Court Approves Evil Gay Agenda

Hey, don’t blame me, that is the headline that the San Francisco Chronicle is running for this story

We are all going to die. Very, very soon. Did you know?

Apparently, the signs are all in place and the plague is clearly nigh and Armageddon is fast upon us because, oh my angry heterosexual god, the announcement has now been handed down: Couples who deeply love one another may now get married in California. It’s true.

Wait, there’s more. The couple in question might both have penises. Or they both might not. This is the crazy, terrifying new thing: It is totally up to them. Can you imagine?

OK, the writer is going way overboard, trying to be a bit silly. But, who are these “evil” forces?

Here’s the problem: despite the tears of joy flooding through the gay community and despite the soothing gobs of liberal bliss pouring like warm honey over tens of thousands — nay, millions — of progressive humans worldwide, all of whom are cheering this landmark groundbreaking rainbow-colored California Supreme Court decision, seeing it as one of the most positive, hopeful shifts to occur in decades, the armies of right-wing darkness are screaming their dread, scraping their nails on the chalkboard of fear, rallying the bitterly faithful.

Oh yes they are. This is the bad news. As you read these very words, shrill cultural conservatives from Orange County to Fresno to Stockton are holding meetings in all sorts of grungy subbasements and moldy rec rooms and sterile Holiday Inn conference rooms, sipping watery Sanka and sweating profusely in their armpits and scowling like angry cats as they work to put a quick and painful stop to all this gay-loving God-hating nonsense, by way of an initiative on the November ballot outlawing icky and confusing gay marriage, by constitutional decree, once and for all.

See? Same as it ever was: One beautiful step forward, one giant jackboot back.

This is left wing identity politics at its worst. You do not support gay marriage? You are a Nazi. That is what the “jackboot” reference is supposed to make you visualize.

Look, I get the whole ant-gay marriage debate. It is about the Christian marriage ideal being about the joining of a man and a woman in holy matrimony, for the ideal of creating a family, or, as Ann Coulter calls it, a way of civilizing a man so that he can be a good father. Somehow, though, anyone against gay marriage is a philistine and Nazi.

Personally, I could care less about the whole debate. If Adam wants to marry Steve, so what? Others disagree, but, it just really isn’t one of those issues I care about, or is that important to me. I agree with Senator McCain, though, in that it should be left to the States. Problem there, though, is that you get activist courts who thwart the will of the voters.

Really, the whole point of this post is that the title from the SF Chronicle amused me. And it is time to move on, or, as kender writes

The California Supreme Court up held the right of gay and lesbians to marry. You know what? I am getting pretty tired of this whole argument. Let’s do this. To marry someone they must be of the age of consent, human and not related to you any closer than what it’s set at now.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Court Approves Evil Gay Agenda”

  1. John Ryan says:

    well how times have changed. in 2004 this was a BIG issue on the right. I attribute Bush’s margin of victory to the fact that this issue was on the ballot in Ohio. If he had lost Ohio he would not have been elected but by carrying Ohio by 120,000 votes he was given the electoral votes needed. On the same ballot was a referendum on gay marriage which at that time was a frightening issue to many. DUDES KISSING ON THE STREET !! I believe that that referendum was enough to cause 60,000 voters to vote for Bush, which was all that was necessary for him to win.
    But a Pyrrhic victory, his election has badly damaged the Republican Party

  2. Silke says:

    Teach said: This is left wing identity politics at its worst. You do not support gay marriage? You are a Nazi.

    And yet I see you engage in identity politics all the time, Teach. How is this any different from your characterization of people who disagree with you as surrender monkeys and climahysterics?

    I do believe states have a right to decide this issue for themselves but I am optimistic that in the future more and more states will decide in favor of same-sex marriage.

  3. John, gay marriage was never an issue I really cared about, and I thought it was idiotic for the GOP to make a big deal out of it. That said, it is apparently an important issue with a lot of voters, both for and against. I only posted this because the headline amused me.

    I also engage in driving, too, Silke, but, unlike a bunch of people, I do not speed around town and run red lights. There is a difference. In this case, the writer as much as said that if you do not believe in a right to gay marriage, something not in the COnsitution of either the USA or Ca, you are a Nazi. Care to comment on that?

    That said, the State of Ca did vote, and the court overruled them.

  4. Silke says:

    I disagree with his characterization of those opposing same-sex marriage as Nazis. Anyone who resorts to the “you’re a Nazi” argument is just being intellectually lazy and deliberately provocative.

    Having said that, I wanted to point out that you also engage in identity politics when you call people who disagree with you “surrender monkeys” and “climahysterics.” Care to comment on that?

  5. Sure, I’ll comment on that. I will say that those who believe that Man is the primary or sole cause of global warming are hysterics, engaging in feelings based rhetoric rather the fact filled science.

    And liberals tend to be invested in defeat, ie, surrender monkeys.

    BTW, the vast majority of those who engage in the whole “you’re a Nazi” argument are, in fact, liberals, who use the rhetoric, like they do with calling people fascists, biggots, racist, or, my favorite, mean, to put the person they are talking with on the defensive and stop any discourse.

  6. Silke says:

    Teach, you get the unintentional irony award for this post. You criticize others for engaging in identity politics (and I agree with you that many on the left do, thought it’s not just the left) and then in the same breath do the same thing….again.

Pirate's Cove