Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘religious bigotry’

Ron Paul arguably more homophobic than fellow GOP bigots…if that’s possible.

I for one am glad that the Iowa Caucuses are over. The whole thing kind of reminded me of Halloween in January with all of the lunatics and crazies out. All of the back-slapping and sucking up to Ethanol farmers is over and now we can move on to other states and eventually to President Obama’s inevitable victory.

The results were disheartening but not surprising. It appears the God’s Own Party (the GOP, get it?) is as flagrantly anti-gay as ever. On top, we had Mitt Romney of the magic underwear cult who tried to block gay people’s happy day when he was governor of the Gay State. He’s such a judegmental, judging hatemonger bigot just like all Mormons. For more on that particular church see my anti-Mormon hate site on the right, “Stop the Mormons”. Then there was Michele “Pray Away the Gay” Bachmann who finished dismally, thank goodness. Her husband’s obviously a repressed homosexual; did you know that? Toward the bottom of the heap was Rick “I’m Not Ashamed to be a Christian” Perry. If he’s going to be a Christian, can’t he at least have the decency to be ashamed? Rick “Man-Dog Sex” Santorum was the surprise of the night, proving that you can still be a contender in the Republican Party and hold Roman Catholic beliefs, something that I think our Constitution prohibits.

I was really supporting the Texan Ron Paul until I found out that he doesn’t think that government should be in the marriage business. That really upset me. If I can’t get the government to recognize my marriage, that means I can’t force others to recognize it under penalty of law. I like to tell people that I just want the government out of my life, out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships. But that’s just another one of those lies that keeps dribbling out of my mouth like Michael’s spooge on a Saturday night. If that’s all I wanted,  I already had that before marriage equality came to my state. In fact, homos can have that in every state, even Mississippi. Nope, we want the government more involved in our personal lives, not less.  We want our relationships to be formalized and contractual. So when we say that we just want the government out of our lives, we actually mean exactly the opposite.

With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be able to do that. No one would be forced to recognize my marriage, which defeats the purpose.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that Ron Paul is in fact no different than the others. He likes to tell people that he’s a “defender of the Constitution” but then he turns around and denies the separation of church and state. Everyone knows that those words in the Constitution–right there in the first amendement. Well, I can’t find them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably a member of the Christian Taliban. Here’s what Paul actually said about the separation of church and state:

“In case after case, the supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. “

That’s the PURPOSE of the first amendment, you dolt! It isn’t to defend people of faith from the government. It’s to defend me from people of faith. They’re scary and the government needs to restrain them. The Constitution guarantees my right to never see or hear anything that might involve God, and it mandates the religious loons check their values outside the voting booth or else forfeit their right to vote.

Yeah, next thing we know he’s going to want to stone people for adultery. He continues:

“This ‘separation’ doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.”

Jefferson was a deist. That’s what I heard anyway. And even though he wasn’t involved in the drafting of the Constitution because he was the ambassador to France at the time, I’ll look to his words, taken out of context, for guidance. Only because he said what I want to hear. After all, he’s the expert. Jefferson’s words trump the actual text of the Constitution.

Paul doesn’t have such a great track record with teh gheys. He even opposed Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee a right to sodomy! Can you believe that? I did a quick google search and determined that the word “sodomy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, much less a right thereto. But in 2003, a bunch of justices said that it did. And I agree with them because I like sodomy. I’m sure it’s emanating somewhere in the penumbras.

Batty ol’ Ron Paul disagrees. As he wrote in an essay found at Lewrockwell.com :

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I get it. He wants the federal government out of our bedrooms. But the fifty state governments are still okay.

Ron Paul: He's a rock star to the youth voters. To me, he's just another Republican BIGOT.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that there are no sexual rights in the Constitution, and thus the issues are for the states to decide. But I’d like it much better if there were sexual rights in the Constitution. And because I want them there, that means that I support any judge who imagines them to be there and rules accordingly. It’s so much easier to just have a judge strike down all of the laws I don’t like than it would be to do the hard work of changing minds and laws in all fifty states. Less messy, too.

It doesn’t matter at all to me whether there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Those words aren’t there, but neither are “right to sodomy” or “separation of church and state”. If we were to go down that road of only accepting words contained in the Constitution as legitimately constitutional, we’d be in a world of trouble. I prefer a living, breathing document–it says what I want it to say.

Ron Paul even advocates the bizarre theory that homosexuals get AIDS from their sexual behaviors. That’s not true. We get AIDS from Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that. As he wrote in his January 1990 newsletter:

‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?

That is just ABSURD! He’s  insinuating that the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to stop taking it up the ass! That’s just irresponsible, especially coming from a medical doctor. He’s blaming the victim. It’s like telling someone that the best way to avoid lung cancer is to quit smoking, or the best way to avoid obesity is to watch their diet. Actions do not have consequences and I loathe people who tell me that they do. Science is very clear on this: there is no known connection between butt sex and AIDS. They are two completely unrelated concepts. He needs to go back to med school.

His newsletters are a treasure trove of homophobic delusions. Oh, here’s another one from September 1994. Watch out for malicious gays!

“those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

Hey, I do know a few malicious gays who do stuff like that, but only to other willing partners. Fully knowledeable that they are HIV positive, they head on down to the bathhouse and engage in group sex with lots of other guys. Bu those other guys being infected already fall under the first category: those who commit sodomy. Not that sodomy has anything to do with AIDS.

The supposedly libertarian congressman also wants to keeps us queers from eating in restaurants. Well, not queers, but AIDS patients. He bases this on the “fact” that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”. That’s a lie. AIDS cannot be transmitted by saliva. Or sodomy, for that matter. AIDS is transmitted by lack of federal funding for research and by homophobia.

Oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be. I thought he was the face of a new, sodomy-friendly GOP. And it turns out that he’s the worst of the bunch! If it were between him and Santorum, and I absolutely had to choose one or the other, I think I might have to choose ol’ Man-Dog sex. At least he looks handsome in a sweater vest. (Okay, so I fantasize about him, just like Dan Savage does). Ron Paul just looks like a wrinkled old prune.

