The New Deviants?

Here’s the latest regarding Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill:

claire mccaskill on gay marriage

As the story makes clear, her position is one of freedom. She said:

While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

McCaskill also talked about an “uncomfortable inequality” and said,

Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principles of liberty and equality.

Meanwhile, many folks on the right, who talk a lot about “a country founded on the principles of liberty and equality,” don’t think those principles extend to folks who have the Gay Disease. The president of the Family Research Council, a powerful force in Republican politics, said in response to Republican Senator Rob Portman’s change of heart on the issue of gay marriage:

I commend Senator Portman for his unconditional love for his son.  Regardless of a child’s choices, the love of a parent can and should be a guiding beacon in the lives of their sons and daughters.  Unconditional love, however, does not mean unconditional support in choices that are both harmful to them and society as a whole.  This is especially true when we approach public policy.  Our unconditional love for our children should not override the historical and social science evidence which makes abundantly clear what is best for all children and for society – being raised by a married mother and father.

The Family Research Council, in case you aren’t sufficiently scared of what the Gay Disease can do to society, published a helpful post titled, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality.” I will summarize it for you: Gay sex will kill us all!

The truth behind most of the opposition to same-sex marriage is that it is based on the fact that the Bible has a problem with homosexuality, namely that people with the Gay Disease should be killed, or, more accurately in these New Testament times, people with the Gay Disease should let Jesus heal them.

Fortunately, the times are changing rather quickly.

It is good that people like Claire McCaskill are rejecting the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals. And it is even better that people are coming around to the idea that same-sex marriage is about liberty and equality.

And best of all is that the way things are going, some day the deviants among us will be those who want to deny other people liberty and equality based on Iron Age theology.

Next Post

3 Comments

  1. Duane,

    The main thing I don’t like about the gay community is that they stole a perfectly good word. If we were talking about gay marriage in the 1890’s, that would actually be the norm, not the exception.

    My late wife was a hair dresser and through her I met and became friends with many gays and lesbians. The ones I knew were intelligent, funny, and rarely had a chip of thier respective shoulders. They just went about thier business as usual. And even here in the heart of the Chirstian Nation with its fear and loating of homosexuals, nobody really cared. Besides, their hairdos looked fabulous my dear, just fabulous.

    I have thought for a long time that marriage should be a function of religion and that the state ought to keep its damn nose out of it. Of course, in many cultures, even today, marriage was and is a property transaction, which then makes it a contract between the parites, a.k.a., a “Civil Union.” It’s the breach of contract that’s the real problem. And the kids of course. But a contract does not have a gender. I lust hope SCOTUS remembers that when they rule on the contenious issue of gay marriage.

    To our paleolithic ancestors, marriage was superfluous. Everybody knew who was shacking up with whom (or is it “who?”). Care of the children was a communal effort. If there were any homosexuals around in those times, and no doubt there were, I suppose they were expected to carry out their responsibilities to the group like everyone else. And surnames were unnecessary. “Light-in-the-loafers could “marry” Kicking-and-Screaming” and their child might be named something like “Little-Broken-Condom-Made-in-China,” who, in turn, could be adopted by a gay couple. So, what’s the problem?

    Herb

    Like

    • Ooops! Forgot to spell check before posting. Sorry about that.

      Like

    • Herb,

      Your point is valid. Even here in small-town America, being gay wouldn’t be that big a deal if it weren’t for the religious zealots among us. They are the ones who gin up the controversy over “the gay.”

      I listened to the oral arguments on the Prop 8 case today. They were fascinating for the simple reason that the justices were all over the place on the issue. There’s a good possibility that the Prop 8 case will either be a “DIG” case (dismissed as improperly granted), or remanded back to the lower court (dependent on its DOMA ruling). I can’t wait to here the DOMA orals tomorrow.

      I was really impressed by Ted Olsen’s performance today. Stood his ground with Scalia.

      Duane

      Like

%d bloggers like this: