overturning the 1996 Congressional Law preventing homosexuals from serving in the military. Why?

Because service members, unduly influenced by close and open proximity to the Gaga-lovin’ gays, will shoot off their own, um, service members in solidarity, and we’ll be stuck with an Army of moody Jake Barneses.  At least, it would be pretty to think so.

• Because according to the much-touted Pentagon Survey, 67% of Marine Combat troops on the front lines…right now…have indicated it could interfere with unit effectiveness, readiness and cohesion.

What Sandy carefully — okay, clumsily — elides is the “71.9% of servicemembers thought that repeal would have mixed or no effect on unit readiness.”  But then, my Dad was a Marine, and they pride themselves on compensating for their meagre numbers by being bigger pains in the ass than all other Armed Services combined.

• Because the same survey reports that 24% of our all-volunteer force have indicated they would leave the military early if the law were repealed.

Because an army is only as strong as its weakest bigot.

That is one half million fighting men and women potentially lost during a time of war.

Sadly, we might have to start fewer wars; still, you go to war with the homos you have, not the quitters you wish you had, but who quit because of the homos.  On the other hand, gays are much more brutal and savage in war (as Bryan Fischer has pointed out), which means that a single one is worth a dozen ordinary dogfaces.  So when you think about it, we’re actually much better off sacking and pillaging the Near and Middle East with a legion of buff and muffiny gladiators, than with a bunch of asthma puffer-sucking mama’s boys who are squeamish about man-cooties.

Okay, so we’ll be hemorrhaging homophobes.  What’s the next nightmare scenario, Sandy?

• Because PFC Bradley Manning recently leaked the largest amount of classified information in history, putting fellow soldiers and his own country at risk because he was gay and angry with a former lover.

Boy troubles were not, in fact, among his stated reasons for leaking the “Collateral Murder” video.  Which, 300 aside, could never remotely be construed as gay porn, except by American Thinker Humberto Humberto Fontova, who thinks bloodlust and bedlust go together, especially when you’re sharing a bedroll.

As unpleasant as it is to ponder, that fact must be pondered before we open the floodgates to others whose sexual identity may define them more than the uniform they wear.

The gay soldier’s motto:  ”For God and .”

• Because a substantial number of the 3000 military chaplains who provide the spiritual strength to thousands of our men and women, giving them courage and determination to carry on, have serious objections.

Because who better to minister to our men and women than bigots?

Chaplains who have an objection have been instructed to remain silent while the repeal is being considered.

Well, if  ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been, and continues to be such a success, it seems only reasonable we extend the same opportunity to the chaplains.

Okay, so we can’t extend full civil rights to gay and lesbian service members because it will bother the God botherers.  What else?  Could it be that we can’t swallow another change when our throats are already crammed with health care?

• Because exactly one year ago another major societal shift was being crammed down our throats at Christmas.

I love this time of year — the crisp weather, the sparkling decorations, the familiar tunes, and of course, the traditional Christmas cookies, which unfortunately I can’t enjoy at the moment, because the President is deep-throating me.

We were told health care had to be passed quickly…before we could even read the bill. People objected loudly but the administration and Congressional leadership arrogantly ignored the American people and forced it through. We know, at least in part, the terrible results of that.

So, we can’t allow gays to serve openly in the military because…insurance reform!

Our military men and women don’t have the same ability to make their voices heard against allowing open homosexuality in their ranks.

We should maybe do a study and poll them.

They don’t have newspapers or talk radio shows. But the provision that will alter their lives and our safety is being rammed down their throats in an unseemly urgency that should seem all too familiar.

…to fans of Sandy’s slash porn.

That alone should make Senators and Congressmen vote “no” on a hurried stand-alone bill.

Yeah, it’s been seventeen years — where’s the fire?

• Because we have a Commander in Chief who knows nothing of commanding troops or serving in the U.S. Military.

Newsflash:  Woman with no experience commanding troops tells Commander in Chief with two years experience commanding troops how to command troops.  First step:  command them to build tents with closets.  Then bricks without straw.

His priorities are strange and discomforting.

Civil rights and throat-cramming.  It’s a difficult policy to support, unless you believe justice is more important than expediency, and your gag reflex is under control.

Okay, I think we have time for one last tap-dancing rationalization.  Sandy?  Is it time to point out that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn’t know anything about the military, because he’s an affirmative action hire?

The President’s appointee, Admiral Mike Mullen, said …”There is no gray area…we treat each other with respect or we find another place to work.Period.”

Senators and Congressmen should listen carefully to what other seasoned military leaders are saying rather than political appointees.

All the other Service Chiefs rose to their positions the traditional way, by assassinating their predecessor.  So by now it’s clear that the only way we will ever have an effective military is if we strip the President of the authority to cram admirals and generals down our throats, and have the men elect their own officers in the manner of the old Roman Republic.  It’ll make things a lot less gay.

Myth-Buster Brown

Posted by scott on August 13th, 2010

Radio talk show host and Townhall columnist Michael (“Let a wince be your umbrella”) Medved is clearly alarmed by a new poll which shows, for the first time, that a majority of Americans now favor marriage equality.  Fortunately, he has an innate degree in Natural Law, and presumably at some point passed the Natural Bar Exam, which entitles him to overrule Judge Vaughn Walker’s 136-page decision, because it was composed on a computer or other infernal device, and printed on paper, rather than hand-carved in basalt tablets like the Decalogue.

Gay Marriage Myths and Truth

The decision by federal judge Vaughan Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.

1. “Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage.”

And these direct, concise corrections apparently demand made-up quotes to rebut.

TRUTH: Proposition 8 banned nothing.

The fact that gay and lesbians couples were legally prevented from getting married after Proposition 8 passed is a coincidence.  If you bothered to investigate the facts, you’d see that so many gay couples tied the knot during the five months when marriage equality was the law in California, they they exhausted the state’s supply of tiny groom-shaped cake toppers, because they were going through them at twice the normal rate!

Not sure what happened with the lesbians.  Maybe a new season of Ice Road Truckers started, or something.

The ubiquitous headlines describing this voter-mandated change in the California constitution as a “gay marriage ban” amount to the worst example of journalistic malpractice in recent years.

Even worse than when all those reporters uncritically passed on Administration claims that Saddam Hussein was gay marrying Kurds in his rape rooms!

The entire proposition consisted of only fourteen words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Whereas the notorious “Three-fifths compromise,” required 54 words to declare that slaves were only fractionally human; so say what you want about the ways in which the American political class has degenerated since the days of the Founding Fathers, at least our bigots are terse.

This simple statement imposes no restrictions and issues no commands regarding the behavior of private citizens: it merely demands a change in the actions of government.

From mandating equal protection to requiring discrimination against a portion of its citizenry.  But it was approved by California voters, and in a democracy, the government should reflect and uphold the prejudices of the people.  Otherwise, people have to discriminate individually, face-to-face, and even a libertarian would find that exhausting.

Proposition 8 did nothing to interfere with gay couples in registering for state-recognized civil unions, participating in church or civil ceremonies consecrating their love, forming life-time commitments, raising children, or concluding comprehensive contractual arrangements to share all aspects of life and property. The proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private or public processes by calling such relationships a marriage.

The government isn’t getting involved in the personal lives of homosexuals, it’s just telling them that they can’t get married unless it’s to a chick.  Or a dude in the case of lesbians, although a majority of California voters are in favor of allowing an opposite-married lesbian to keep her female partner, so long as the honeymoon is streamed over the internet, and at a some point the groom shows up to deliver a pizza.

2. “Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment.”

TRUTH: The proposition never mentioned gays, lesbians or any other individuals, whatever their sexual orientation. It didn’t discriminate among individuals; it drew distinctions among relationships.

Exactly.  In California, “a miscegenation law passed in 1901 [made it] unlawful for white persons to marry ‘Mongolians,’” and while the intention of state legislators was to prevent caucasians from wedding Chinese immigrants or Chinese-Americans, if you look at the law itself, it’s plain that it only prohibits intermarriage between white people and yurt residents from Ulaan Bator.

Under the proposition, a gay male and a straight male would face exactly the same options in marriage—free to choose any woman who is not already married or a blood relative.

For the same reason, a proposition criminalizing abortion would not be unduly burdensome to women, because any man terminating his pregnancy would be subject to the very same legal sanctions.