I took this picture of Ron Paul two winters ago while he was chopping ice. I was trying to catch a glimpse of his cock, but it was kind of shriveled in the cold water.

Even a broken clock like Rick Santorum is right twice a day. Senate greenlights bestiality.

If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter  Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.

But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.

Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.

Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.

Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “

Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.

Yeah, I bet he smuggles cock on the side. They're all repressed homos. It would help though if the vandal would learn how to spell simple five letter words, such as "needs".

I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.

Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.

And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either.  They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.

The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why.  No one cares about the consent of animals.

Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.

Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.

The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.

The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.

First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.

Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.

Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.

You’re. that. fucking. crazy.

If you think I "choose" to open my asscheeks to other men, you're as crazy as this guy. For reals. There is no choice involved in my consensual behavior.

Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice.  He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.

But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

Suck my dick, John.

I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.

Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.

Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.

The legendary Dan Savage. He's a genius. I love his choicer challenge.

Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.

I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.

The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!

So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.

I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?

Banning Christianity: The British Model

Boy, I sure do love the United Kingdom! Those British chaps over there have all the fun. Besides the great gay scene in Brighton, they also have tea, crumpets, and the Georges–George Michael and Boy George. It’s real Cool Britannia.

Cool Britannia: Where Christianity is being incrementally outlawed. Cheers, mate!

The best part about the UK has to be all of the censorship and anti-Christian repression. Now that’s an import we could use over here in America. Seriously. Freedom has gotten out of control. When people are free to speak their minds and  practice their religions, gay people tend to kill themselves. So we need to tighten down on all of this “freedom” crap to protect the very delicate feelings of homosexuals.

For a comprehensive picture of the justified marginalization of Christians, check out this report. (Warning: The report is from the Christian crybaby perspective. In other words, the underlying assumption is that the anti-Christian trend in Britain is a bad thing. Ridiculous.)

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/marginchristians.pdf

As you may have heard, a “Christian” cafe owner in Blackpool England was recently visited by the local constabulary who warned him that he should cease and desist with a television screen that runs the text of New Testament in a continuous loop in his cafe.

I put “Christian” in derisive quotation marks because anyone who actually follows what the Bible says about homosexuality is not really a Christian at all. Real Christians affirm sinfulness. It’s the only Christian thing to do. Because when you tell someone that their behavior is wrong, no matter how mildly you phrase it, you hurt their feelings. When you hurt someone’s feelings, that’s the opposite of loving. And loving is what all Christians should aspire to. There is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. In order to love the sinner, you MUST love the sin too. If you disagree with this interpretation I will blow my brains out, so don’t push me!

This is what happens every time I hear anyone disapprove of homosexuality. In order to prevent me from doing this, all dissenting opinions must be outlawed. Wouldn't it be easier for the state to just police everyone else's thoughts than for me to just get some damned counseling?

Okay, so this rule isn’t absolute. It’s still okay to tell adulterers that adultery is wrong, just as long as the adulterer in question is a Republican elected official. So if you want to tell Newt Gingrich that he’s an awful person because he cheats on his wife, go ahead. And stealing is wrong too, I suppose. I’ll still permit you little Christofascist bigots to speak that out loud. Drunkenness, sloth, cheating, and lying are all bad too. Okay, so I admit it–this rule I have about not judging others really only applies to people who commit my own pet sin. It’s okay to say that theft is wrong, just not to say one boy bending another boy over is wrong. If you say that, you are extremely un-Christian. Christians are still free to speak out against all the other  sins, just not my favorite sin. Because it makes me cry, that’s why.

So let’s examine what happened. Some time last month, Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt and Light Cafe in Blackpool, was visited by police. The bobbies informed him that they had received a complaint from an anonymous woman who claimed that the cafe was displaying messages on a television screen that were “insulting” and “homophobic”. So far, so good. That’s the purpose the of police, isn’t it? To tell people what they can and can’t say?

As it turns out, the messages being displayed on the television screen were Bible passages. The Salt and Light cafe is a Christofascist coffeehouse and the owner plays a set of DVD’s on the screen that contain the New Testament in its entirety. Apparently, some of the verses caused offense.The police questioned him for an hour and then warned him to stop displaying the New Testament because he was committing a crime.

The Watchword Bible on DVD. This is the offending material. Unfortunately, the police failed to confiscate this contraband before leaving. That's my only complaint. Other than that, the bobbies did everything just perfectly.

Professional Christian crybaby Jamie Murray had this to say about the confrontation with the heroic police:

“I couldn’t believe the police were saying I can’t display the Bible. The officers were not very polite, in fact they were quite aggressive. It felt like an interrogation. I said ‘surely it isn’t a crime to show the Bible?’ But they said they had checked with their sergeant and insulting words are a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I was shocked.”

Oh, quit your bellyaching, you insolent little bitch. You know what these Christians’ problem is? They think the law doesn’t apply to them. The Public Order Act of 1986 is very clear. No one is allowed to display material that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting”. And I find the Bible to be all three of these, and therefore they can’t display it. No threat to free speech there. Never you worry, your freedoms are still completely intact.

But these Christians think they are above the law and cite “religious freedom” every time a cop threatens to arrest them for the crime of showing Bible verses on the screen. Religious freedom does not mean that you can break the law. So any time I feel like restricting your religion (which is all of the time) I can just pass a law making the exercise of your religion illegal. See how this works? Guarantees of religious freedom are essentially meaningless once we make the free exercise of your religion a crime. Because religion is not an excuse for breaking the law!

We are not a threat to your freedom. Never have been, never will be. If you think that we are, you must be a Christiofascist bully. And we will punish you. Understand?

Mike Judge of the Christofascist “Christian Institute” came to Murray’s defense.

“Yes, the Bible speaks about morality, of course it does. But the Bible isn’t hate speech. Disagreement isn’t hatred. If a café customer dislikes parts of the Bible, the right response is to take their custom elsewhere – not dial 999.”

