FGB II

This is a reconstruction. I actually had a post composed that got thrown out by either Windows, Firefox, or Earthlink. Or it may just be that my computer is a certifiable antique and just can't handle all the stuff on some websites. At any rate, here we go again.

(Don't worry, boys and girls -- the picture will be posted as soon as I have a chance.)

My Own Private Neverneverland

Or something like it. I think that's the reality the right wingnuts inhabit, and the pickings have been so choice this week that I decided to do a "Wingnuts on Parade" segement.

Remember Matt "I'm Not Gay" Sanchez, the former gay porn star turned right-wing kewpie doll? He's come out of the shadows to strike again, in the pages of WingNutDaily, no less. Most of his diatribe is against Barack Obama -- focusing, laughably enough, on Obama's "gay problem," which Sanchez never quite seems to pin down. (The idea that "I'm Not Gay" is now the right's expert on gay issues sort of puts the whole thing in perspective, now, doesn't it?). What's really choice, though, is this:

Ever notice the LGBT advocates constantly compare the same-sex struggle to the civil rights movement? According to polls, African-Americans are the most opposed to the legalization of gay marriage, and no black leader has endorsed the comparison between racial equality and the "right" for pre-op transsexuals to get a taxpayer funded sex change. The liberal interpretation of the civil rights struggle through the rainbow-colored glasses of the "queer theory" activist would have given the Rev. Martin Luther King a nightmare, rather than a dream.

Well, let's see, if marriage is a fundamental right, which it is according to the Supreme Court of the United States, and gays are barred from marriage because of irrational prejudice written into the law, then I guess it is a civil-rights issue. And I guess Sanchez never heard of Coretta Scott King, who supported equality for gays and lesbians under the law, or Al Sharpton, who supports same-sex marriage. And what about David Paterson, Governor of New York? And I'd really like to know when Sanchez managed to read the mind of a man who's been dead for forty years. (Or is this the gospel according to his patron saint, Ann of the Faggots?) And don't talk to me about polls. I have a degree in psych, with lots of time spent on experimental psych and statistics. I know about polls.

And speaking of crawling out from under rocks, here's former Senator Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum, sounding off from a platform of complete ignorance, which is what he does best. TerranceDC pretty much demolishes Santorum's OpEd, so I don't have to, except for a couple of points. Terrance quotes this:

Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.

Well, it's been five years since the Massachusetts decision, and not only has the world not ended, but I haven't been able to locate a single instance of clergy being hauled off to jail for preaching against gays. (There are a couple of prime candidats, such as Ken Hutcherson, but not for his preaching; I'd advocate his being investigated for his support of Watchers on the Walls, which advocates murder of gays. But maybe Santorum sees that as a free speech issue.) As for losing their government contracts and tax-exempt status (and why do I think that's the most important point for Santorum? Oh, right -- he's a Republican), if they're not going to adhere to applicable law, they should. I don't see giving religious organizations the right to abrogate laws on their own authority. They don't have any such authority, for starters. (Y'know, for years churches running social service agencies with government contracts managed to create quasi-independent organizations that were not, legally, part of the church to maintain those contract in compliance with the law. Somehow, with the rise of the theocrats, suddenly all these separate entities got religion and the system doesn't work any more.)

However, my favorite part of Santorum's screed is this:

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won't have a dad around, but we can't let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?

Of course, if you keep abreast of the news from overseas, you may have seen this story from AP:

Two Norwegian opposition parties on Thursday backed the rights of gay couples to marry in church, adopt and have assisted pregnancies, effectively assuring the passage of a new equality law next month.

The ruling three-party government proposed a law in March giving gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals but disagreements within the coalition cast doubt on whether it would receive enough votes to pass. But two opposition parties announced Thursday they were backing the proposals, a move welcomed by gay rights groups, which should ensure a parliamentary majority and allow the law to be passed.

Oh, by the way, note the dateline: May 29, 2008.

Jim Burroway has some comments on this one. If you're wondering about that 80% figure for first children born out of wedlock, Burroway tracked it down: it doesn't seem to have come from anyone in Norway, but from Stanley Kurtz, who shares Paul Cameron's amazing ability to pull completely insane conclusions from cherry-picked data.

(As a note, a wonderful little nugget from a book I'm reading right now on the recent history of Ireland: Ireland and France have the lowest marriage rates in the EU. Neither has legalized same-sex marriage. Draw your own conclusions.)

A group of Republican attorneys general have filed a petition with the California supreme court asking for a stay of the marriage decision. (Republicans? Really? How -- uh, expected):

The attorneys general of 10 US states have applied to the Californian Supreme Court to delay finalising its ruling to legalise gay marriage.

Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah all say that they need time to consider the status of their residents who marry in California. With the exception of Florida and New Hampshire, they all have a consitutional ban on gay marriage.

"We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such 'marriage tourism' will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts," said Utah Attorney General Mark L Shurtleff in the application on behalf of the ten states.

As Waldo points out,

Mr. Matt scooped around and found that nine of the ten states already have state constitutional amendments in place on the marriage question. So the AGs want to study on something that requires no study. (Apologies to Mr. Matt, but it's eight of the ten.)

So, what impact do you think a same-sex marriage performed in California is going to have in Utah, which has a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage? Needs study, right?

What they're afraid of is that it will go to the federal courts and their nasty little constitutional amendments and DOMAs will be overturned as being in violation of just about everything. At least, they would if we had a real Supreme Court.

Joe Brummer has a post on Peter LaBarbera, one of my favorite right-wing buffoons. (LaBarbera, you'll remember, is so effective that his organization didn't bother to file their anti-marriage petitions this year because they knew they didn't have enough signatures to make it to the ballot.)

Peter writes:

Surely the homosexual (and atheist) lobby’s vindictive, selfish and shameless campaign against the Boy Scouts of America is one of the cruelest ever orchestrated by the Left. They could care less about this wonderful organization for boys, which they are helping to destroy and bankrupt through endless legal harassment.

Do you still have a problem saying that organized homosexuality is a force for evil in our society?

The problem is “HOW” Peter expresses his issues and concerns that makes it hate speech. Could Mr. LaBarbera not express his concerns without calling gays and lesbians “evil”, “Selfish” or “Cruel?” Using such language to discuss your opponet is only a demonstration of the pot calling the kettle black. Could he not express his opposition and respect his opposition’s point of view? Could he not express himself without using name calling, judgmental language and insults? That is the difference between an opposing view and hate speech. Most of what comes out of Peter LaBarbera’s organization is hate speech because it fails to present opposition in a humane and dignified method. If LaBarbera cannot manage to express his opposition to the inclusion of gays and lesbians into nondiscrimination policies in a way that is respectful to gays and lesbians than he is just another hate group.

Add another few names to that group, such as Matt Barber, James Hartline, Sally Kern -- you know the list. Brummer's absolutely correct: it is hate speech, and it's getting more and more shrill because, I sincerely believe, they're getting more and more desperate. They're losing, and they know it.

TerranceDC has another post at Pam's House Blend (the man does get around, now, doesn't he?) on more of the wingnut reaction to the California decision. The quotes from Dennis Prager are a scream. Not quite as funny as LaBarbera's "organized homosexuality" (and can you think of anything less organized than a bunch of queers? Herding cats isn't even in it), but there are more howlers per paragraph than LaBarbera could ever manage. And do note how they all fall back on the "scary future" scenario: all the terrible things that are going to happen if we allow gays to be treated as real people. Strangely enough, as Terrance points out later in the post, other times and places, gays have been treated as real people, and the world just went trundling on.