The fact that the gay man won’t want to marry any of the women available to him doesn’t change the fact that he and his straight neighbor face precisely the same opportunities and restrictions in their marital choices.

This is the well-established Common Law legal principle known as merda durus, or “tough shit.”

3. ”Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that “same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples.” (This language appears verbatim in the judge’s decision).

Oh, you mean you’re going to address an actual argument against Prop 8, rather than slap-fighting with your My Size Wicker Man doll?  I feel refweshed.

TRUTH: Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn’t based on the notion that opposite sex couples are “better,” but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively.

“We’re not saying straight people are better than gays.  We’re just saying they’re more important.

Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.

And yet, despite the clarity of the law, the state failed to make my parents stay together and raise me.  I believe this is because straight marriage had a monopoly at the time, and if some gay marriages had been thrown into the mix, it would have introduced an element of healthy competition that would have required my parents to provide better services in order to maintain their market share.

This is based on the universal, common sense assumption

…that slavery is God’s will, and a menstruating woman is leaking demons.

that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father.

And a Townhall columnist will find it easier to meet his word count if he just squats above his keyboard and craps out random sentences and undigested kernels of wingnut propaganda, rather than sit there, staring at his screensaver, while his brain grunts and sweats over an argument.

4. “Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”

TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself.

“Fine, marriage equality won’t affect society except to make it a little more just and a little less hypocritical.  But we are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.”

In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman–

–or a man and several women.  But the important thing is, if you marry a woman, her dad owes you two goats or one cow, so if you currently reside in an apartment building with a strict pets policy, you should probably just live together.

and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit

Almost half the time!

that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination.

For instance, they tend to fight more over what movie to go see.

The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner.

Actually, I doubt that any two heterosexual marriages are identical.  But it seems to me the argument for marriage equality depends on the self-evident notion that both gays and straights are human beings with an equal capacity and need for love.  And if you think that’s a “discredited and destructive idea,” then you’re clearly a hate-ridden little sociopath who ought to have his own marriage license — if not his birth certificate — revoked.

Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing

As seen in the book, Heather Has No Mommies.

at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.

My marriage sucks, apparently.

5. “Denying marriage rights to same sex couples is the equivalent of denying marriage rights to inter-racial couples before 1967.”

TRUTH: The old and hateful laws barring interracial marriage directly discriminated against individuals based on their race—a discrimination explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

Yeah, it was great how they finally got around to adding that to the Constitution in 1870.  And it was a mere 97 years before it took effect.  Where’s the fire, homos?

The language of the Constitution never mentions (or even hints at) similar protection for sexual orientation. Before Loving v. Virginia struck down the evil anti-miscegenation laws, such legislation treated a black man and a white man completely differently: the African-American couldn’t marry a white woman, but the white guy could. As noted above, under Proposition 8 a lesbian woman got exactly the same marriage options as a heterosexual woman; there was no potential mate that the straight woman could choose, but the gay woman couldn’t.

This same argument was used in favor of those “old and hateful “laws,” since “miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites ‘equally.’”  And of course, black people had the same right as whites to marry, so long as their intended spouse was another black person.  But sometimes your life partner doesn’t appear on the government-approved menu:  ”Justice Roger Traynor flatly rejected the shopworn claim that miscegenation laws applied ‘equally’ to all races. ‘A member of any of these races,’ Traynor explained, ‘may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable.”

And what do you want to bet, Michael, that before “the evil anti-miscegenation laws” were struck down, there were people whose opinions and religious convictions were roughly analogous to yours, who published articles and pamphlets that offered the TRUTH about racially mixed marriages, and why all the arguments in favor of overturning anti-miscegenation laws were just a bunch of “myths.”

6. “Any gay marriage ban is an invasion of privacy.”

TRUTH: Actually, opposition to gay marriage involves the defense of privacy from governmental intrusion, not any sort of intimate assault. The drive to mandate gay marriage demands a vast expansion of governmental involvement into same sex relationships – relationships in which the right bureaucratic policy would be strict neutrality. Proposition 8 mandated no change in private relationships and only an alteration in public policy.

You queers don’t want to get on the grid, do you?  Go Galt now, while you still can!

7. “Governmental recognition for gay marriage is necessary to end oppression of gay people.”

TRUTH: All Studies and surveys indicate that gay people in America hardly constitute an oppressed minority; on average, they enjoy higher levels of education and income than the heterosexual majority.

“Just because the Jews can’t vote or own property doesn’t mean they’re not making a killing in the shmatte trade.”

This is like saying Feminism was necessary to stop women from being burned at the stake as witches

I bet you girls are feeling a little silly now about all that unnecessary bra smoke you inhaled.

Even in the federal trial just concluded, the plaintiffs’ attorneys presented abundant evidence of the remarkable success and eminence of homosexual couples in the United States. The undeniable fact that gay people have achieved these personal and communal victories even without gay marriage, is an indication that the traditionally privileged position for heterosexual marriage hasn’t blocked homosexuals from successful participation in every aspect of American life.

Do you deny that Negroes are amongst our most successful and respected minstrel show performers?  And just try getting a job as a Pullman porter when you’ve got red hair and freckles!

Nice job, Michael.  On the Giant Flaming Strawman Scale you scored…

A Screaming Christopher Lee with Hair Standing on End.  A very solid showing.  Congratulations!

America Forever, Fair Housing Never!

Posted by s.z. on June 18th, 2010

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, my activities with animal rescue don’t allow me to keep up with wingnuts too much anymore. (For those who might be interested, here’s a roster of the current foster pets: one bossy and hyper terrier-mix dog, two 3-week-old orphaned kittens, four elderly cats who will probably never be adopted, six foster cats with medical needs who will probably never be adopted, three under-socialized cats who will probably never be adopted, one cat who is just plain mean and will never be adopted, and a bunch of nice, adoptable cats who are just waiting for good homes.)

So, usually I only have time for the current events covered by Keith Olbermann, the local paper, and World o’Crap. (Which reminds me: if you send in a small donation to Scott and Mary, not only can you feel good about helping some nice, talented people who could use a hand right now, but you’ll also get a FREE CAT as a pledge gift. Don’t delay too long, or you may wind up with Crabby Abby as your prize.)

Anyway, fortunately for me, the local rag always features as many wacky right-wingers and clueless Tea Partiers as anyone could ever wish. More even. A whole lot more. In fact, the local John Birch Society (or JBS, as it’s been rebranded for the new, hip generation) teaches weekly classes on Commie spotting, and its members regularly write letters to the editor identifying which local and national officials are the spawn of Stalin.

But recently the paper covered an incident here that was SO stupid that I truly believed it was either parody or performance art. It turned out to have been neither. So, let me recount it for you now.

It all starts in 2009, when Salt Lake City passed legislation prohibiting housing and employment discrimination against gay and transgender people. As the pits of hell didn’t open up and swallow the city, last month the town council here in Logan debated passing a similar law. Its passage was uncertain … until America Forever showed up. Here’s a bit about that from the Herald Journal.

Proposed anti-discrimination ordinance draws protesters
A group of forthright outsiders is working to stir up locals against Logan’s proposed laws aimed at protecting gay people from discrimination.

“They’re (the Logan Municipal Council) going to give them (homosexuals) freedoms and take away freedoms from others. We should have the right to not associate with someone who is homosexual,” said 55-year-old Sandra Rodrigues, of Sandy, speaking by phone from Angie’s Restaurant early Monday. “I don’t want to be served by someone with AIDS in the kitchen – I mean, I have those worries. I’m sorry.”

And, of course, if the law passed, then homosexuals who were denied housing would never get AIDS and then seek work as cooks, so Sandra could eat at Angie’s without fear of contracting the disease via gay cooties.

Rodrigues leads a group calling itself America Forever, which dispatched a dozen agitators, all from the Salt Lake area, to Logan on Saturday – that day they protested near the homes of Councilwoman Holly Daines and Councilman Herm Olsen. On Sunday, members of the group showed up outside the church that Council Chairman Jay Monson attends.

Signs they hoisted read: “Shame on Holly Daines for becoming a gay activist,” and “Sexual Orientation is not a class” and “Jay Monson hates children.”

Later Sunday, members of the group distributed door-to-door in Monson’s neighborhood a flier reading: “Shame on Councilmen Olsen, Monson, Daines for joining hands with the gay movement and becoming homosexual activists to oppress religious citizens freedoms.”

