This Is Why They’ll Lose

Why in the hell am I incapable of embedding video?

At the end of the day, gay marriage opponents have a problem. Even if they can win battles in the short-term, they’re still arguing for discrimination, and ultimately, there’s nothing particularly fun or enjoyable about discrimination visited against fellow Americans. Gay marriage advocates can, meanwhile, launch protests like the one linked to above. It is likely to entertain everybody but those who will be offended by Jack Black portraying Jesus. (Although [Some] Christians would like us believe otherwise, there aren’t too many people who will be offended by the portrayal.) It is videos like this that will ultimately undo the opposition. They predicate their claims on the notion that gays are a threat, that they’re inherently evil people who are undeserving of equal protection under the law. But American views ultimately end up softening, because they realize that the alleged threat is, in fact, no such thing.

To put that differently: the racists and the sexists ended up losing. So to will the bigots.

(Incidentally, I made it five whole days without mentioning gay marriage. I think. That’s three more than I expected.)

Technorati Tags: Funny or Die, Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage Again

Mitch the Killer has recently pointed out, “You’re writing about the same stuff.”

It was a good point. I have been writing about the same stuff. I acknowledge that it has to get boring after awhile, and I’m happy that so many of you keep stopping by, even though it’d be easy enough to say, “Should I read Sam’s site today? Naaaaah. He’ll just be angry about gay marriage again.” Admittedly, until gay marriage is legal and recognized in every state in the nation, I’ll probably still be fired up about it. However, let this post be the last I write on the issue until the next time it raises my hackles.

But I can’t help by be infuriated whenever I see someone having the audacity to give thanks for the social repression of a minority, as the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez happily does here:

It was the top of the month when the majority of voters in California approved a proposition that would protect the traditional definition of marriage in the state, in the face of renegade courts’ past struggles to redefine this fundamental building block of society. I’m grateful that even voters who most likely helped elect Barack Obama president can see the value in sacred, age-old institutions. I’m grateful that there are people like my friend Maggie Gallagher, who heads the National Organization for Marriage, and fights the good fight for the traditional idea of family, despite viciously unfair enemies and defeatist colleagues.

(An old website I had - www.insulted.org - used to house my attempted holy war against Maggie Gallagher. She just a horrible human being, happily dressing up her viciously anti-gay rhetoric in some of desperate attempt to save the American family. That she is routinely eviscerated by people whenever they examine her nonsense arguments is fantastic.) Let’s ignore the obvious: traditional marriage does not mean what she claims it does, and it never has. Let’s also ignore more obvious: that Kathryn Jean doesn’t advocate for the sorts of things that really would “protect” marriage, like Constitutional amendments banning divorce. Let’s focus briefly on that “unfair enemies” claim.

What in the hell does she mean? Is it unfair to point out that those opposed to gay marriage must hate gays if they’re going to legally ensure their second class citizenship? Is it unfair to oppose people when they attempt to impose their religious views onto nonbelievers? Is it unfair to fight back against nothing more than hate speech hidden behind Jesus’s robes? The answer to these questions is obviously no, there’s nothing at all unfair about fighting back against the sort of bile that Kathryn Jean Lopez and her cronies are responsible for. These people are setting America back, and no reasonable citizen of this nation should tolerate such offensive behavior.

Incidentally, Lopez is one of the many social conservatives who inexplicably believes that the response from gay marriage supporters to the Mormon Church has amounted to unfair behavior:

I’m grateful to live in a country where, although there are people who may run to TV news cameras bearing hateful, anti-Mormon signs and call in threats to Mormon temples because many of the Latter-day faithful supported the proposition, there are also those who will fight for religious liberty, like the folks at the Becket Fund. There are politicians who will speak in its defense, like Mitt Romney. He may get attacked unfairly, in some cases because he is Mormon, but he has a genuine moral core and ethical calling that sets him above petty criticism.

Ignore that crap about Mitt Romney; Lopez was in the tank for Romney for President since he first hinted at it, and she never dropped the torch for her “moral and ethical” candidate. If Lopez can’t figure out why people are pissed at the Mormons - a persecuted religious minority for the majority of their time in America, chased to Utah because nobody wanted to deal with their then racist and polygamous underpinnings, that turned on another minority that threatened the institution of marriage, while at the same time openly tolerating polygamy as long as nobody gets hurt - then she’s dumber than a sack of hammers. The Mormons deserve everything they’ve gotten so far, and hopefully, everything they’re going to get in the future. Eventually, the only thing that will be remembered about that particular church was its pigheaded opposition to gay marriage, not that it illegally demanded its adherents drop $20,000,000 into a state other than Utah in an attempt to “protect marriage.”