Disagreement isn’t hatred? Yes it is! That’s the entire foundation of my argument. If you tell me that my behavior is wrong, THAT MEANS THAT YOU HATE ME. Because I’m just born this way. I have no free will, I just have to do what my dick tells me to do.

The logic of my conclusion is inescapable. Disapproval of another person’s sexual behavior is hatred, case closed.  No, I will not walk out of your Christian cafe and have my coffee elsewhere. I will ring the cops just as fast as possible and they will threaten you with arrest.

Now don’t go accusing me of “intolerance”. I’m a very broad minded person and I have no problem tolerating other people’s religious beliefs, so long as I never see them or hear them. They should be hidden at all times. And if I happen to walk into a Christian cafe, I expect to be able to sip my coffee without being assaulted–I said assaulted!–with anything that wreaks of Christianity. Don’t you force that Christian stuff on me!

Did you know that some passages of the New Testament preach that sodomites don’t go to heaven? That’s so ridiculous. From First Corinthians 6: 9-10:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Hate speech! That’s hate speech against homosexuals like me. I suppose it’s also hate speech against thieves, adulterers and drunkards. But they aren’t organized like we homos are. Upon further consideration, it only makes sense that they should be protected too. Some thief might take offense at the idea that he’s not going to heaven. Or a drunkard. And I then he would feel bad about himself, and we can’t have that. We could have anti-thief bullying in our schools, or a rash of suicides in the drunkard community.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in heaven. It’s an imaginary place made up by uneducated people who think that some guy named Jesus came back from the dead and performed miracles and other such hogwash. From time to time, I like to pretend that I believe in this Jesus fellow, but only as a means of undermining the people who actually believe in him.

But I’m a Christian too, and my church teaches me that sodomy is just fine! We’ve evolved past the Bible over here in my church. So we’re better Christians than you!

But still, it hurts my feelings when people tell me that I’m not going to a place I don’t believe in, just because I open my anus to other men. I bet they even believe that I’m going to that other place that I don’t believe in. The hot one that smells of sulfur.

It’s important to be very sneaky about our efforts to criminalize their religion. If people have the foresight to see where our little censorship campaign is headed, they tend not to allow even small steps in that direction. So we employ stealth, moving little by little toward a society that is completely intolerant of Christian belief. Er, I mean “Christian” belief. I forgot the derisive scare quotes there. And if anyone ever sees clearly enough to discern our ultimate goal, we scream at them to quit making up ridiculous excuses to justify their bigotry.

There go the Christofascists again, fearmongering the way they always do. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling people we want to ban the Bible, which is just so absurd.

But of course we DO want to ban the Bible.  Because it’s hate and hate cannot be tolerated. You’re going to love the new hate free society. Everyone is forced to be nice to each other and no one has any freedom. Well, let’s not be extreme about this. No one will be forced to be nice to Christians. We will still treat them like dogshit the way we do now.

A few years ago, the Arkansas GOP sent out this ridiculous mailing to its mindless followers enjoining them to vote for conservatives because the liberals have a very radical agenda. I’ll just let you read it yourself.

Unfortunately for us, the flyer correctly lists the points of the liberal agenda. Notice the Bible on the side with the word "banned" stamped on it.

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever seen such hyper-paranoid scare tactics? I bet you they ate this up down there in the Bible belt. You’re aware that they all go to church and they’re boinking their sisters, right?

So the inbred voting bloc thinks that we want to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is just stupid. I want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, not one stinkin’ phrase. Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent? I suppose, although I’d prefer if all of their sexual relationships were homosexual in nature. Then they wouldn’t need to kill their unborn children. Overturning the ban on partial birth abortion? Ditto.  Allowing same sex marriages? You betcha!

So only one of the above is actually correct, and the other three are partially correct from a certain point of view. I suppose you could say that “liberals” want all of the above. Not me personally, but liberals generally. It’s not really a secret.

Take note of the Bible on the right side stamped with the word “banned”. Damn it, they’re on to us! They see where this tolerance train is heading and they want to get off RIGHT NOW! At the time, I said that the flyer was absolute bullshit. No one wants to ban the Bible. No one except the secular progressives of Europe and Canada who are now intimidating Christian cafe owners like common criminals. Because, according to British law, they are common criminals. And as we’ve already established, religion is no excuse for breaking the law.

"Open up, guv'na! This is the tolerance police! We'd better not find any Bible reading going on in there!"

Don’t doubt for a minute that I emulate these countries and that I want to bring their Stalinist repression here. So long as it’s always and everywhere employed against Christians, I’m all for this kind of censorship and intimidation.

I’m going to have to make a visit to Albion in the near future. I wonder if they’ll let me be “queen” for a day. I would really like that! Cheerio!

Florida school district hates the Boy Scouts. And so do we!

The never-ending war against the Boy Scouts of America continues in Pinellas County Florida. The local school board has voted to cut funds to a Scout-affiliated program called Learning for Life due to its policy of excluding agnostics, atheists, and members of the LGBTQXYZ community. The organization will now miss out on a grant worth $54,000.

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

“To develop and deliver engaging, research based academic, character, leadership and career focused programs aligned to state and national standards that guide and enable all students to achieve their full potential.”

Yeah, and to teach the little tykes to be judging, judgmental homophobes!

I say good riddance to the Boy Scouts. Get lost and don’t come back. We’ve had enough of your “values”, your helping little old ladies across the street and such. We’re on to you. We know that when you say “values” you really mean driving homosexuals to kill themselves!

The Boy Scouts of America--Ku Klux Klan in neckerchiefs.

Seriously though, if I threatened to kill myself do you think the government would force them to allow me to join? Because I would really be interested in taking some young boys camping. Threatening to kill myself usually works, but this time it might not. You see, back in 2000, there was this supreme court decision called Dale v. Boy Scouts that actually said that private organizations can maintain their own membership requirements because they are private! Can you believe that? I thought “private” meant that the government decided their membership requirements. That’s what private means to me. And because I’m so used to the government forcing people to accept my behavior, I was shocked–shocked!–to find out that this private organization had the right to free association.