I have to say, that last snappy slogan should be recycled into a bumper stick for somebody’s senate campaign or something.

On Monday afternoon, Rodrigues and her team held a “town hall” meeting in a conference room at The Crystal Inn in south Logan. No visitors were on hand while she had it out with someone on the phone at about 4 p.m. No one showed up all afternoon, but the group did receive upward of 50 phone calls and e-mails from locals arguing against their message and tactics. Rodrigues ditched the town hall and ended up demonstrating at City Hall late in the afternoon, drawing stares, jeers and reprimands from passers-by.


Rodrigues, who described gay people as “conniving,” said the Logan ordinances and similar ones in other cities are part of gay peoples’ agenda to “flaunt” their lifestyle, to forcefully expose straight people to homosexuality, say at the office Christmas party where a gay couple “would kiss and hold hands and nobody would be able to say anything”

The horror, the horror! And thanks to those conniving gays, the door will be opened for heterosexuals to do the same thing … and the next thing you know, men will be holding hands with their wives, and then office managers will hit on secretaries, and interns will have sex in the supply closet, and society will be doomed, DOOMED!

… or in the workplace lunchroom where they might openly discuss sexual activity.

And then all the straight people will feel bad, because they won’t have anything to add to the conversation.

Homosexuals want to be in a position to entice children to try out being gay, she said.

“This is what the gays want,” she said. “It’s really insane if you think about it.”

Yes. Yes it is. And remember, if we aren’t allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, then they will soon RULE THE WORLD!

So, did America Forever’s tactics work? Was Daines run out of town for becoming a gay activist? Did Olsen’s wife divorce him for holding hands out of wedlock? Was Monson spit on by neighbors for hating children? And what about the law???

Well, let’s flash forward a couple of days and find out.

Logan OKs measures: Anti-discrimination ordinances approved after spirited hearing

Earnest Cooper stood at the door of the chamber weeping as the Logan Municipal Council approved ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation Tuesday night.

“I’ve never felt like I’ve loved Logan more,” said Cooper, a gay 27-year-old Utah State University student. He said he works only university jobs because he’s scared to venture into a less-tolerant off-campus environment. “For the first time I feel like I am treated as a human being. I feel like a man who belongs.”

The council, on a 4-0 vote with one abstention, passed the ordinances, similar to ones previously passed in Salt Lake City and West Valley City, among others, that make it punishable, as a civil matter, to hire or fire someone or to deny housing to someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.


Logan resident and known-Constitutionalist Michelle King spoke against the ordinances, arguing they interfere with private property rights.

“Creating a law telling people how to use their property doesn’t inspire compassion,” she said.

I’m sure Michelle voiced a similar argument on behalf of bus companies and water fountain owners when the government told them they couldn’t use their property in only the ways they wanted.

Joshua Frazier told the council: “I don’t want the government to determine what is moral and what is not.”

Yeah! It should be up to just the individual to determine if murder, theft, and child molestation are something that society should discourage.

Council Chairman Jay Monson largely restricted the hearing to Logan residents but toward the end did allow testimony from people in the Sandy-based group America Forever who protested the ordinances at City Hall and in council members’ neighborhoods in the three days leading up to the meeting.

Sandra Rodrigues, the group’s 55-year-old leader, told the council that by passing the measures they were endorsing and validating homosexual conduct. She said gays are working to create a society where they can flaunt their lifestyles and influence children.

And, of course, gays shouldn’t be allowed to even HAVE lifestyles, let alone have any influence on children. I mean, we let Socrates get away with it, and before long the kids were thinking and stuff!

“It’s part of a movement,” she said. “This law is a backdoor for all they want to do.”

And you know what they say about gays and backdoors!

In the hall after the vote, Rodrigues repeatedly called out to others filing out, “We know what you’re up to. Boo.”

What a burn!

But the law passed, the Herald Journal attributed much of the support to people who were put off by America Forever and their tactics. Thanks, AF! So, let’s jump forward to this week for the REST of the rest of the story:

Anti-Gay ‘America Forever‘ Group Disbands

An anti-gay group that has become a fixture at the Utah Pride Festival and legislative debates on gay and transgender-related bills has closed up shop, due to what its website calls “unspeakable circumstances.”

“Thank you for your support. Please keep America a Nation [sic] under God. God bless America,” the front page of the site, located at americaforever.com, now reads.

America Forever has given no official reason for disbanding. A request for an interview sent to administrative contact Jonas Filho had not been answered by press time.

Well, they did have a good run. Despite apparently consisting of only members of one family, (I think they were inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church and all the media attention those inbred morons get) they did manage to make a spot for themselves on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-gay hate groups. And at one time they had enough money to take out full-page anti-gay ads in the major Salt Lake papers. And even though the group has disbanded, I’m sure that one day, inspired by the Michelle Bachmans and Sarah Palins of the world, Sandra Rodrigues will run for public office as a Republican.

And that’s my local news report. And now that I know that Dr. Mike Adams, Ph.D, is currently residing in my general geographic area (as he says in a recent column, “On May 10th, I’m moving to Manitou Springs, Colorado, to teach all summer at Summit Ministries. I’m living in a cabin at the base of Pikes Peak, studying the teachings of the Unabomber, and planning to wreak vengeance on my colleagues, women, hippies, gays, minorities, shih-tsus, and everybody else who has wronged me”), I check the paper regularly for more local items of interest.

Egad! A Gay Dad!

Posted by scott on June 16th, 2010

Before we begin, a heartfelt thanks to all the wonderful people who’ve contributed to the World O’ Crap Beg-A-Thon. (For the no doubt also wonderful but slightly confused folks who may be tuning in late, we’re having a fund raiser this week. Why? That’s a good question, and I feel like you deserve to know, so here’s a brief, if whiny précis of our situation.)


Matt C. Abbott, as you may recall, is a “Catholic columnist” for RenewAmerica who has broken with the stodgy old norms of punditry, developing a syncretic form of new New Journalism that is relevant to the hip hop, mash-up generation. By that I mean that he doesn’t actually write his columns, in the manner of his dinosaur predecessors, but produces a sort of decoupage of Vatican talking points out of bits and pieces he scavenges from email, orthodox Catholic newsletters, and other peoples’ articles. But even though he’s young, Matt’s technique allows him to speak with authority, since most of his sources are dyspeptic older clerics who seem fed up with the wishy-washy modern laity, and would rather be manning the front counter of their local AutoZone-da-fé.

This solution to the age-old problem of journalism, or “having to write stuff down,” is efficient, but not without its pitfalls. Sometimes, for instance, you wind up quoting the authoritative voice of an anti-Semite with ties to Holocaust deniers, because he believes that the birth control pill turns black men into gangsters. But hey, when in Rome…And Matt must be doing something right, because he has quite a fan base in the Rhythm Method Nation. The last time we talked him up, it made the front page of a Catholic news portal, and was a hot topic on Angelqueen, a forum for the ultra-doctrinaire Catholic community, where one commenter remarked: “No offense meant to the poster of this thread, but does anyone else find the word ‘disses’ to be somewhat crude for the nature of this forum? (Methinks it is not an english word, moreso the use of eubonics, which isn’t appropriate for this forum; Just a thought).”

Later, Matt himself showed up and thanked the forum members for their “comments in defense of me (and the Church)!” So he’s both highly admired and connected. But I have to wonder if perhaps it’s all beginning to go to his head, because this week he deviates from his tried and true formula, and actually writes almost four of his column’s twelve paragraphs.

‘The Impact of Homosexual Parenting’

I recently had the pleasure of having a lengthy telephone conversation with Dawn Stefanowicz, author of the book Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting.

Dawn has an important story to tell, particularly at a time when the homosexual lobby is making significant inroads into family life. Yes, there are, sad to say, a number of bad parents who are heterosexual. But homosexual parenting, like homosexual “marriage,” is not a good thing.

Matt himself is unmarried and childless, so you can’t say he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. (Not to imply that he’s gay, just that he’s clearly made a commitment not to contribute to things that are not good.) Moreover, Matt doesn’t reserve his fire solely for the homosexuals. Recently he sniped at Rush Limbaugh on the occasion of his fourth nuptials: “[A]s a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, I’m disappointed in Rush. He just got married for the fourth time and even paid Elton John, the anti-Christian queen of pop-rock, a reported $1 million to perform at his wedding.”