As I said earlier, I’ll drop this issue now. Until the next time somebody decides to act like a total moron. So…Monday, probably.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Mormons

You’re Misunderstanding The Freedom Of Religion

Apparently, there are social conservatives who have managed to turn the Constitution’s First Amendment promise of a Freedom of Religion into the Freedom To Get Whatever Policies We Want Whenever We Want. You can read this egregious misunderstanding here. The essence of the claim is simple enough: if laws are passed allow for things that (Some) Christians don’t personally approve of, they then are the victims of an infringement upon their religious beliefs.

And so we end up with the ludicrous claim that by allowing gay marriage, you have somehow infringed upon the religious freedoms of those who oppose gay marriage. This is obviously stupid, but it didn’t stop the National Review from claiming precisely that. Here’s the money quote (which is burning up the internet today):

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

There is a lot to respond to in that concluding paragraph. For example, it is a bit much to claim that the gay lobby is disdainful of democracy when every democratic mechanism that had previously allowed for gay marriage in California was described as being, at best, fascistic. Second, there’s no evidence that the people who burned the Book of Mormon did so because of gay issues…seriously:

Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I went ahead and bolded the important word there. Third, what the editors mean by the First Amendment being “next,” is merely that gays are campaigning for something that (Some) Christians don’t approve of. But (Some) Christians aren’t being oppressed if they don’t get their way. The only thing that would happen if Proposition 8 were to be overturned is that these (Some) Christians wouldn’t be getting their way. You’ll excuse me if I don’t shed tears for the people hellbent on gay oppression losing.

American Family Association Demonizes Gays, Loses Voters

The American Family Association is worth supporting, because it’s one of the only American organizations focused on the real threat facing our nation: the homosexuals, their agenda, and their plan to take over your town. In case you’re not taking this threat seriously, read this:

Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment–had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.

The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas. The story of how this happened is told in the new AFA DVD “They’re Coming To Your Town.”

One of the first actions of the homosexual controlled City Council was to offer a “registry” where homosexuals could register their unofficial “marriage.” City Council member Joyce Zeller said the city will now be promoted, not as a Christian resort, but a city “selling peace, relaxation, history and sex.”

AFA’s “They’re Coming ToYour Town” documents the story of how and why this happened. And how homosexual activists plan to do the same in other towns.

That’s right - gays snuck out of the woods one night, overthrew a town, and turned it into the San Francisco of Arkansas. And they’re coming for you next. So stop worrying about threats like Islamist terrorists; the real threat is that guy down the street who has a really nicely maintained home, and the woman a few blocks over who’s a hell of a softball player.

Predictably, something this utterly stupid is absolutely burning up the internet today, and the concensus response seems to be twofold:

1. These people are idiots.
2. These people are marginalizing themselves and their political goals by tying conservatism and Republicanism to what amounts to nothing more than rabid gay hatred.

I obviously agree with 1. And 2? Americans are insular, and protective, and sometimes, we act like total morons, but eventually the right people win. The same people today who publish this kind of video were telling us fifty years ago that interracial marriage was an abombination, a hundred years ago that women voting was an abombination, and a hundred and fifty years ago that slavery was a very good idea. To put that another way, Kevin Drum argues about the fundamental damage that this socially conservative extremism is doing to the Republican/conservative brand:

There will always be plenty of votes for a culturally conservative party. That’s not the problem. The problem is the venomous, spittle-flecked, hardcore cultural conservatism that’s become the public face of the evangelical wing of the GOP. It’s the wing that doesn’t just support more stringent immigration laws, but that turns the issue into a hate fest against La Raza, losing 3 million Latino votes in the process. It’s the wing that isn’t just a little skittish about gay marriage, but that turns homophobia into a virtual litmus test, losing 6 million young voters in the process. It’s the wing that isn’t just religious, but that treats belief as a precondition to righteousness, losing 2 million secular voters in the process. It’s the wing that isn’t just nostalgic for old traditions, but that fetishizes the heartland as the only real America, losing 7 million urban voters in the process. It’s the wing that goes into a legislative frenzy over Terry Schiavo but six months later can barely rouse itself into more than a yawn over the destruction of New Orleans.