Since the Dale decision, we homosexuals have teamed up with the godless community (and there’s a A LOT of overlapping there) to engage in a war of attrition against the BSA. We failed in our attempt to force them to accept us as members, so now we’re going to have harass them on every front, push them out of their long held meeting places, and cut their funding until they cry uncle and let homosexuals like me take their sons out on camping trips.

So what is their rationale for excluding sodomites? Apparently we’re “unclean”.

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.”

Huh? So their lame ass excuse for keeping us out is that we’re “icky”! Nothing icky about two men buttfucking. And as far as morally straight, well…I don’t have a straight bone in  my body.

But seriously, what’s unclean about sodomy? Let’s ask radical gay bully and all around pervert Dan Savage. He knows. He coined the term “Santorum”, defined as:

Feces, jizz, and KY jelly. What’s unclean about that?

Just to underscore the point that sodomy is definitely NOT an unclean practice, let’s refer to that taxpayer funded youth-oriented pamphlet that I distribute out of my office at the high school. Let’s see, besides fuckin’, suckin’, piss play, and “lickin’ butt”, there’s also a section on toys.

“There is some risk of hepatitis, herpes, warts, and parasites.”

PARASITES? So I could get little critters crawling around among my dingleberries? Geez, that does sound a little gross. But it’s definitely not unclean as the bigoted Boy Scouts will tell you.

Oh yes, and the pamphlet also warns that the risk of intestinal parasites is very high when “rimming” (lickin’ butt). But all of that can be avoided if we just teach the little tenderfeet to do all of these things safely! Rather than discouraging such behaviors, scoutmasters should be offering instruction on how to properly clean toys between one boy’s anus and the other. That way they would be able to do it safely and it wouldn’t be at all unclean.

But no! These uptight prudes think the best solution is simply to teach their sons not to do these things. Which is just dumb. I want to get into this club so I can teach them my way of doing things.

Luckily, we have the Democratic Party in our corner on this one. They hate the Boy Scouts just as much as we do. Who can forget when delegates at the 2000 DNC National Convention in Los Angeles actually booed the Boy Scouts while they were presenting the colors?

That was truly the highlight of the convention, even better than watching Al and Tipper make out. Now, at first I was a little confused. As I was watching the whole thing unfold, I thought to myself, “Are they booing the Christofascist scouts or are they booing the colors?” I’d be in favor of booing both, actually. But then I watched as the delegates quickly drew up makeshift signs that read “we support gay scouts”, and my heart swelled with pride. So they were booing the children. That was very sweet of them.

Interesting side note: the little scouts actually got their revenge on the Democrats. At the 2010 National Jamboree, the scouts booed President Obama. Ouch! I guess they can boo back. If I had been president, I would have called in drones on the whole encampment of little terrorists. Too bad he didn’t.

The Boy Scouts of America, a dangerous hate group. They're not yet on the SPLC's list of hate groups, though I trust they will be soon. Somebody's got to stop them.

I recently learned of the existence of a wonderful group called “Scouting for All” that works to pressure the BSA to repeal its ban on pole-smokers and the godless. Scouting for All holds “tolerance” and “diversity” as its highest ideals. Just in case you were wondering if those two words are codewords for homos infiltrating kiddie organizations, now you know that they are.

I hold the highest respect for one of Scouting for All’s leaders, a certain defrocked priest named John Hemstreet. He’s a gay man, a convicted child molester, an alcoholic, and the president of his local chapters of Scouting for All and PFLAG.

Wait–did I say that he’s a gay man and a child molester? That’s not possible. Because child molesters are not really attracted to their victims, they just rape them for the sense of power it provides. That’s the pat answer I’ve been given anyway. Child molesters are not gays and gays are not child molesters. The definition of one precludes the other. Because if you consider the fact that nearly all of the child predatory aspects of scouting are male-on-male, you’d have to assume that these people are in fact homosexuals, or at least bisexuals. But no, I prefer to believe that men who rape little boys don’t have a homosexual bone in their bodies. In fact, they don’t even get off on it. Again, as I mentioned before, there is no sexual attraction  involved. It’s merely a sense of power. Kind of odd though how child molesters seem to have a preference for one sex or the other. Even odder that a convicted child molester would be the president of his local chapter of an influential gay rights group (PFLAG).

As I mentioned before, John Hemstreet was a Catholic priest but then he got caught boinking the altar boys and he had to leave the priesthood. Normally, I would get all upset about that. I don’t really hate child molesting Catholic priests because they’re child molesters. I hate them because they’re Catholic priests. But this particular child molesting Catholic priest redeemed himself by leaving that awful church and spearheading two gay rights groups in his area. Which is kind of odd, considering the fact that he’s not gay, he’s a child molester. And it’s literally impossible for a person to be both. Weird.

Scouting for All knot. It interweaves the purple and white of the international scouting movement with the rainbow colors of the pro-sodomy movement.

Hemstreet led a protest outside the offices of the BSA’s Erie Shores Council in May of 2000. He says that he’s great scoutmaster material and the BSA should quit being H8-ful H8ers and just let him be a scoutmaster again, despite the fact that he’s already been to jail for raping little boys.

And really, why should that exclude him from being a scout leader? Hemstreet explains:

“The thing that I did seven years ago is a horrendous thing. I’m not denying that. Nor am I denying that I did it. I was arrested. I was arraigned. I did go to court. I served my time and I am off on probation.”

Furthermore, it wasn’t even scouts that Hemstreet was convicted of raping. It was altar boys. Big difference.

“The crime that I committed was committed after I, kind of, retired from the active priesthood. It was not related to scouting at all–I was drunker than a skunk.”

See? So it was the booze, not his pervy desires that drove him to bang children. And besides, the boys weren’t even associated with the scouts. It was completely compartmentalized. Even though he might force a child to pleasure him in the sacristy after mass, he would never–and I mean NEVER–force a child to pleasure him in his tent on a camporee.