This tongue-lashing didn’t go over terribly well with the base, and Matt was forced to defend himself and Canon Law, which still applies to you Protestants and atheists, even if you don’t believe the Pope is the boss of you!

Even though Rush is not Catholic, it doesn’t exempt him from the moral law. We’re not talking about Catholic discipline here; we’re talking about the Church’s moral teaching on divorce and remarriage. A non-Catholic probably won’t accept that teaching, but it still applies to him or her, as does the intrinsic immorality of abortion, contraception, fornication, adultery, sodomy and masturbation.

So allowing gays to marry and raise children causes Rush to commit sodomy. Q.E.D.

Anyway, back to Dawn (not Dawn Eden, who Matt quoted last time, and who wrote a DIY book about building yourself a brand new virginity out of old, cast-off hymens you find around the house.)

The Introduction to Out from Under is chilling:

It’s as if a cold, clammy hand was tickling your armpits.

‘Will you come with me to the end of the pier?’ Dad asks. Ordinarily there is nothing I long for more than times alone with this man I too rarely get to be with. But tonight his question fills me with foreboding. The old wooden pier stretches out into the inky blue lake to a depth where the water that laps against its weathered posts is well over my head. I’m a pretty good swimmer, but even so, his request unnerves me. It would be one thing to walk out there with a father who loved me unconditionally and could be depended on to protect me, but more and more I am coming to understand that this is not the kind of father I have.”

If your father is a homosexual, then he’ll mostly likely drown you, because that’s what Montgomery Clift did to Shelley Winters in A Place in the Sun, and he was gay!

I am nine years old, and our family is staying for a week in mid August at the cottage of some friends…While Dad helped bring us all up here and he is here this last night of our holidays, most of this week he has been unwilling to stay with us. It hasn’t been work that has called him away, but pleasure. The hard truth that all of us struggle to understand is that Dad prefers the company of other men to that of his wife and children.

Maybe it’s because the other men are less jumpy and don’t immediately assume Dad is going to kill them every time he wants to take a snapshot. But as it turns out, the joke’s on them!

A few of the transitory and violent relationships he has had with these men have ended in their suicides.

I totally believe you, Dawn. Why, add in a couple of Hairy Navels and the Collector’s Edition DVD of Liza with a “Z”, and that’s your average weekend on Fire Island.

Though I cannot help but love him, I am starting to see that my father is a very dangerous man. If he can behave so abominably toward those men he professes to love, then what might he do to those he does not love, like us?

Well, he might not drive you to suicide. In fact, if everyone my father loved offed themselves, I might consider taking a break from our relationship and seeing other Dads.

‘Dawn, will you come with me to the end of the pier?’ he asks again. ‘So I can get a picture?’ I hadn’t noticed the camera before.

Water…Camera…Run, Dawn! It’s An American Tragedy all over — but gayer!

We proceed along the boardwalk of sun-bleached boards, and about three-quarters of the way out he stops and waves me out to the very end. Out this far the boards don’t feel as solid as I’d like, but I want to please him and so I go out to perch on the very last one and turn around to face him. ‘That’s fine; stay there,’ he calls, framing the shot as I gingerly kneel down on one knee, holding the front paws of our Chihuahua, Skipper, who — just as nervous as I am — carefully balances on his hind legs. The picture taken, Dad immediately and wordlessly turns and walks away, leaving me alone and afraid in this precarious place to which he’s invited me. This is the story of my life.

Wow. And I thought I’d had an abusive childhood. Anyway, Matt is so moved by Dawn’s story that he actually writes some more.

And it’s been a difficult life for Dawn — then and now. She has to face the wrath of gay activists

…who get irrationally angry when you suggest that gay parents neglect their children in favor of using an Instamatic and fornicating with the suicidal.

…and a less-than-friendly government (she resides in Canada). But she’s up to the task.

You know, I’ve liked almost every Canadian I’ve ever met, but maybe we’re building that border fence in the wrong place.

In her book’s Preface, Dawn writes: “The purpose in writing this book is to deliver an open, honest, and balanced account of what it was like growing up with a homosexual father and a weak, subservient mother.

If only her mother had been a bull dyke, Dawn’s home life probably would have been much more stable, and Mom would have seen that she got a real dog instead of that Chihuahua.

As a child, I struggled to deal with all the vivid and explicit sexual experiences, conflicts, and confusion I faced within this family setting.”

I would have been fine if my dad had been gay, but I would have drawn the line at him having sex on my Twister set with men who’d later go hang themselves in the bonus room.

Despite the many troubling and emotionally damaging situations she encountered while growing up, Dawn writes that she “will always love” her father, who died in 1991.

…thus neatly avoiding some awkward, post-publication silences at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

“In writing this book, my aim is not to hurt his name or reputation in any way.”

Well, you did imply he raised a panicky nitwit.

“Rather, I would like to honor him”

Mission Accomplished, honey.

Tony Perkins: Let’s Push That Wall of Separation Onto The Homos, Shall We?

Posted by scott on June 2nd, 2010

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell seems to have picked up a bit of momentum recently, but it’s about to slam face first into the immovable object that is Tony Perkins. No, not the bisexual actor — the president of the Family Research Council, an organization co-founded by “reparative therapy” expert George Rekers (presumably the Council researches Family Rates for rentboys, so it’s kind of like Priceline.com if you’re looking to get Dad a “long-stroke” massage specialist for Fathers Day).

Unlike so many religious conservatives who base their opposition on a tendentious reading of scripture, Mr. Perkins is not a full-time clergyman, but a failed politician, and so his concerns about lifting DADT are entirely secular. In brief, he argues that if gays and lesbians (or “homosexuals” as he inevitably calls them, because use of the word “gay” requires “scare quotes” and his Shift finger is getting tired, and also because lesbians apparently don’t exist) are allowed to serve openly in the military, then chaplains won’t be able to thunderously denounce members of their flock based on a tendentious reading of scripture.

But what really makes Mr. Perkins the perfect and irrefutable exponent of the Those Who Serve, Serve Best Secretly faction, is his own military record. No chickenhawk he, as the Editor of CNN’s Belief Blog notes, Mr. Perkins is “a Marine veteran,” and therefore has the training, the experience, and above all, the same hard-won moral authority as Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald.

My Take: Ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would undermine religious liberty

Some people think allowing open homosexuality in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed.

Yes, the closet door, specifically. And while you’re in there, would you see if you can find my other ski boot?

It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct

Had this been a Townhall column, that sentence would have ended with “(pun intended)” so — thanks, nameless CNN editor!

whether because of legitimate privacy and health concerns or because of moral or religious convictions.

Yes, if the most important thing to you is privacy, you should definitely join the Service. But I think the “health concerns” are overblown, since military medics demonstrated their ability to swiftly quarantine at-risk populations in 1976, when they contained an outbreak of Cooties at West Point.

This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-homosexual activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly homosexual military personnel will not satisfy them.

They are also demanding the military sponsor “Mojito Mondays.”

The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:

“Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.”

While not in the defense authorization bill amendment approved by the House of Representatives and a Senate committee last week…

“…I thought I would pull it out of my ass anyway, because my Thai anal beads are still soaking in dishwashing liquid.”

…this goal will undoubtedly be accomplished administratively as part of the “necessary policies and regulations” mandated by that amendment.

This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the homosexual movement: that people are born “gay” and cannot change and that homosexual conduct does no harm to the individual or to society.

What’s more harmful, being gay, or being persecuted for being gay? Some people might say it’s the latter, which would only force society to slap them again while weeping into its beer and screaming, “Why do you make me hurt you?!

Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary

“…I had it around here somewhere…Honey! I’m trying to make a point about the gays — have you seen my mountain?”

- or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman – runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s “equal opportunity policy” regarding “sexual orientation.”

There should be some sort of affirmative action program for bigots, to help them break through the glasshole ceiling.

For no other offense than believing what all the great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history

…that each of the others is WRONG and should be KILLED!

some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist.

But they’ll find positions waiting for them in the Minutemen, or Michigan Militia.

Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing homosexuals.

That’s why it’s important to discriminate against minorities — it doesn’t affect your bottom line as much. Thanks, Free Market!

This pro-homosexual political correctness has already begun to infect the military.