You’d think numbers like that would concern the party; you’d think numbers like that might compel the party to change course. You’d be right. Maybe not immediately, but as the Republican party continues to have less and less to do with small governments that don’t leave you alone, and more to do with massive governments that manage every aspect of your private life, they’re going to be progressively marginalized by American voters, especially if all the party is capable of doing is demonizing very small minorities for no good reason.

More On Christian Demands

Yesterday, I wrote about the misplaced demands of Christians, who seem to believe that for everything gays get, they should get something too. And by that, they seem to believe that they genuinely deserve the civil rights of other citizens.

John Cole of Balloon-Juice - a professor at West Virginia University, I ought to note, the school that I attend… - points out that the last eight years have been a buffet for (Some) Christians, who have gotten almost everything they’ve demanded. Gays, meanwhile, have gotten the right to marry in Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as a promise from New York to recognize those marriages. That’s about it.

The lesson, as always: (Some) Christians are either lying, ignorant, or both. What else can be thought of about this? Christians have gotten everything they wanted: torture, anti-gay measures across the country, intervention into the Terri Schiavo mess, abstinence only, the war on pornography. Think about that for a moment, and remember it the next time anybody claims that Christians are oppressed. It’s a nonsensical claim not borne out by any of the, yknow, facts.

Briefly on Gay Marriage

-One argument that you’ll occasionally see from (Some) Christians is that the government does just as much to them, as a group, as those (Some) Christians do to gays. So for instance, you’ll hear, “Well, we banned gay marriage, sure, but they want our children to have sexual education classes in school.” The implication here is that we’re having some sort of tit-for-tat, and that for every aggression visited against these (Some) Christians, they get to visit some sort of aggression against whomever the threat is.

This is nonsense. Even if you are going to apply eye-for-an-eye thinking to the nation’s social debates - and God only knows why you’d want to do that - that sort of tit-for-tat thinking implies an equal exchange. But clearly, sexual education classes being made part of a school’s curriculum is light-years away from banning gay marriage.

If we were really having a genuine back and forth, gays would studiously work to ban Christians from getting married, and after accomplishing this goal, would see their own right to marry assaulted by Christians. Telling certain groups that they can no longer have access to particular civil rights isn’t the equivalent of sexual education being available.

In fact, nobody proposes any laws that reduces the aggregate freedoms of (Some) Christians. Even in the sexual education example, the parent can take their child out of public schools, or merely opt their child out of the specific classes. But nobody dare launch an assault against the freedom of Christians to marry, even if they’re responsible for the majority of American divorces and infidelities.

All gays want to do is receive the same legal protection from their government that straights can get for theirs; in other words, treat them fairly and otherwise leave them alone. It’s the same thing that any reasonable person asks for from their government. Pretending that this isn’t so, that gays owe (Some) Christians something because (Some) Christians have occasionally not gotten everything exactly the way they’d prefer them is silly in the extreme.

-I listened to Sufjan Stevens’ “The Transfiguration” to write this post, and then the song “Halleleujah.” Both are religious songs. They helped to get me in the mood.

Mormons Ask For Sympathy

Excuse me for being incredulous, but are California Mormons actually portraying themselves as the victim in the state’s Proposition 8 debate? Judging from the nonsense included in this article, it would seem that they’re determined to try. For example, this:

Many Mormons believe they are being unfairly targeted and compare the anti-Mormon sentiment to a witch hunt…”This is not fair – a lot of people wanted this passed, not just Mormons,” said Lynnette Black of Sacramento who rallied in support of Eckern in front of Music Circus last week. “We (church members) worked hard and within the law. It’s very hard to see this attitude toward Mormons.”

Frankly Lynnette Black, go straight to hell. It doesn’t matter if you’re working within the law if your goal is the disenfranchisement of other citizens, merely for the alleged crime of not adopting your specific beliefs. (Beliefs, mind you, that were endorsing polygamy as recently as 140 years ago.) Now, as for this nonsense about it being unfair that Mormons are being targeted for their despicable anti-gay hatred, remember that no gay is seriously proposing genuine legal retribution be visited upon Mormons. As opposed to, oh I don’t know, the damned Mormons who just contributed $20 million to write legal disenfranchisement into the Californian constitution.