“At the time I was mainly in denial, and I certainly wasn’t coming out.”

Wait, wait, wait. Did he say “coming out”? You mean like coming out as a homosexual? Damn it, will someone tell this guy to get back on script? He’s NOT GAY! He’s a child molester. And child molesters are not gay. He’s not really attracted to the male of the species, he just likes the feeling of power he gets when dominating boys. Because if we had to admit that men who molest boys are in fact homosexual–a fact that appears glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been inundated with homosexual propaganda–we might have to admit that homosexual men are responsible for an alarmingly disproportionate amount of child molesting.

Hemstreet explained that his interest in scouting flows from an honest desire to “give back” to the community. He has hurt little boys in the past so now he wants to join the Boy Scouts to do some penance. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe an explanation like that coming out of the mouth of a convicted child molester. I believe him. Sure, he’s raped little boys before–not boy scouts, but other types of little boys. Sure he did time in prison. But now he’s out and he wants to repay his debt to society by…taking little boys camping! Nothing suspicious about that. He just likes kids and wants to do something to help them.

Sadly, the Scouts continue their evil discrimination. It takes a better organization full of kind and accepting people to extend membership to a guy like Hemstreet. Two organizations I can think of–Scouting for All and PFLAG– seem to have no problem whatsoever with allowing Hemstreet as a member. Heck, they have no problem with allowing him to serve in a leadership role. Now that’s what I call tolerance. The Boy Scouts could learn a thing or two from these two fine organizations.

This day in LGBTQXYZ History: October 7, 1998

The date October 7th may represent one of the most solemn days on the entire calender for members of the LGBTQXYZ community. It was on this date that two thugs robbed and murdered Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, in Laramie Wyoming.

Matthew Shepard 1976-1998. They killed him because he was GAY!

Poor kid was murdered because he was gay. That was how the media reported it anyway. And the media never get the story wrong. Luckily for us, we have about 99% of the media in our pocket so they basically write what we tell them to.

I remember when I first heard about the story, I thought it sounded like a piece of gay propaganda. Which would be awesome. I mean, we couldn’t have written a better morality play if we had tried. All this story needed was a few Mormon missionaries cast as the bad guys!  It was all just too good to be true: nice looking gay kid, beaten by a bunch of rednecks in Wyoming, of all places. And they killed him for no other reason than because he was different. I smell an ABC After School Special!

You know what we need? Some hate crimes laws. I mean, murder is already illegal. And Wyoming has the death penalty, which these two would have received if they hadn’t pleaded guilty. The punishment for murder is pretty darned stiff.

But we need a special law that makes murdering a gay kid worse than murdering other people. The penalty won’t be any more severe, since it’s pretty much impossible to impose a sentence worse than death. But at least people will know that the perp is being punished for killing a homo.

And killing a homo is worse than killing a deep sea fisherman, fly fisherman, libertarian, Rotarian, valedictorian, professional athlete, amateur magician, Tae Kwon Do champion, Democrat, Republican, Freemason, swinger, or saxophone player.

We need special protection. Cause we’re special, that’s why.

Now, don’t go getting all smart ass with me and insist that we homosexuals want to punish thought crimes. It’s not the thought that we’re punishing, at least not yet. It’s the deed. Well, the deed is already illegal so I can’t really explain why else we need another law. Okay, we want to punish the deed plus the thought behind it. If that weren’t the case then we would be happy with the law as it stands now, which says that it’s illegal to murder anyone except an unborn child. It’s already illegal to murder gay college students, straight college students, high school drop-outs, and just about anybody else.

So let’s face it–we are trying to punish thought. We’re trying to outlaw hate– a human emotion that has always existed and will always exist. But we think we can ban it from existence by passing a law. We’ll call it Matthew Shepard’s law. And then there won’t be any more hate in the world because anyone who has that emotion will be in jail.

It won’t take long before we’re obfuscating the entire equation. At the moment we’re fighting for something that resembles this: HATE + ACTUAL CRIME = HATE CRIME. Again, I can’t explain why we need this law when the actual crime is already illegal other than to say it would make me feel a lot better. But the first equation is just to get people used to the idea of hate being something criminal in and of itself. When we’re done with what we really want to accomplish, it will look more like this HATE = HATE CRIME.

This is where Matthew Shepard perished, pistol whipped to death.

And if you don’t believe me, look at Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals that now punish people for comments made in books, or laws in Europe about “inciting hatred”. That’s the endpoint. We’ll just lie every step of the way, insisting that we don’t want to reach the point that our trajectory so clearly leads us to.

If anybody asks, just tell them that Canadian/European style fascism can’t happen here because we have a first amendment. Not that the first amendment has ever stopped us before, but it gives the rest of America a false sense of security that we respect their rights.

Which we don’t!

ABC News revisited the Matthew Shepard murder in 2004, much to the chagrin of cock-gobbling activists like me. They basically reported that the original narrative–the one that we liked so much because it was just too good to be true–was in fact, too good to be true. The After School Special version of events was actually bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=277685

ABC News took a lot of heat from gay activists about this. They’re LYING!!! We know they’re lying because…we don’t want to hear what they’re saying. Basically, we slipped into emotional fits of rage because the kid wasn’t actually killed for being gay. Which is something you’d think we’d want to hear. I mean, isn’t that good news? Don’t we all sleep a little safer knowing that the kid wasn’t victimized for being a homosexual?

The answer is no. Because we need the Matthew Shepard story to buttress our claim to victimhood. We liked the first version of the story much better.

Okay, so Matthew Shepard’s murder had nothing to do with his sexual activities and everything to do with the fact that he was mixed up with drugs.  Shepard was well-known in the local college party scene, which was closely intertwined with the local methamphetamine scene that both Shepard and his murderers were involved in. Tina LaBrie, a friend of Matthew’s, commented:

“He said ‘Everywhere I move, it seems like I get sucked into the drug scene,'”

Shepard was at the Fireside Lounge the night his killers–Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson–walked through the door. McKinney hadn’t slept for a week, having been on a serious meth binge. A few days prior he had traded a gram of meth for a pistol. It was his intention to use the pistol to rob a drug dealer of methamphetamines but instead used it to beat the shit out of Shepard.

The Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. This is where McKinney and Henderson met their victim. They later lured him away from this bar, robbed and murdered him.

When he saw Shepard, McKinney thought he’d found a good target to rob. Which is kind of a disappointment for me, because I was still hoping that McKinney had killed the kid for being a homo. I liked that version of the story better because then I get to share in the victimhood. Which is what I want.

So why did they tell the court originally that they had killed Shepard because of Shepard’s gay advances? I know this is going to sound hard to believe, but they were hoping to get off easier. McKinney had been sexually abused as a child by an adult man (who was definitely NOT gay!), and he believed that he would get some sympathy from the court if he claimed that he had killed Shepard because of his homosexual advances. The court refused to even hear the defense, much less let them off with a lesser punishment because of it. Oops.

When Shepard told McKinney and Henderson that he was too drunk to drive home, the two offered him a ride. They were, of course, intending to rob him. On the way home, Shepard placed a hand on McKinney’s leg and McKinney responded by pistol whipping him.

“I was getting ready to pull it on him anyway.”

After driving him out onto a country road, McKinney proceeded to rob him of his wallet, coat, and shoes before smashing Shepard’s face in with the pistol. Then the two left the victim to die.

The two men then drove to Shepard’s apartment, hoping to burglarize it. They encountered another group of men in the parking lot where they had a violent altercation and were arrested by police who discovered the bloody pistol from the first crime in the truck.

Obviously, robbery wasn’t the motive here. I mean, it can’t be. Let’s see–a bunch of meth heads rob another meth head for meth money. They take his wallet, his coat, and his shoes. Then they head to his apartment to burglarize the apartment too. We know they went there because that’s where they were arrested. But obviously, they killed him because he was gay. Not because they were whacked out on drugs and wanted more. That’s such a ridiculous theory.

The killers stand trial. These two are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail, but that doesn't sit right by me. I want them to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they killed a gay kid, not because they killed a kid who looked like he might have some money in his wallet. Even though the evidence doesn't support the idea that he was killed for being gay.

And now we’re stuck with the ultimate irony of hate crimes legislation. The slaying of Matthew Shepard was indeed brutal. It was a vicious act of barbaric violence. But was it less heinous because it was motivated by money? Was the same murder any less atrocious because the killer was a meth-head out of his  mind and desperate for money to buy his next fix?

Well, yes. Because if Matthew was killed for being a homo, then…that’s worse. Than killing him for money. I can’t say why. I blame Christians though.

Yeah. I mean, obviously these two learned this type of behavior in church. Neither of them is religious, and Shepard wasn’t really killed for being a pickle smoocher. He was killed because one of the guys wanted money for meth. But I think we can lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of Evangelicals and pretty much anyone who’s ever opposed us.

And that’s what this is really about. We steam roll our opposition whenever we insinuate–or declare explicitly–that anyone who has ever said anything negative about homosexuality is in fact partially to blame for the murder of Shepard. If you think that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of God, well you’re a killer too.  Your religious fanaticism created the environment for this kind of hate. You’re just like Henderson and McKinney.

Okay, so you’re nothing like Henderson and McKinney. Neither of them were church boys. If they had been church boys they probably wouldn’t have been in a bar looking for a drug dealer to roll for his dope.

In fact, McKinney was was partial to sodomy too. McKinney’s long time friend, Tom O’Connor, claims to have had a three way with McKinney and his girlfriend, both of whom happened to live on O’Connor’s property. Says O’Connor:

“I know he’s bisexual. There ain’t no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual.”

Well geez. That kind of changes things. The version of the story I liked better went something like this: two raging homophobes, bathed in hatred after years of going to church in backwoods America, kill poor gay college student who basically angelic. That’s really what I prefer to believe.

I don’t like what actually happened: two meth heads hit the town looking for a drug dealer to rob. They stumble upon Matthew Shepard, who is in fact a meth head himself. One bisexual meth head kills a gay meth head and takes his wallet only to discover that it contains a measly thirty bucks. So they drive to the dead meth head’s apartment, planning to burglarize the place, then get arrested.

Damn. That story doesn’t give us much of a martyr. And that’s what we need–a martyr. So that we can silence all opposition. Jason Marsden of the Casper Star-Tribune commented:

“I remember one of my fellow reporters saying, ‘this kid is going to be the new poster child for gay rights.”

Well, yeah. And we need one. Because Matthew’s death went a long way in shutting people up. We made people who opposed us feel guilty for his death, despite the fact that it was actually motivated by drugs, and even if it hadn’t been, the blame would still have fallen on the heads of those who actually committed the crime, not every person who finds buttfucking immoral.

But we want every person who finds buttfucking immoral to share in the blame. So we invented this little fairy tale and it upsets us whenever it’s contradicted.

I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me.

Raging homophobe Mike Adams is at it again. This time he’s taking aim at the University of North Carolina for publishing a list of pro-LGBTQXYZ churches.

Adams, a criminology professor and Christian turned atheist, turned Christian again, took issue with a list of approved churches distributed by the university’s  LGBTQIA Office. That’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Allied, for those of you who are not in the know.

Professor Mike Adams of UNC-Wilmington. It's just too bad that these homophobes have to be so handsome. He opposes the official state endorsement of churches based on their gay friendliness. Is there any way we can fire this man?

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

“…they investigate and then endorse churches based on their stance on homosexuality. And they print lists of approved gay-friendly churches using official university letter-head. Then they circulate their approved church list on state-owned computers to other state employees who then recommend the approved churches to their students.”