When Tony’s right, he’s .

As an ordained minister and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a prayer event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a spiritual message, not a political one.

But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized President Barack Obama’s call to open the military to homosexuality in his State of the Union address. The base chaplain told me they had received some complaints – about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for homosexual activist groups.

They studied Telephone Use under Saul Alinsky and Lady Gaga.

If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?

They might have to conceal their true selves and live a lie in order to get along with the majority. Oh Irony, you are indeed a cruel, jackbooted mistress. Do you take Discover Card?

Those most likely to suffer are military chaplains. While some in the ranks will simply choose not to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to preserve their careers, this is not an option for chaplains. Their ministry is to proclaim the moral and theological teachings of their faith.

Chaplains who don’t get up on a table in the mess hall on Shrimp Scampi night and rant about the sanctity of Old Testament dietary laws can be charged with malfeasance.

But under the new regulations, will they be free to preach from the entire Bible?

Even the really goofy parts?


“And if you take a homo’s balls in your hand and squeeze real hard, he won’t be able to enter the Tabernacle!”

Or will they be forced to excise the many passages declaring homosexual conduct to be a sin?

It should be stressed at least as much as that part about collecting the foreskins of your dead enemies (this is the part about fighting Muslims that’s really frustrating and unsatisfying).

In their counseling role, military chaplains assist all service members who come to them, even if they are of other faith traditions.

But if you’re of another sexual orientation, then kindly roast in Hell. It’s one thing to worship a heathen god, but if you don’t venerate the Vaj, a chaplain is legally obliged to stone you to death.

But if a homosexual seeks counseling regarding his personal relationships, will the chaplain be free to recommend therapy to overcome homosexual attractions? Or will he be forced to affirm a lifestyle that his faith condemns?

This is a complex issue and we should probably consult an expert. You have Dr. Reker’s phone number, don’t you, Tony?

While chaplains are members of the military, they must be “endorsed” by a sponsoring religious body. Denominations that are unequivocal in holding to a biblical standard of sexual morality may stop endorsing military chaplains rather than allow them to compromise their principles.

What? Fewer inflexible, sanctimonious scolds in combat areas? The men will be so disappointed.

This may result in a chaplain corps that has plenty of Unitarian ministers and homosexual Episcopal priests, but a shortage of clergy to minister to the largest religious groups in America, such as Roman Catholics (whose catechism declares that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”)

And who better to speak with authority on matters of sexuality morality than the Vatican. But even before priestly pedophila became common knowledge, the laity had adopted a pick-and-choose approach to dogma — or haven’t you spent much time lately pushing your plate past the stream trays of American Catholicism?

or Southern Baptists (whose Baptist Faith and Message declares that “Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography”).

Interestingly, the areas where Southern Baptism flourishes are also the states which produce the most racism and divorce, and consume the most pornography. So once again, kudos for observing the dictum, “write what you know.”

It was religious liberty that drew the Pilgrims to America and it is religious liberty that leads off our Bill of Rights.

Actually, it was religious fanaticism that drew them to America, and a major purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the country from people like the Pilgrims.

But overturning the American military’s centuries-old ban on homosexual conduct, codified in a 1993 law

How can we overturn it now? The law dates to 1993, it’s an ancient tradition! We might as well give up our flint adzes, or slavery!

would mean placing sexual libertinism – a destructive left-wing social dogma found nowhere in the Constitution – above religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom.

Remember, equal rights for gays means fewer and inferior rights rights for you, because Liberty is a zero-sum game.

Living La Vida Really, Really Loca

Posted by scott on May 5th, 2010

While much of the ex-gay industry seems a bit frantic in the wake of luggage-gate, one repurposed queer has tackled the real challenge facing America today: straightening the kink in Ricky Martin’s hose.

To Ricky with love: You can resist

I’m always touched when the ex-gays share their love with the homos, especially when it doesn’t involve a cash transaction.

Note: Michael Glatze is a former gay-rights leader who left the homosexual lifestyle.

Well, I haven’t found much evidence that Michael was much of a gay rights activist, let alone a “leader” of the movement, but I’m sure the rest of the sentence is a sterling ingot of truth.

People like Ricky Martin, even if they don’t care about his sexuality. But I care about his sexuality. I care deeply about his sexuality

Wow, two dozen words into the column and it’s already getting skin-crawlingly creepy. Excuse me for just a sec — I’ve got to call the Guinness Book people. And the police.

– and about the sexuality of people on this planet. Because, you see, our sexuality is under attack.

…from space aliens whose ray guns can reverse the polarity of our junk!

Our increasingly perverted culture is engaging in an all-out war on human sexuality, with the idolization of the male body one of its bastions and the twisting of normal heterosexuality into active homosexuality as its main goal.

Churchill.jpg“We shall defend our Sexuality, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches of Ibiza. We shall fight in the bars and in the streets of Key West. We shall fight in the hills, and in other reality shows, we shall fight wherever men with tawny six-packs and taut, muffiny pecs are idolized.”

If masculinity can be undermined, the people will be without a powerful spine – and charismatic leaders with nothing but power and control in mind can assume that power and control.

Although, as it turns out, it’s really not that much fun being King of the Invertebrates, since it takes your minions forever to peel you a grape.

Ricky Martin, like many of us, had the pressure of a life of fame and the life of being successful on account of his sex appeal and physical appearance. And, like all people who suffer this temptation, the “gifts” of success can seem to outweigh the gifts of humility and denial of that success – in pursuit of higher principles. The pressure is immense.

So Michael wasn’t really homosexual. He was just too handsome and successful to be straight.

The pressure to succumb to homosexual desires is also immense.

Especially when you’re gay.

And this goes for anybody – homosexual desire is something that anybody can succumb to, just as it is something that anybody can turn away from.

Homosexuality can strike without warning. The Federal Civil Defense Administration recommends all citizens keep and maintain a Gay Preparedness Kit, including five (5) gallons of distilled water, fresh batteries, Black Pepper Shave Oil, bandages, antiseptic, hydrating skin toner, flashlight, and twelve (12) oz. of a botanical Restorative Hair Masque.

(It is one of the Big Lies of our culture that people are somehow born gay and that it is a fixed identity until that person’s death. Never believe this lie; countless individuals leave homosexual desire, leave the addiction of homosexual sin and have happy, normal, heterosexual lives. Never believe the lie.)

“Oh, and did I mention that I’m a former gay-rights leader who was driven to butt sex by the pressure of a life of fame and a life of being successful on account of my sex appeal and physical appearance?”

But the lie is so alluring. And, when you live your life bathed in sexual desire, when your identity is full of the notion that sexual desire equals success, it can be a quick “one-two” step into embracing the full perversion of homosexual desire and practice. Ricky, I feel for you.

Why do I picture Michael sitting at his desk, singing “You Made Me Love You” to a signed 8×10 glossy of Menudo?

Ricky, there are many people out there who had the same tempting offer of the homosexual life … and RESISTED IT! They fought that power! They turned away from that sin. They pushed through the dark allure – and they found the way out.

The best way to resist a tempting offer of the homosexual life is to raise your mighty sword aloft and cry, “By the Power of Greyskull…I have the POWER!…to RESIST!…getting a nice skuiljob. By turning into this oiled and naked bachelor with the psysique of a demi-god…Stop judging me!

Today, they live happy, wholesome, heterosexual lives.

Speaking as someone who probably has more experience with heterosexuality than Michael, I would just like to offer a friendly bit of advice: don’t get your hopes up. Yes, it can be happy, but wholesome? Who do you think’s the primary audience for hentai? I hate to burst your bubble, but heterosexuals are insatiable pervs who hump like bunnies, often without benefit of clergy. We’re not all the Duggars.

I tell people all the time that the seduction of homosexuality is so powerful – especially when supported by charismatic presidents and powerful lobbying groups – that it can seem so much easier just to succumb, rather than fight. But that fight is for your very soul. This goes for everybody reading this, whether you identify as “gay” or “straight,” “Christian” or not – this is a battle for your soul.

Barack Obama has joined in a dark alliance with the Tobacco Institute to convince my soul to pole-smoke.

When the homosexual temptation arises in a human’s experience, it is always possible to avoid it – and push through.

Make sure you’re well-lubed at all times, just in case the homosexual temptation hits while you’re shopping for microwave soups at the A&P. Never know when you’ll need to push through.