It isn’t just Mormons, of course. Christianity has really adopted this notion that its being persecuted in America. Visit the predominant social conservative websites, and you’ll see the ever implicit, and occasionally explicit, idea that Christians are somehow an endangered species. Doesn’t matter that almost every member of every elected body in the United States is a Christian; doesn’t matter that we’ve had an unbroken string of Christian presidents for this nation’s entire existence, or that the vast majority of judges and police are Christian. To hear Christians tell it, they’re barely keeping their heads above water in the massive wave of repression being visited upon them here in America.

This is news to Chinese Christians or Sudanese Christians, who are risking jail or death to believe as they do. But of course, American Christians are rarely, if ever, consistent on anything (other than their hatred of gays). And now Mormons are adopting the same absurdist nonsense, despite having an entire state to themselves, despite a despicable record of racial relations, and a horrifying history of endorsed polygamy. To believe these idiots, it is unfair that gays would aim their animus toward them, because all they did was contribute half the budget of the pro-Proposition 8 advocacy, and did so at the direct instruction of their church. That Mormons would insist that they’ve done nothing wrong is outrageous.

Again, it is worth noting that Mormons actively campaigned to deny fellow citizens legal protection. Gays are merely pissed at Mormons. Any reasonable person would side with the gays against the Mormons, because the gays aren’t proposing genuine legal retribution that makes a Mormon a second class citizen in his own home.

Dennis Prager On Homosexual Marriage…Booga Booga Booga!

Dennis Prager wants you to know that he doesn’t hate gays, just that they want to receive legal protections for their relationships in the form of marriages, and dammit, he’ll use the California Constitution to stop them if necessary. Let’s take a look at a recent column to see what’s really going on:

Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

I agree, for completely different reasons. He sees the apocalypse if gays are allowed to settle down; I see Christian tyranny if they’re not. Christian values are fine. Forcing them onto unwilling third parties via government authority is not. Very, very simple.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

Well, judges have traditionally decided social-moral issues because society writ large couldn’t be trusted with the responsibility. Majorities will never look out for minorities; that’s the problem with democracy. The judicial system is there as a hedge against the sorts of things that majorities regularly do to minorities, like refusing them equal marriage protection. Keep in mind that society has endorsed all kinds of lunacy, including the most applicable: anti-miscegenation laws. Society was all for keeping the blacks from marrying the whites long after judges ruled it unacceptable.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had — the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

This is exactly the point Prager. The majority thumbs down the minority, and then judges step in to prevent it from happening. (Notice also Prager acknowledging that world culture has frequently allowed polygamy, and then remember that we’ve been warned that if the gays are allowed to marry, the polygamists will want in too. Apparently, gay marriage doesn’t cause polygamy; marriage causes polygamy. That’s all I can figure from Prager’s gracious aside.)

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage — as between men and women — is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Yeah, Massachusetts. Place has really fallen into the sea since gay marriage was legalized huh? Reminds me of this little bit of brilliance. Nothing is a greater takedown of the anti-gay-marriage movement than this. Not sure why it takes a comedy show to prove this sort of thing. Memo to Christians: nothing bad will happen if gay marriage is legalized.

Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

Yeah. Sure Prager. It exists because (Some) Christians are totally obsessed with homosexuality and how much they hate it. That’s the only reason it exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.

Good.

First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as “Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition’s wording to: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

I love that Prager is pissed that the wording was changed to reflect exactly what the amendment would do. Because it would force every couple married in California since gay marriage was legalized to, in essence, get divorced. Those couples would lose their rights. Why? Because Prager and his toadies hate gay people. How else can you explain forcing thousands of people to get divorced?

The reason for this change is obvious — to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Appear? No Prager, the reason for the change is because it makes the wording accurate: people voting for that bit of legislation will prevent gay people from getting married to their partners.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition’s language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society — people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays — to now think of themselves as bigots.

If you deny gay people the right to marry their partners, you are a bigot. This isn’t debatable. You’re not doing it because you have a good reason - because there are no good reasons - you’re doing it because you hate gays. Nothing wrong with making the law clear. (Incidentally Prager, if marriage is the most important social institution in America, why aren’t you pushing Constitutional amendments outlawing divorce? That would do far more to “protect marriage” than keeping gays out the institution will.)

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, “a recent Field Poll analysis found” that the new wording by Brown “had a ’striking’ impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it.”

Again, good. These people, now knowing what they’re being asked to vote for, apparently are a little bit leery of voting for it. Good.