Uh..yeah. So? Isn’t that what a state-run, tax-payer funded university is supposed to be doing?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a believer in that ancient religion of cannibalism. I don’t think that this guy named Jesus became a zombie and walked out of his tomb. Or that a guy named Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. I also don’t believe in talking serpents, or exorcising demons. And I certainly don’t believe in this concept called “sin”, or that I need to be saved from my sins. So please don’t think that I’m suddenly getting hip to Christianity.

Typical service at Christian churches across America. Not here in Provincetown, of course. The churches here fly the rainbow flag out front, so you know that they are filled with normal people who have completely abandoned the Bible and all of the weird/dangerous things that it teaches. This picture is from one of those gay-hating churches found in other parts of the country that I've never actually visited. I'm talking about the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches in places like Oklahoma and Nebraska.

I might be able to join this religion called Christianity if I weren’t required to believe all of those things listed above. Like the resurrection, for example. I would really like to drop the concept of sin from any version of Christianity I might choose to join. Also, I think all people should be able to go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. Buddhists and Jews go to heaven. Heck, even atheists go to heaven, despite the fact that we don’t believe in it. The only ones who aren’t going to heaven are these judgmental Christian fanatics who actually believe what the Bible tells them.

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

I haven’t found God, or anything like that.  But I do think that pro-gay churches play an important role in our community–namely, they serve to confuse people about what scripture actually teaches. Which is a very good thing. The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments. There is essentially no ambiguity. But that shouldn’t stop queer activists from infiltrating churches, changing doctrine, reforming attitudes, and generally placing the targets of their aggression on an un-Biblical path for years to come.

The primary purpose of gay-friendly churches is to drive home the point that Christianity itself has nothing to say about the morality of sexual behaviors. Yes, some denominations have a lot to say on the subject. Those are the hateful, evil, intolerant denominations. Those denominations are filled with child molesters and crypto-Nazis. They care only about what you do with your private parts.

But other denominations think it’s all fine. Since some denominations think it’s okay for a man to sodomize another man, that means that Christianity has no agreed-upon teaching. Some individual churches do, but those are on the fringe. Christianity itself is silent–even supportive–of homosexuality. Or whatever your particular bag may be.

Of course, only an illiterate person who can’t read the Bible would believe this, but that’s okay. I’ve heard that the members of the pro-gay congregations haven’t cracked their Bibles in quite some time. Kudos to them for that. The Bible is hate speech and should be avoided.

And if the LGBTQIA office of UNC-Wilmington wants to further that goal, I’m all for it. Please endorse gay-friendly churches.

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington celebrates perversity. I mean, diversity.

Professor Adams disagrees.

“If I were to stand up and start recommending churches in the classroom, that would be a serious problem.”

Well, yeah. But that’s because he’s a Christian. A Christian who believes the Bible. And those types of Christians should not be endorsing churches in their capacities as state employees. In fact, they shouldn’t be state employees. Or employees anywhere.

Under normal circumstances, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I often insist that it’s a constitutional principle, despite its absence in the constitution. Let’s just say that it’s written in invisible ink, readable only to the wise judges of the Supreme Court. If I had to admit that the separation of church and state was not actually in the constitution, I might then be forced to admit that most of the things progressives believe to be part of the constitution are actually not there at all. For example, there is no right to privacy, no right to safe space, no right to birth control, no right to abortion, no right to a court-appointed defense attorney, no right to marriage, no right to serve in the military, no right not to have my feelings hurt by the mean things that right-wingers say. There are no sexual rights listed in the constitution at all.

And that’s highly problematic for me. So let’s play along for a while and pretend that the separation of church and state is actually there…somewhere in the penumbras.

And it took Justice Hugo Black to find it!  Justice Black was an Old South segregationist appointed to the court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, in which he upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. (Justice Black always endorsed the policies of the man who appointed him. He was essentially a rubber stamp for the executive branch.)

Black was a former member of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and a rabid anti-Catholic. He hated Catholics almost as much as I do. He once worked as defense counsel to a KKK member accused of murdering a Catholic priest. The KKK member was acquitted, thank goodness!

Hugo Black. He was a mixed bag. Although he supported segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans, it appears that he also hated Catholics. And so do I. Without him, the phrase "separation of church and state" might never have entered case law, and we might have to actually refer to the first amendment of the constitution for guidance rather than to a letter written by a guy who wasn't at the constitutional convention. And that would be shitty because I prefer to believe that the separation of church and state exists.

The term “separation of church and state” first became case law when Justice Black cited it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The case involved a school district that used its buses to help transport children to Catholic schools. Keep in mind that Black was a Catholic-hater of the first degree, although that certainly had no bearing on his judgment at all. Black interpreted the constitution with an eye toward Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. He plucked the phrase “separation of church and state” from Jefferson’s letter, albeit wildly out of context. Which is really odd, because Thomas Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. In fact, he had nothing to do with its text as he was serving as the US Ambassador to France at the time. But I don’t care. I like Black’s conclusion and I don’t care how he came to it.

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

For years, the doctrine established in Everson v. Board of Education has been used as a weapon against people of faith, and that’s great. That’s what it’s supposed to used for. But now it appears that it’s being turned around against us. Dr. Adams seems to be suggesting that his university, UNC-Wilmington, is endorsing particular churches just because they’ve issued a list of endorsed churches. And he’s saying that, according to supreme court precedent, the university can’t do that.

That just doesn’t sit right by me. It’s okay for governmental institutions to endorse churches, to prefer one religion over another, to influence a person to go to a certain church, and to spend taxpayer money in support of certain churches, as long as they are churches that I like. If they happen to be churches I don’t like–churches that haven’t abandoned the Bible, for example–then they should be shunned.

So let’s just put it this way. These aren’t normal circumstances. We’re not talking about a state-run university endorsing churches that preach hate. We’re talking about a state-run university that’s endorsing good churches; ie, churches that make gay people feel all warm inside. And so the endorsement of such churches is fine. Perhaps the university can do its part to grow the pro-sodomy churches and to perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. That would be a great service to the community.