Homosexuality is not just one form of human sexuality, not necessarily any different from heterosexuality.

It’s a many cock-headed Hydra of hotness!

Homosexuality is a cage in which you are trapped in an endless cycle of constantly wanting more – sexually – that you can never actually receive, constantly full of emptiness, trying to justify your twisted actions by politics and “feel good” language, constantly attempting to silence the voices of those who are simply trying to help get you out of that sin.

So it’s like being horny? Thanks for the exegesis, Sappho.

But even if all the millions of people like me are somehow silenced – and with our current corrupt U.S. administration, such a future is not necessarily science-fiction –

“It’s as though millions of voices cried out, and were suddenly silenced by a penis gag.”

Turn to God, save your soul, love yourself, and be strong. Homosexuality will always be a sin, no matter how nicely we talk about it.

“Hello, Bernice! My, your begonias are looking lovely this year.”

“Oh, thank you, Martha. Say, I was walking by the park last evening and saw Young Parker down on his knees behind the bandshell, deep throating the Simmons boy.”

“June’s oldest?”

“Heavens, no, he’s gone off to the agricultural college. It was Tommy, the one with the freckles and the stammer.”

“What a charming boy. He helped us set up the scavenger sale at the Community Center last month.”

“Yes, I remember. Anyway, he was punching Young Parker’s uvula like a welterweight working the speedbag.”

“Oh, how nice. And sinful!”

“And such a lovely night for it, although I suppose the farmers need the rain…”

If you think there’s love to be found in homosexual relationships, you’re right. There’s love everywhere. Even in the nastiest of places. But, if you truly – truly – follow that love, you will find that you cannot, in good conscience, condone an activity that leads to the destruction of the human body, that leads to the destruction of the human potential for creation and leads one into a downward spiral of confusion known as “the gay identity.”

“I finally found love — true love — with a beautiful, wonderful man. However, after talking to Michael, I’ve decided the best thing to do is to go live a lie, and maybe — if I’m lucky — find some fertile woman’s life to ruin.”

This is not “hate” speech;

It falls more in the “dumb” category.

hate speech will be what you’ll see in the mouths of homosexual activists after they read these words I have written. But notice the difference: They will be condemning me, personally, and saying the cruelest things a human being can say about another – while I am simply sitting here saying how much I love humanity, how much I deeply care for the well-being of those around me and how much I wish you, Ricky, had the conviction in your soul to know that you can quit this. You can quit this.

Insert Brokeback Mountain joke here.

The site Ex-Gay Watch looked at Michael’s blog and tweets back in October 2009, and caught the now well-adjusted former gay just kickin’ back and thinking out loud: (click the link and scroll down for a clearer image)


Someone claiming to be Michael showed up in the comments and declared:

So, I heard there was a blog posting about me, here, and I thought it’d be interesting to come check it out. Yes, I do love it when people talk about me – who wouldn’t? …

Obviously, the posting about Obama was a bit of acerbic sarcasm, aimed at the reality that ANY criticism of this man gets you labeled a racist. Obama’s not disgusting because he’s black, he’s disgusting because he seems to hate life, sanction evil, and want nothing more than to destroy America and re-make it in *HIS* image. Clear enough?

Keep calling people who tell the truth crazy, and you’ll only have your own guilt to deal with. Open up to the truth, and you might find you actually get to live, for once. But, don’t take my word for it, I’m just some “right-wing extremist whack-job” who not only hates gays but is racist to boot!!!!

Incidentally, I allowed that posting to remain on my blog because I thought it was just the right kind of fire to bring folks like you scurrying out of the darkness. So fun.

Anyway, Ex-Gay Watch blogger David Roberts took a more-sorrow-than-in-anger approach to the whole thing:

[W]e hope that any would-be Glatze promoters might think twice about placing him on the stage again. As Besen determined, that would be unwise and exploitative. Whether he is in need of help or is actually expressing genuine prejudice and hatred, giving him a platform would seem to be pointless and irresponsible at best.


Simple Twits of Hate

Posted by scott on April 9th, 2010

Guest Column by Bill S.

Other bloggers have already waxed more eloquently on the Constance McMillen imbroglio than I’m likely to do, but I’d still like to put in my two cents. For those who still don’t know about it: Constance was a high school senior, a lesbian who wanted to attend the prom with a female date. When the school board rejected the request and then canceled the prom altogether, she took legal action, and the prom was back on. But the senior class held a seperate prom the same night, and didn’t invite, so the only people who attended the real prom were Constance and 7 others, two of whom had learning disabilities.

But is all this enough to make Fulton, Mississippi “the meanest town in America”?

At the website LA FIGA, two students posted comments to offer their side of the story. The first, who went by “begleg10,” but later identified herself as Lindsay, offered this:

**Open Minded Readers Only**
I am a senior at IAHS and I’ve known Constance for 6 years. Please hear our side of the story before you decide on our fate.

You mean we get a vote on that? Oh, goody. If only I was Carrie White…

The party we had in Evergreen (the county neighborhood I live in) is 30 mins away from the school. we rented out the community center, hired vendors, decorated and our parents ran the security/chaperone staff–but it wasn’t prom.

It was just a quiet little get-together for 400 people.

Prom was at the country club where constance and 7 other students were. The reason the senior class boycotted the actual prom was not because we hate gays. We just wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy. What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance, not her mistreatment by the school district, but her crazy-reckless need for attention.

Yeah, she should have accepted that mistreatment and kept her mouth shut.

It sounds mean an horrible and like we planned it all specifically to embarrass Constance, but we didn’t. We let her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo and we went to party it up in the “boondocks” not because we wanted her rights violated, but so we could salvage what has turned into a total fiasco.

Yes, the mere presence of a lesbian couple at a prom would make the festivities a “total fiasco.” What a perfectly reasonable reaction.

As a whole we didn’t support her decision to throw the district under a bus, or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pickup trucks spitting tobacco juice and burning crosses.

And this was a perfect way to dispel that image.

IAHS is one of the top schools in the state and I’m proud of that, and I’m proud that took a stand and said, you know what? Forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves. So we did, and now we’re getting flack because poor Connie’s ego got a bit of a bruising. She’s playing the lesbian card to prove she ALWAYS gets what she wants. This time, we just didn’t let her.

In the previous paragraph, Lindsay said they weren’t setting out to embarrass Constance, and now, she’s admitting, flat out, that it’s exactly what they were trying to do. And, y’know, if you want to prove you’re not a homophobe, you may want to steer clear of saying things like “she played the lesbian card.” And you might also want to dial back the righteous outrage too. Because if you remove the fact that Constance is a lesbian from this scenario, you’ll see just how ridiculous it is:

“That Constance! She always gets what she wants!”

“What does she want this time?”

“She wants to attend the prom…with a date…who accepted her invitation.”

“Sheesh, what a spoiled bitch! Wait a minute, isn’t that the same thing we want?”

Take it as you will, because I’m sure it sounds like we faked her out, but understand this — the decision NOT to attend the prom had nothing to do with the school or with Constance’s sexual preferences — it had everything to do with proving we we’re going to let her or the ACLU steamroll us into doing what Constance wanted. We flexed the muscle of the majority and we’ll suffer the consequence.

Oh, I see. So you weren’t doing this because you’re a bunch of reactionary bigots. You were just innocently ganging up on one kid because you just don’t like her.

That’s a lot better.

Another student, identified only as “softballgirl10,” had a few things to say as well:

as another student at IAHS im TIRED OF THIS. it has made me LOSE FAITH IN THE MEDIA. NONE OF YOU KNOW CONSTANCE. she has been pulling this stuff for years and I doubt she’s a lesbian frankly.

Golly, you’re right. I don’t know her, so I guess I’ll just take your word for it that she’s — wait, I don’t know you either.

but whatever she’s got her college paid for and she got to wear her “different” tux and everyone loves her and she’s got exactly what she wanted…

And all you got was the award for the best imitation of Regina George.

and i don’t understand the disabled kids stuff. we don’t even talk to them, so stop judging. they could have come to our prom if they wanted to.

So they weren’t excluded, they just weren’t told about it. Thanks for clearing that up. Hey, I thought Lindsay said it wasn’t a prom?

also i’m proud of our administration for backing us up by the way instead of running away from all of you. that’s courage, not trying to get away with wearing weird clothes.

