The Iowa Supreme Court says that gay people have the right to marry. Cue absolutely ridiculous wingnut reaction in 5…4…3…

Update:

Predictably, the usual suspects are wasting no time showing that they truly do not understand the role of the judicial branch:

Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. “The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa,” he notes. “There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage.”

Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.

“And it’s astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better,” the attorney exclaims. “They don’t know better — and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can’t speak for them.”

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s Law School, had this reaction. ”These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change,” he offers. “That’s not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don’t rewrite the definition of marriage.” And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds.

Alright, D-bags.  Let’s pretend for a minute.  Imagine that the population of Iowa was, say, 90% fundamentalist Muslim.  Now imagine that a law was passed in our fantasy Iowa, with overwhelming public support, that criminalized Christianity.  Would you support a court decision striking down that law as unconstitutional?  If yes, then you are either raging hypocrites or too profoundly stupid to understand the shit that comes out of your mouths.  If no, then congratulations.  You really don’t understand that the function of the judicial branch in this country is not to merely interpret and enforce laws, but also to overturn laws that are contrary to the constitution.  You know, that whole “checks and balances” thing.

Damn, these people are thick.

It still amazes me that organizations that are rabidly homophobic have the gall to call themselves “pro-family”.  They couldn’t give two shits about families–it’s all about hatin’ on some fags.  The latest example of this comes from Peter LaBarbera of the inaccurately named group, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.  Peter is a bit upset that Blue Cross & Blue Shield has decided to recognize the marriage of two lesbians and give health insurance to the couple and their infant daugther.

BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York made the decision after the New York Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of an insured lesbian who sought coverage for her partner and the partner’s infant daughter. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says this is the sad reality of effective homosexual propaganda and activism.

“The very fact that BlueCross BlueShield capitulated so easily, that doesn’t say much for them as a company,” said LaBarbera. “At one point in society, companies were more moral. Now we see companies leading the amoral rush to fund and subsidize and benefit so-called homosexual ‘marriages’ and homosexual-led ‘families’….”

Though LaBarbera decries the company’s decision to cave to pro-homosexual pressure, he says his greatest concern is for the child being raised in a homosexual household.

Yes, he’s so concerned about the child that he’d prefer it if the baby was denied health insurance to punish her parents for their sinful lifestyle.  This is what passes as concern for families in groups like LaBarbera’s:  it’s fine if a loving family has to struggle without health insurance as long as the gays are treated as second class citizens.

“I fully believe that these two women love that child, love that baby. But the sad fact is that baby is growing up in a home which is intentionally fatherless, by design — and that’s wrong,” he argues. “And that’s going to handicap that baby’s life as she grows up. She needs a dad.  And a ‘replacement dad’ — be it an uncle or some friend, some male friend that these women have — can never substitute for her having a father.”

Extensive social science research shows that children raised by a married mother and fathers typically perform better academically and economically, and are healthier and better adjusted than those raised in what society is referring to as ”alternative” households.

Except that the research shows no such thing.  Studies have shown that children typically do better in two-parent households, however the sex of the parents makes no difference.  LaBarbera is misrepresenting the research (shocking) to fit his agenda of hate.  I also enjoy that he admits that the women certainly love their child.  In effect he’s admitting that this is a functional, loving family, but he’d prefer it if they were denied health insurance coverage because the parents have The Gay.  LaBarbera and others like him are not family advocates.  They are hateful bigots to the highest degree, pure and simple.

Damn it.  Ed Brayton had to go and expose me to the horrors of the comments section of the Boycott McDonald’s website.  The McDonald’s boycott, the newest project of the American Family Association, was started after McDonald’s gave some money to the NGLCC, an organization of gay and lesbian business owners.  Naturally, the homophobes reacted as if Ronald McDonald had just fellated Mayor McCheese on national television.  After this grave assault on Family Values™, the AFA attacked McDonald’s for refusing to “remain neutral in the culture wars” and urged its supporters to boycott the fast-food giant.  Unfortunately, the AFA allows supporters to leave comments of their own on the boycott website.  The result is a badass car crash of thought that onlookers cannot help but gawk at in a strange mixture of fear, curiosity, and amazement.  If you’re looking for a depressing window into the small minds of “values voters”, check out the comments section at the boycott website.  Here are some of my favorites: Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of weeks ago, Don Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association and, without a doubt, the most irrationally homophobic man on the planet, commented that Christians will have lost the culture war if California voters defeat an amendment to ban gay marriages in the state:

Dr. Donald Wildmon is founder of the American Family Association and an organizer of the Arlington Group. He says passage of the California marriage amendment is critical.
 
“If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I’m afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost,” says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. “I’ve never said that publicly until now — but that’s just the reality of the fact.
 
“If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we’ve lost — and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society,” he adds.

Well then, here’s some good news:  it looks like the California marriage amendment is cruisin’ for a bruisin’ at the polls in November.  A new survey by The Field Poll (pdf) reveals that a majority of California voters would vote against the proposed amendment:

In June groups opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage qualified a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, for the November ballot, which if approved would again provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. 

In a statewide survey completed this week among 672 likely voters, The Field Poll finds that if the election were being held now, more voters say they would vote No (51%) on Prop. 8 than would vote Yes (42%). 