In other words, pay Justice Black’s “separation” no mind. That concept has outlived its usefulness now that it can’t be used as a weapon against people I hate.

I LOVErmont: The Green Mountain State keeps up the heat on religious bigots

Bigots will find no shelter in the state of Vermont. Nor Roman Catholics, although that’s sort of synonymous with bigots.

The first state in the union to legalize civil unions–due to the legislation of then Governor Dean’s faith–and the first state to pass marriage equality without the judiciary’s gun to its head, Vermont will also become the first state to force Christians against their will to rent out their private property for gay weddings. Vermont is super-progressive and that’s why we like it so much.

The Vermont chapter of the ACLU is now suing a rural Vermont inn on behalf of a lesbian couple that wished to hold its wedding reception there. The lesbian couple nearly committed suicide after finding out that these private citizens did not want to allow their their private property to be used in a celebration of their homosexual relationship.

And you wouldn’t want them to commit suicide…would you?

Of course, the bigots played the religion card, as if religion is offered some kind of special protection in the Constitution or something. John and Mary O’Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont explained:

 “We do not, however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

When are these people going to learn that free exercise of religion does not mean that you can break the law when it violates your conscience? For example, the government can draft Quakers into the armed forces. Also, Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance in schools. It’s permissible to force Orthodox Jews to open their businesses on the (Jewish) Sabbath. Wait…we don’t do any of those things? Well, we should be able to.

When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it didn’t mean religions that piss me off. It meant warm, mushy, cotton candy religions that tell homosexuals that God made them just the way they are and God don’t make no mistakes. You know, fake religions.

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont. Nice place. Hate to see anything bad happen to it.

The idea that these two innkeepers can just decide to pick and choose which customers they take on–as if it were their business!–really makes my blood boil. The entire purpose of marriage equality laws is to force people like the O’Reilly’s to do things against their will. That’s why we need the state to recognize our relationships. Without state sanction, we can’t call on the power of the state to force other people to recognize our relationships and, when we feel like it, to take part in our ceremonies.

You’ll never find us making the libertarian argument that government should have no role in marriage because that would mean that the government can’t shove our morals down other people’s throats. Absolutely we want the government involved in marriage. We want the heavy hand of the state involved at all levels, and we want it to bully people on our behalf. We want our morals enshrined in law.

And let’s be clear–we do want to shove our morals down other people’s throats. John and Mary O’Reilly think that gay marriage is morally wrong. I think their exclusionary policy is morally wrong. John and Mary O’Reilly may not force their morality upon me through the force of law, though I may still force my morality on them.

That’s why it’s okay for former Governor Howard Dean to tell the voters of Iowa that it was his faith that motivated him to sign civil unions into law. But it would not be acceptable for an actual Christian governor–as opposed to Dean, who’s only a Christian when he’s running for president–to veto such a law because of his faith.

See how this works? We legislate our morality, and you just keep yours to your fucking self. I don’t want to see your morality, hear your morality, or even know that it exists. If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married! And just as long as you participate in my wedding against your will, everything will be fine. I won’t have to call the authorities, who are pretty entirely in the tank for me.

Nice message. It’s important to perpetuate the myth that other people are meddling in our lives, preventing us from loving each other, and getting in our business.

Now, I’m not advising any of my readers to go blabbing about all of this all around town. Yes, the whole purpose of gay marriage is to force people to recognize our relationships who don’t want to. But as always, stealth and deception are necessary. It’s important to keep up the illusion that people are meddling in our lives, telling us whom to love and whom we may sleep with. The emotional weight of that argument is enormous.

It’s bullshit, of course. But that shouldn’t stop us from making the emotional appeal that we really, really love each other. So who are you to stand in the way of our love? Who are you to police my sex life? I loved my husband even before we were married and I slept with him as well. Even if every gay marriage in the whole country was nullified by some federal marriage amendment, I’d still love him and still have sex with him. So it really has nothing to do with love or with bedroom behavior. It has to do with forcing people to do things our way.

When we portray opponents of marriage equality as moral busybodies, we win. They’re running around telling everyone how to live their lives! Which is totally different than what the State of Vermont is doing to the O’Reilly’s, of course. But they’re just Christofascist losers, and they have no rights.
 
This whole ordeal in Vermont really reminds me of what happened to me and Michael when we were first married here on the Cape in 2004. We were one of the first gay couples in the state–in the nation!–to be married legally. We contacted a woman photographer to do our photos, and she told us that she was a Christofascist and that she wasn’t planning on doing any gay weddings because of her “faith”. She referred us to other photographers.
 
Now, there are dozens of good wedding photographers on the Cape, but it didn’t seem right that this woman could just pick and choose her clients. So we told her that she’d better get her ass to the wedding or we’d sue the shit out of her. You see, I wanted to force her to do something against her will. I wanted to make her an unwilling participant in our ceremony, forcing her to look at us through that camera lens of hers, shoving cake in each other’s mouths, kissing at the altar, etc. I know that there were other photographers who would have been glad to have had our business, but I really wanted to knuckle this bitch under. I wanted to make her choose between her Christian faith and her livelihood. I certainly didn’t want a photographer who wanted to be there.
 
In the end, she did the pictures. So much for her “faith” in some wacky “God”. Apparently, paying her bills was more important. 
 
Now, some of you may believe in “live and let live”. I don’t. I believe in live and destroy other people’s livelihoods. If other people have beliefs that conflict with mine, I like to force them to abandon their beliefs or become unemployed. (See previous post of Dr. Frank Turek)
 
I heard that ours was her last wedding ever. It’s too bad because she had had a thriving business before gay marriage became the law in Massachusetts. Last time I saw her, she was a sandwich artist at Subway in Hyannisport. Hope that bitch likes making minimum wage! I bet she’ll remember next time that “this doesn’t affect you”.   
 
 Update: The Wildflower Inn is no longer doing weddings and special events, according to its website. I consider this a partial victory. Can the State of Vermont force them to continue doing so? That would be sweet.

Tag Cloud