Yes, it’s truly courageous to crush any sign of nonconformity.

you know what i mean by weird. what if she wanted to come to prom with a police siren on her head? one that’s really loud would you defend her then??

Of course not — it’d clash with the tux.

that’s what SHE WAS DOING THIS FOR TO GET PEOPLE TO STARE AT HER. she is using the lesbian thing as an excuse to look like a victim but she JUST WANTS YOU TO LOOK AT HER. she ruined our year…

Your entire school year was ruined because she dresses differently? How mature.

So, let me just see if I’ve got this: Constance wanted to attend her senior prom with a female date, and wear a tux. Neither of those things would have actually harmed anybody, so there was no reason to refuse this request. In fact, if she was likely to raise a fuss, the logical thing to do was allow it and move on. Unless of course, you were anticipating drama from somebody other than Constance.

But the school not only rejected this request, it canceled prom altogether, punishing not just her, but the entire senior class. Since the only effect this could have was turning Constance into a social pariah, the was obviously the only purpose of it.

So Constance sued, which was logically in the best interest of her class, since she was getting back the prom the school took away. And how did her class respond? By branding her the troublemaker, and, with the assistance of their parents, holding a private prom from which she was excluded.

I guess I have misjudged them.

They’re even bigger assholes than I thought.

-Bill S

The Ballad of Reading Fail

Posted by scott on February 11th, 2010

You may remember RenewAmerica mainstay Bryan Fischer, who’s been ranting about sodomites and Musselmen for far longer than this blog has been in business. But in today’s wingnut world, quality, craftsmanship, and experience don’t mean much, not when a hungry young up-and-coming crank like Tom Tancredo can publicly demand a return to literacy tests and the poll tax, forcing an established tradesman like Bryan to match the rhetorical mark-up by calling for the mass imprisonment of gay men and lesbians.

Or as Bill S. put it in a message, “Shorter Bryan Fischer: We could eliminate a whole bunch of pesky civil rights laws by simply putting the people they’re supposed to protect in prison.”

Fortunately, this isn’t some wild eliminationist scheme pulled out of the pasty white, but pure and Adamic ass of some preacher in an Aryan Nations or Christian Identity compound in Idaho. No, according to his official bio:

Bryan Fischer is the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics.

By “public policy topics” he means teh gayz! and by “expertise” he means “a willingness to fantasize on the internet about reviving Martin Sherman’s play Bent, but this time as a reality series.”

Bryan has been married to his bride, Debbie, for 32 years

And as you can imagine, she’s dying to get out of that wedding dress.

…and they have lived in Idaho since 1980.

And how nice for Bryan that he got in on the ground floor of that whole “relocate to Idaho” movement that was so popular with certain white Christians in the 80s and 90s, since I imagine the fortified compounds were still reasonable.

I guess the only other biographical items we should note before going on is that Bryan is the host of an American Family Association-sponsored talk radio program for various down-market and low wattage AM stations, and he bears an eerie resemblance to Peter Graves in Airplane!

“Have you ever seen a grown man naked?”

Laws proscribing homosexual conduct can be found in the Middle Assyrian Law Codes dating back to 1075 BC. To my knowledge, the Middle Assyrians have never been part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, which gives the lie to the myth that only blue-nosed prudes who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition have ever found fault with sodomy.


Yes, the Assyrians of 3000 years ago were known for their leftist politics, and their surviving steles and tablets are littered with feminist boilerplate like “a man may strike his wife, pull her hair, her ear he may bruise or pierce. He commits no misdeed thereby.” Still, I’m a little confused; usually folks like Bryan insist that the Ten Commandments are the only body of laws we ought to heed, since they’re the basis for all Western jurisprudence; unfortunately, they don’t have anything to say about homosexuality, so the American Family Association is forced to bring in a ringer from the pagan league.

“Justice Pazuzu issues a well-argued dissent from the Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and condemns you all to be devoured by locusts!”

Every state in the Union at the time of the Founding had laws which made homosexual behavior illegal. In fact, that noted icon of the left, Thomas Jefferson, wrote a law for the state of Virginia that mandated castration as punishment for two men apprehended for male-to-male friskiness.

By a strange coincidence, that’s the same punishment the Assyrian penal code called for in the 10th century B.C. We’ve come a long way, Baby.

Sodomy was a felony offense in all 50 states as recently as 1962, and was still a felony in the other 49 states ten years later.

Meanwhile, miscegenation was still outlawed in only 22 states, meaning that while blacks could marry white people in over half the country, they couldn’t legally ass fuck them.

Still today, 12 states have sodomy statutes on the books, although our meek acquiescence to judicially activist rulings from the Supreme Court have rendered those unenforceable.

Sixteen states had anti-miscegenation laws on the books which were rendered unenforceable by Loving v. Virginia and your meek acquiescence. Just when are you going to get around to lynching the corpse of Earl Warren, anyway? People are beginning to talk.

By the way, it’s silly to criticize a law just because it’s old and antiquated. The First Amendment has been around for 219 years, and I don’t hear anybody saying we’ve got to get rid of it because it’s so out of date. The issue is not how old a law is but how right it is.

Very true, which is why we should seek guidance from the ancient Assyrians about modern abortion policy, too. Under the old law, if a man punched a married woman and caused her to lose her fetus, he was forced to pay “two talents of lead,” but if a woman merely experienced a miscarriage, she was crucified and her corpse left out to picked at by vultures. And since, as we will shortly see, Bryan believes that any law that was once a law is still a law, there’s no reason we can’t immediately adopt the same common sense approach to social issues as practiced by our polytheistic, Bronze Age forefathers.

The fact remains, however, that in nearly 25% of the states in the Union, sodomy is still in the criminal code as illegal behavior.

And puppet shows and oral sex are illegal in Indiana, especially when you combine them. What’s your point?

This raises the question, then, as to whether sodomy laws should be, or legitimately have been, repealed just because they are rarely enforced.

The answer to this is a clear and unequivocal “No.”

Hopefully Doghouse Riley can flush those marionettes before the cops break down his door.

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Exactly! Global climate change — well, no. But health care reform…Hm. What about the budget deficit? Financial sector bonuses? Clean energy? Mountaintop mining regulations? How about “shovel-ready stimulus?” C’mon, that sounds a little gay…!

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces.

Well, it’s a bit late, since 12% of new Army recruits in 2007 had criminal records (presumably for sodomy, since most young people have had oral sex, or gone parachuting with an unmarried woman on a Sunday). But while I’m not actually surprised that military life is so attractive to homosexuals — it certainly worked for the Macedonians and the Janissaries — I am wondering where, with so many gay men in the Army, the next generation of Catholic priests is going to come from.

End of discussion, end of controversy.

Except not everyone would agree with your assertion that simply because an overturned law remains on the books, it remains a law. Perhaps you could lead by example, and hunt down a few fugitive slaves.

If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Nowadays? Not many.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior.

Dude, even before Lawrence, gay sex was only a misdemeanor. In Texas.
“Do you like movies about gladiators?”

Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

No, I’m pretty sure the CIA would object to the competition.

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don’t want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That’s why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

But what do we do about those people who claim they were born drug users?

Q: When did you first suspect you were a heroin addict, Bobby?

A: Oh, I’ve known since I was five. I remember, whenever my mother would leave the house, I’d dress up in tie-dye and sing Janis Joplin songs into a hairbrush in front of the mirror.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved.

We just legalize hate!

We wouldn’t throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral.

Although throwing him into a prison shower room full of gay men is not only fair but also funny.

For instance, he’s free to say that murder is not only contrary to man’s law but also to God’s law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

If we can just get him to shut up about the Negroes…

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

I used to work for a English woman who was married to a Jamaican, but under your innovative theory of jurisprudence she wasn’t technically my boss, so I made all those photocopies for nothing!

This list could actually be extended…

I’m looking at you, Brown v. Board of Education

The promos for the old movie “American Graffiti” asked the question, “Where were you in ’62?”

I’m guessing your answer is, “under a conical hood.”

If the same question were asked about the United States, we’d have to answer: in a much better, saner and healthier place when it comes to criminal sexual conduct.

“Joey…Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”

Her Name is Rios

Posted by scott on November 3rd, 2009

SRios.jpgRadio gabber and Townhall pundit Sandy Rios was last seen explaining that pro-choice people should stop their sobbin’ about Dr. George Tiller’s murder in the cathedral, because he was an abortion provider and therefore his “church” was obviously a coven of pagans who were only pretending to be Lutherans because of the superior cuisine.  And lucky for us, Sandy brings that same detached and rational style of analysis to this week’s column:

Marriage in  Maine: Why We’d Better Fight

Now that we know what President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings means by “safe,” we’d better start putting the pieces together on homosexual activism and fight back.

The beautiful old state of Maine faces a battle that will affect us all.

Gay lobsters will come out of the closet, and convert others, and suddenly those wrestling matches in the lobster tank at the front of fancy seafood restaurants will become embarrassingly homoerotic.  Worse, gay lobsters do not breed, they adopt, which will devastate the fishing industry in the Pine Tree State and drive up the price of surf ‘n’ turf all across this once great land.

Will they vote “yes” to maintain traditional marriage on November 3rd or will they not? … If we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, we’d better mobilize. But marriage is just one piece of this puzzle. Let me tell you why.

Much has been reported about the “Safe Schools Czar,” not the least of which is his desire to “Queer Elementary Education.”  That is the creepy title of the book for which he wrote the forward along with no-longer-underground-Bill Ayers.

Actually, the title is “Queering Elementary Education,” but let’s not quibble.  And William Ayers’ name appears nowhere in the book, which only proves that he not only secretly authored Barack Obama’s autobiographies, but Kevin Jennings’ work as well!  In fact, he’s ghost-writing this post right now.  Sandy’s too.  The guy’s more prolific than Joyce Carol Oates.

And the title actually means what you think it means.

Unless you think it means what Sandy thinks you think it means.

Publisher’s Description:  Queering Elementary Education is not about teaching kids to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight. It’s not part of a sinister stratagem in the “gay agenda.” …Queer teachers are those who develop curriculum and pedagogy that afford every child dignity rooted in self-worth and esteem for others. In short, queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and view childhood from the inside out. This groundbreaking volume demands we explore taken-for-granted assumptions about diversity, identities, childhood, and prejudice.

The book is filled with child-adult sex

So it’s kind of like the Bible.

including the story of a lesbian mom and her daughter lusting for the same girl in the playground.

The Amazon “Look Inside” feature doesn’t allow access to the entire text, but I didn’t see anything quite so salacious in the table of contents, which mainly features some rather dry and academic-sounding monographs.  But just because Sandy can’t remember the title of the book she’s basing her argument on is no reason to assume she didn’t actually read it.  So just get that silly thought right out of your head.

Homosexual activists have your kids in their sights.

Homosexuals are like Charles Whitman, sitting atop a phallic-shaped tower, peering through a telescopic sight at your children and preparing to pull the trigger on his love gun, love gun.

The next generation is very important to them—and not only for the purposes of propaganda.

Homosexual activists want your children in every way.

To quote Joel Robinson: “I wonder what her Briggs-Myers test looks like.”

In order to achieve that, it is necessary to mainstream homosexuality so that anyone opposing it is severely ostracized or punished as a result. But, of course, we’re there. Matt Barber, while working for All State Insurance, wrote—on his own time—an article opposing homosexuality and was subsequently fired.

Ah yes, Matt “Bam Bam” Barber, Heterosexual Martyr and, like Sandy, a former Concerned Woman for America.  S.Z. adjusted the claims adjuster’s claims when he first made them back in 2005 (scroll down to “Allstate Persecutes Christian”):

Well, if you read further down, our martyr, J. Matt Barber, says that it wasn’t solely because he wrote that column.  He adds that Allstate was actually looking for an excuse to get rid of him because he tattled on his boss’s boss for public displays of affection with a female doctor at a conference in Lisbon. 

“He was a married man,” Barber explained. “It made me very uncomfortable, especially because we investigate sexual harassment.”

And since it made Matt uncomfortable, he filed a sexual harassment complaint against the manager.

Reading the whole post, it’s apparent Allstate fired Matt not for bigotry, but for impersonating a Dilbert character.

Only positive examples of “gayness” have been presented in television, movies and media in order to normalize and de-stigmatize homosexuality.

I’d have thought “crappy internet bulletin board posing as an online magazine” would have qualified as a medium.

Young Americans can hardly remember when or why homosexuality was once taboo.

I hear ya.  I was talking to my 8-year old niece the other day, and it was clear she could barely recollect a world in which Arianism posed an existential threat to Trinitarianism.  Kids today have no appreciation for our struggle.

(By the way, Sandy?  If you think young Americans can’t conceive of homosexuality being taboo, you haven’t talked to an adolescent boy lately.)

After the famous Britney Spears/Madonna kiss there was an epidemic of teenage girls experimenting with lesbianism, kissing in public, emulating their idols for all to see.

Then all those teenage girls married wannabe rappers, shaved their heads, and turned into white trash baby chutes.

Through Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, established by Safe Schools Czar Jennings and his former organization GLSEN, children—even in grade school—have been encouraged to “come out.”

There’s clearly no need for an organization that seeks to defend at-risk gay youth.

“WASHINGTON, July 8, 2009 – Sirdeaner Walker, the mother of 11-year-old Carl Walker-Hoover, who died by suicide after enduring constant bullying at school, testified today in front of the House Subcommittees on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and Healthy Families and Communities on Wednesday in support of the Safe Schools Improvement Act – federal legislation to require that schools adopt anti-bullying policies.”

See?  These little problems have a way of working themselves out.

Gay activists had a plan which they laid out in great detail in a 1989 book called “After the Ball.” And they had help in high places. For over 20 years, the National Education Association has been aggressively pushing homosexuality.

You know, my wife’s a teacher, and those leadbottoms at the NEA have never gotten around to aggressively pushing homosexuality on her.  In fact, they haven’t even gently nudged enough bisexuality on her to inspire a decent chance for a threesome.  What the hell are we paying dues for?

Homosexuality was introduced in every area of the curriculum with American history rewritten to accommodate a “gay” Abraham Lincoln and literature and reading assignments filled with stories of graphic homosexual sex.

Oh boo hoo.  When I was in school we had to read O Pioneers! and what I wouldn’t have given for a literary reach-around during Third Period English…

The teachers were had, or they were silent and the children unprotected and ripe for the picking.

But that’s the kind of work Americans won’t do, so undocumented Mexican homosexuals had to be trucked in to pick the children before they rotted in the field.

Mothers went soft, refusing to believe their own schools were presenting such outrageous materials, while at the same time believing they were being compassionate to the gay community. It was all part of the strategy, after all, helped greatly by presenting sympathetic characters and stories of bullying and brutality to canonize homosexuals as victims in order to get the sympathy of women, who naturally want justice. Matthew Shepard’s death worked beautifully for this

Yes, Matthew was quite the little prankster, but I think even you gals will admit that when he was found beaten and left for dead, crucified on a fence, the joke was on his mother.

Matthew became a cause célèbre and mothers turned their heads from the sexualization of their own children in order to show empathy with gay relatives and friends.

So mothers let their daughters dress up in inappropriately sexy clothing to make homosexuals feel better about gay bashing?

The strategy looks something like this: Sexual orientation laws (protecting homosexuality as equal to race and religion)

Well, that’s an outrage, and such laws should be repealed immediately!  After all, homosexuality and race are innate, but religion is a choice, and if those whiners don’t like being on the receiving end of violence and discrimination, they can simply change their beliefs and worship the god or gods preferred by the majority.

Anyway, you were saying that “[s]exual orientation laws” lead to…?

…lead to hate crimes law (giving uber law enforcement protection to gays, lesbians and transgendered persons) which lead to hate speech laws that eventually silence free speech—even the preaching of pastors in churches.

I love how Sandy’s slippery slope argument is presented as a fait accompli.  It’s so much easier to win a debate when you pretend your outlandish worst case scenario is history, rather than hypothetical.

Using the Bible to teach God’s design for sex expressed only in the union between one man and one woman for a lifetime has become a criminal act in countries where hate crimes and speech laws have been enacted.

Yeah, I’ll worry about that when we also get those countries’ single-payer health care systems.

And that brings us to the marriage debate. It is not unconnected.

You could’a fooled me, sister.

Homosexual activists don’t want marriage. They want the total breakdown of traditional family relationships.

Tell ‘em to relax, the straight folks have that covered.