Green Room

The Tyranny of False Choices

posted at 9:14 am on May 8, 2009 by

Carrie Prejean has been having a rough couple of weeks. She was denied the Miss USA crown because she gave an honest answer to an ambush question from an angry gay-rights activist. (Do you suppose they’ll have an equally militant pro-life activist hosting the pageant next year, asking “gotcha” questions about partial-birth abortion?) The consequences of her honesty have included being dressed down with the kind of sexist language that had feminists screaming for the cops in the Nineties, before their movement burned itself to ashes in defense of America’s most powerful sexual predator. Her views on gay marriage have been chalked up to childhood trauma, as if they were a subject for treatment, rather than debate. As Laura brilliantly pointed out, Miss Prejean has been treated as if she were substantially more dangerous, and less understandable, than John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban.”

The anger and vindictiveness of the gay-marriage movement is unsurprising. They are the aggressors in a cultural battle, which is entering a critical stage. Aggressive behavior is to be expected. Mainstream society has something they want, and they’re going to have to take it, because it will not be surrendered voluntarily. They must take maximum advantage of every opportunity to put their cultural opposition on the defensive. What answer do you think Perez Hilton was hoping Carrie Prejean would give?

Whatever the merits of gay marriage, it must be understood that it’s a tremendous change from the traditional understanding of marriage, which stretches back for centuries. This change is being pressed upon society with great speed and urgency. Two or three generations is a very short time to push an idea from unthinkable to inevitable. Many Americans don’t like the way this particular change is being presented as mandatory, with all opposition dismissed as evil, insane, or ignorant. It’s bad enough to be told you must put forth an opinion about something you’d rather not think about. It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question – he was demanding submission. Thoughtless genuflection to “the right of gay persons in love to get married” is the jizya paid to the dominant culture, and you’re not allowed to squeak out so much as a tepid salute to traditional marriage until you’ve paid it.

The question asked of Carrie Prejean was whether she thought every state should legalize same-sex marriage. The answer that got her in so much trouble was, “Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.” She’s not exactly getting in anyone’s face there, is she? She even began with a polite disclaimer that made it clear she respected the “choice” of people that disagreed with the viewpoint she was about to declare. Are those who passionately believe in global warming expected to begin statements of their faith with cheerful salutes to the validity of their opponents’ choices, and end with an apology to anyone who doesn’t share their fanatical beliefs?

Carrie’s declaration of respect for the advocates of gay marriage was, obviously, inadequate to a culture that needs the defenders of traditional marriage to “feel themselves subdued,” as the Koran puts it. It was also unnecessary to begin with. Those who revere traditional marriage do not need to apologize for the defense they offer. For one thing, in a nation where everything has been politicized – down to the food you eat and the car you drive – I think we can take it as a given that any strong belief is going to offend somebody. Worse, offering pre-emptive apologies to the likes of Perez Hilton is a concession that the time-honored traditions of ordinary people are inherently vicious and offensive… and once you’ve conceded that, you’ve lost the argument over whether those traditions need to be junked. You’re just negotiating over the timetable.

Ordinary people should strongly reject the idea that respecting the tradition of marriage is automatically an insult to those who do not share that respect. Elevating marriage does not require hatred of gay people. Celebrating marriage as among the highest achievements of the human race does not require us to dismiss those who will never be able to marry as less than human. You can say something is special without damning everything else as meaningless. I wish Carrie Prejean had explained that to Perez Hilton, instead of beginning her declaration of traditional beliefs with a weak apology for daring to hold them. I hope the treatment she has received will give other defenders of those beliefs the resolve to dispense with the apologies.

Everyone who believes in marriage as the union of a man and woman had better realize they are under attack, by an ideology that defines itself through attacking. The most zealous proponents of gay marriage will never be satisfied with legalistic civil unions, which I doubt straight America would have any sustained objection to – there’s no reason any given group of people shouldn’t be allowed to enter into contractual agreements to guarantee access to sick partners in a hospital, or the distribution of an estate, or similar practical considerations. Where middle America stands its ground is recognizing these arrangements as a “marriage”… and that very recognition is what the leading advocates of gay marriage demand. Its exclusivity is exactly what they desire. They cannot abide millions of tradition-minded men and women declaring that the bond they share is precious and unique, because they will not see that declaration as anything but an insult. To the leaders of the gay marriage movement – the people with microphones and cameras pointed at them – the battle to redefine marriage is not about gaining something, it’s about taking something away from those who don’t deserve it.

Initiative in defense is required, because in today’s politically supercharged atmosphere, sitting quietly and waiting for your beliefs to be redefined as indefensible is suicide. All of the slanders directed at Carrie Prejean are variations on the tactics deployed against everyone who stands for traditional marriage. The attempt to treat opposition to gay marriage as a psychological disorder is an obvious bid to silence opponents with a Hannibal Lecter mask. The hypocrisy charge, currently being made by strangling Miss Prejean with her own swimsuit, boils down to an assertion that she opposes gay marriage out of pure, mindless hatred – if she’s such a naughty little minx in every other respect, she can’t have any logical reason for refusing to get on board with the gay agenda. The less subtle accusations that support for traditional marriage is motivated by “homophobia” imply there is no sincere respect or admiration for marriage itself – it’s All About the Gays, as if your parents’ next anniversary party will celebrate a thirty-year schoolyard taunt directed at oppressed homosexuals. The charge that marriage isn’t worth defending, because so many marriages produce no children or end in divorce, misses the entire point of celebrating the ideal of raising a family through a loving union that lasts a lifetime: if it was easy, it wouldn’t be worthy of celebration.