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

Ignore the ignorance of the American system of government - in which we vote for representatives who approve judges who make decisions that become precedents - and focus on the use of the term ‘manipulative.’ It’s Prager who wants you to believe he doesn’t hate gay people, but rather, he just wants them all to be immediately divorced and prevented from ever having any legal protection for their relationships. That’s not hate at all, no sir.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

Yes, we do, because the Right seems to exist solely to force society to do things its way. What else is this Constitutional Amendment but an attempt to ensconce one interpretation into law forever, for everybody? What in the hell else is that but the imposition of values? And Prager’s accusing other people of being manipulative!

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 “haters” and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as “hate.” Or as they put it: “Prop 8 = Prop Hate.”

Because that’s what it is. If you support a bill that deprives gays of the right to be legally protected within their relationships, you’re not doing it because you care about society, because gay marriage has no effect on society; you’re doing it because you hate gays. This isn’t even debatable.

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal — proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is “mean-spirited.”

Yes. Yes. Yes!

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That’s why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is “Californians Against Hate.”

Because it’s true. These people hate gays. Am I seriously being asked to believe that those attempting to divorce thousands of legally married gay couples actually like them? How full of shit do you have to be to make that claim?

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

“Oh, woe is me! I’m a Christian, and people are calling me on the carpet for hating gays. They’re so mean to me. All I want to do is forcibly divorce them and never allow them to enjoy any legal protections for their relationships! I’m such the victim here.”

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate — because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

“Oh, woe is me!”

These charges of “hate” against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

And you would be wrong Prager. It’s not decent to forcibly divorce your fellow citizens, nor is it decent to forcibly prevent those same citizens from ever enjoying the legal protection that you yourself enjoy. It’s discriminatory hatred of the first order.

Why won’t those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

Dennis Prager everybody, endorsing the separate-but-equal school of American politics, except, one wonders: is there any evidence to support Prager’s claim? That he wants equality for gay citizens? Here at the end, he seems to be saying he wants gays to enjoy all of the same legal rights, but dammit, not for those same legal rights to be called marriages. What is he proposing, and what is he willing to do to make it happen? My guess? He’s trying to appear sympathetic because he knows that the rest of his column is full of socially conservative half-truths and outright lies.

Great News For Those Of Us Who Are Right

Connecticut became the third state to understand that excluding gays from the institution of marriage is outrageous Christian bullshit and nothing more. Of course, the wingnuts are going to start hyperventilating about “activist courts” and “legislating from the bench” and whatever else it is they scream about whenever democratic institutions recognize something that they don’t approve of. Hell, maybe this will be just the sort of issue that John McCain needs to get back in the election .

But frankly, I doubt it. Gay hatred is a luxury these days, and people with better things to worry about likely won’t be swayed a state Supreme Court decision.

Two Christians Talking About Gay Marriage

The first Christian says, “We need to do something about the threat of gay marriage.”

The second Christian says, “I agree, but what?”

The first Christian says, “I don’t know.”

The second Christian says, “Well if we do the American thing?”

The first Christian says, “What’s that?”

The second Christian says, “We start a movement. We start it from our congregation. Every available second that we have, we head out into the community, finding our homosexual brothers and sisters. We preach to them about the need to ignore their sexuality. We explain that it is a test from God, and one that they have to pass if they want access to heaven. We do everything in our power to convince these homosexuals that they shouldn’t make the decision to be actively homosexual. We accept the fact that we probably can’t reach everybody, but we hope to overwhelm the ones we can reach with Christian reason, and we hope that they’ll see the errors of their ways and shun their homosexuality.”

The second Christian continues, “We hope that this becomes a local movement, with other churches reaching out to those same homosexual citizens and convincing them to stay away from their sexuality. We hope that the movement spreads throughout the county, and the state, and maybe then the nation. Christians everywhere can reach out to their homosexual brothers and sisters and lovingly tell them how they’re not following God’s will. We work ceaselessly to convince these homosexuals to ignore their own urges. We understand that the fight will never end, and we commit our lives to this important movement.”

The first Christian says, “Well yeah, but what if we get the government to do all of our work for us by oppressing homosexuals via legal exclusion from institutions that we ourselves enjoy?”

The second Christian says, “Oh, that’s much easier. Let’s just do that. That way, we don’t have to work hard, or convince anybody of anything.”