Of course, Wildmon is talking out of his fundamentalist ass.  No reasonable person could honestly believe that a defeat at the polls in November would put an end to the raging dumbshittery of fundamentalist Christian activists in this country.  In fact, such a defeat would just goad them to push harder for a federal gay marriage amendment.  But a man can dream, can’t he?  Just think how great it would be if, following a rejection in California, all the Don Wildmons of the country finally surrendered to The Enlightenment and agreed to peacefully join the 18th century.  Imagine if they all walked into school boards across the country and promised to keep their religion out of science curricula.    Wouldn’t that be fantasitic?  It ain’t gonna happen, though.  Nope, you can’t just turn off that kind of stupid.  

This time it’s from the contemptuous Matt Barber, the male mouthpiece for the Concerned Women for America.  Barber is perhaps one of the most dishonest people alive, with a bountiful history of distorting reality to support his ballistic hatred of homosexuals, thereby assuaging his own deep-seated insecurity.  Matt’s goal in his latest column is to defend his identification of gay marriage as an “abomination”:

In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged “same-sex marriage” on the countryside.

Abomination, you say? Isn’t that a bit strong?

Nope. God used it. And I’ll give just one example of many as to why He did.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ed Brayton has discovered pure hilarity from the American Family Association’s news outlet, OneNewsNow.  The site apparently has a policy of never using the word “gay” in any of its stories, and it utilizes an automated algorithm to replace it with the word “homosexual”.  As Ed points out, that doesn’t work so well for a story about a sprinter named Tyson Gay:

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.

His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn’t count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here’s what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he’s certainly someone to watch in Beijing.

“It means a lot to me,” the 25-year-old Homosexual said. “I’m glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me.” (…)

Wearing a royal blue uniform with red and white diagonal stripes across the front, along with matching shoes, all in a tribute to 1936 Olympic star Jesse Owens, Homosexual dominated the competition. He started well and pulled out to a comfortable lead by the 40-meter mark.

This time, he kept pumping those legs all the way through the finish line, extending his lead. In Saturday’s opening heat, Homosexual pulled way up, way too soon, and nearly was caught by the field, before accelerating again and lunging in for fourth place.

OneNewsNow has since fixed the article, but thankfully someone saved a copy:

I wish the AFA knew how much of a laughing-stock they are.

The intolerable Michael Medved has penned a response to a recent pro-gay op-ed by Jonathan Rouch in the Wall Street Journal, and it’s on par with the rest of his fatuous catalog.  His thesis is that gay marriage lacks a “magic ingredient” that only heterosexual couples possess:

It’s not “marriage” – some magical status granted by the government – that serves to make people “healthier, happier and wealthier.” It’s the behavior associated with the marital ideal that brings benefits to couples and their children. That behavior doesn’t require official sanction – any more than official sanction guarantees such behavior. (…)

The problem with the Rauch argument and the biggest threat from same sex marriage itself involves flagrant distortion of the “magic ingredient” for lasting, socially beneficial relationships.

That ingredient isn’t governmental authorization or support. It is, rather, the uniting of male and female strengths and values in a durable combination.

He then treats us to much blather about the astounding, innate differences between the sexes, and how each sex brings unique characteristics into heterosexual relationships, concluding that, “a couple that blends male and female is fundamentally different from a couple with two men – just as that male-only relationship is distinct from a partnership of two women.”  Well, no shit.  But difference does that make?  According to Michael Medved, it means that gay and lesbian couples are ill-suited to be parents:

Read the rest of this entry »

After yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision, just about everyone knew that the Right-Wing Hate Machine would respond with boatloads of bigoted irrationality. Concerned Women for America issued a press release last night, and I think it reflects fairly well the unbridled detestation that the ultra-right has for homosexuals.  It contains the standard accusation of “judicial activism”, a term they use to refer to any court decision they don’t like.  There is also some concern trolling for the children, who will magically be harmed somehow by this decision.  The following, however, is just despicable:

If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

Fuck you, Concerned Women for America.  Trivializing loving homosexual relationships as “playing house” is simply abhorrent, and it requires a staggering degree of dehumanization.  News and radio reports yesterday featured countless homosexual men and women who were  overwhelmed with emotion at the realization that they would finally be able to marry the partners that they love.  It takes a truly hateful asshole to witness such displays of joy and love and then portray gay relationships as games of dress-up.  And then of course you have the absurd claim that gay marriage will somehow destroy heterosexual marriage.  That they cannot provide any plausible explanation for why that would happen is further evidence of the irrationality of the homophobic right.  And there is no reasoning with such irrational hatred.  The only thing decent people can do is say “fuck you” and be done with these bigoted asshats.

The California Supreme Court just struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, so brace yourselves for some serious wailing from the “family values” crowd.  I imagine we’ll have plenty of dire predictions about the imminent annihilation of heterosexual marriages in California by the end of the day.

I’ve noticed that the professional homophobes who write hate screeds for organizations like Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association have been having increasing difficulty using the word “gay”.  It’s almost as if they’re bitter with homosexuals for turning a formerly wholesome, “family friendly” word into something that puts Jesus off his lunch. Read the rest of this entry »