So the Rude Pundit decided today that, in lieu of lamely predicting what will happen at the Supreme Court as it considers two cases that may decide the constitutionality of gay marriage, he would look up some of the ways in which the right wing is freaking the fuck out over the possibility that one of their last brutish but legal prejudices might be consigned to the shitpile of history. "How to search," the Rude Pundit wondered. If he had had a pencil, he would have placed its eraser lightly on his tongue and stared off in deep thought. But instead, since he doesn't live in the 1930, he realized that he could just google "homosexual marriage" instead of "gay marriage."
For, see, gay marriage opponents like to use the word "homosexual" because it denotes "sex." In other words, if you hear "gay," you'll just think about that sweet, nonthreatening couple on Modern Family. But if you hear "homosexual," you'll think about Cam just sucking Mitchell's dick before Mitchell pumps Cam's ass, Cam aching, begging for a reacharound, Mitchell naughtily teasing it before grabbing hold of Cam's cock and yanking away, thrusting, yanking, both of them coming to orgasm together...Sorry, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, repressed homophobes who want you to think that gay relationships are only about fucking and not about loving and caring and raising children and making lives together and growing old and one partner dying before the other, all in a bond that is no different than the bonds that straight people can have.
Like, for instance, Erick "Erick" Erickson, late of CNN, recent of Fox "news," editor and writer of the blood-colored conservative and Christian, by God's grace, RedState blog. In his post today, "'Gay Marriage’ and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible," Erickson makes the fundamentalist argument that individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren't allowed to impede on his belief that an invisible sky wizard says gays getting married is icky. After quoting Matthew 19:4-6 (where Jesus says something about marriage between men and women), he writes, "As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent." The battle will now be, he says, to fight for religious exceptions to accepting gay marriage. For instance, "We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan," which is actually the way most businesses operate, but, still, it depends on what's being perverted.
We can suppose that Erickson agrees with Matthew 19:8, where Jesus offers, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." But does he go along with Matthew 19:21, where Jesus says, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"? See, quoting the Bible is fun. Anyone can do it. That's why the law shouldn't give a fuck about your Bible or Koran or whatever Big Book of Mumbo-Jumbo you delude yourself into believing.
At least give Erickson points for honesty. Others try to hide their intolerance behind fake science. The Family Research Council (motto: "Man, we are fucked when all the old people who hate the queers die") tries to logic this out: "The greatest tragedy resulting from the legalization of homosexual marriage would not be its effect on adults, but its effect on children. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children." Umm, no one is going to take children away from opposite sex couples and hand them over to same-sex ones. Is the FRC seriously arguing that it would be better for orphaned or abandoned children to be raised by the state than by gay couples? Or are they just afraid of the competition? And if there are any differences in parenting by same-sex couples, then perhaps it's because groups like the Family Research Council are dedicated to making their lives miserable.
There are other approaches in defending what will hopefully (but probably not) prove to be the last gasps of state-approved bigotry. Gary Bauer, who is, in fact, still alive, writes about how, if the GOP embraces gay marriage, it will fuck up any chance of party unity. At the conservative toilet Townhall, editor Kevin Glass says that the cases will fail based on their legal merits (not for, you know, morality).
But kicking out the old school jams is Mario Diaz, the male legal counsel for the Concerned Women for America (motto: "Yes, I will make you a drink and get you your slippers"). Writing in the Washington Times, Diaz compares a potential decision broadly in favor of marriage equality as the same kind of court usurpation of the will of the people as Roe v. Wade: "[R]adical homosexual marriage supporters are asking the court to once again interject itself into the debate and cut it short. They want the nine justices to impose their will on the entire country by judicial fiat."
He goes on, "In the Defense of Marriage Act case, the court is also being asked to take the extraordinary step of invalidating the findings of our elected officials, who are accountable to 'we the people.'" You got that? The court shouldn't take the "extraordinary step of invalidating" a law passed by Congress. Hmm, how easy is this going to be? Oh, hey, why, Mario Diaz wrote about his support of the Citizens United decision, which, oh, hey, invalidated a law passed by Congress.
The CWFA gets extra points in this little parade of atrocities for its truly creepy ass ad "We Don't Need Another Roe," which is not about fish birth control, but about these cases. Check out this image out of your nighmares:
The ad, like Diaz's little scribble shit, blames the Supreme Court for "55 million dead babies." How many babies will die if gays are allowed to marry? It doesn't say. But it does ask us the scary question: "Should 9 people in black robes impose their views on marriage on the entire country?" And, except for the Constitution of the United States saying they can, it is a frightening thought.
Man, the next couple of days are gonna be filled with bugfuck insanity.
(Note: Yesterday on The Stephanie Miller Show, the Rude Pundit predicted that the Supreme Court would rule on only the narrowest grounds, like the standing of the defendants in the DOMA case, for instance. It looks like that's how it's gonna go.)