If the reader is strongly sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, and finds any of the above to be harsh or confrontational, I can only say that traditionalists did not start the marriage wars. We reserve the right to offer a spirited defense of what we believe, and the hardball rules of engagement were set by the aggressors, as they are in every conflict. We will not allow the question to be framed as a choice between accepting gay marriage or endorsing hatred and bigotry, because that is the kind of false choice a tyrant offers his subjects. The real question is whether traditional marriage is worth defending… because if it is, then Carrie Prejean is being persecuted for taking a noble stand, and if it isn’t, she foolishly threw away a glittering prize out of blind loyalty to a tired superstition.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

An excellent piece, reasoned and well stated!

Liam on May 8, 2009 at 12:12 PM

It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question – he was demanding submission.

Excellent.

I have been trying to return the argument to this every time. The question is not whether Carrie had any credibility to answer the way she did (as if the left and Perez were natural arbiters of sincerity or moral standing). The question is, why was this even asked in the first place? It was a loaded question with, evidently, only one answer. What is remarkable is the faux astonishment the pageant directors are exhibiting over her answer which further confirms that there is only one acceptable point of view. Telling.

Mommypundit on May 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Marriage is sacred, and Doctor Zero ROCKS!!

Maquis on May 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Well said, Doc.

Russian history offers a clue as to where the progressives want to ultimately take this. Stalin’s Terror purges of his own country were dedicated to destroying family ties as counterproductive to the collectivist State.

In Obama’s progressive America, marriage would ultimately be banned as a primitive religious concept. You would be either a breeder or a non-breeder.

RandyChandler on May 8, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Do you suppose they’ll have an equally militant pro-life activist hosting the pageant next year, asking “gotcha” questions about partial-birth abortion?

Uh…. and I may be going way out on a limb here… but, no.

Daggett on May 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Who is this Doctor Zero who posts well-developed and reasoned arguments, instead of the usual hit-and-run? He’s going to bring down the level of discourse on the whole site!

gridlock2 on May 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Spot on! Dr. Zero needs to be promoted from Green Room to the Home Page!

PrincipledPilgrim on May 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Awesome piece. I’m one of those paranoids who see the slippery slope presented by gay marriage. Once we allow the most basic definition of marriage (as it is traditionally known in western culture: one man + one woman), to be stripped away, the entire notion of marriage is subject to further interpretation and redefinition.

In essence, it will cease to have any traditional meaning whatsoever. On the bright side, I’ll be free to marry the old pair of blue jeans that I am so fond of.

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Wow! That is a fantastic summary of the situation. I only wish some of the activist loeftists could read and comprehens such a well reasoned view of the defense of traditional marriage.

ObamatheMessiah on May 8, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I love Doc Zero. Everything “he” writes is exceptional.

Mommypundit on May 8, 2009 at 12:49 PM

It is never about “marriage” for them, really. It is all about “the benefits”, and about being in our faces. Because they cannot have legitimately before God what God ordained for a man and a woman from the beginning of time. It’s funny that they don’t think of it, but even Jesus Himself reaffirmed it – yeah, the same one they swear up and down He speaks nothing of the topic.

But they don’t want to hear it. They want what they want right now – just like the two-year-old who wants that I-gotta-have-it! toy and will scream child abuse if that’s what it takes to get it. That’s why they act like the Taliban towards people who remind them of what they cannot have because of those reasons. Yep, they act like the Taliban – whom they accuse us of being.

But they better be warned. We can only be pushed too far for too long. Because when our patience finally runs dry…

newton on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

While I think the attention focused on Carrie Prejean is stupid, I can’t agree with your generalized assignment of motives behind it.

I support gay marriage (mainly because I’m gay, and married), but I don’t recognize in myself any of the motivations you have listed.

I got married, not because I saw it as an opportunity to take something away from people. I did it because first and foremost – I am in love. Secondly, I want the financial and contractual protections marriage offers.

To the leaders of the gay marriage movement – the people with microphones and cameras pointed at them – the battle to redefine marriage is not about gaining something, it’s about taking something away from those who don’t deserve it.

That’s just wrong. I could care less if you were married or not. And my being married takes nothing away from you.

As long as we are generalizing motives, it appears to me the opposition to gay marriage is strictly a result of religious beliefs. I understand that. And as a formerly devout Catholic, I can appreciate it. But I don’t expect to be forced to accept the religious principles of another. I want a civil marriage, not a religious one.

grahsco on May 8, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Great piece!

Advocates of this gay marriage movement do not only want the rest of us to give in to their lifestyle, they want us to say that it is morally acceptable in the eyes of God and the world. What they choose to do with their lives is their own business, but when they tell me what I have to believe and what is and isn’t moral, that’s when I draw the line. If God had intended men to marry men, and women to marry women, he would have made us all homogeneous, so we could all procreate with whomever we pleased.

Susanboo on May 8, 2009 at 1:12 PM

When are we going to start pounding liberals with these sort of “can’t please everyone” sort of questions? Questions similar to what Perez Hilton asked, and some of the more idiotic questions asked during the Republican Presidential debates in 2008. We should start forcing liberals to answer questions like:

1) Do you think accepting Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven?

2) What do you hate most about the U.S. Constitution?

and, of course:

3) Should gays be allowed to get married?

ynot4tony2 on May 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Because they cannot have legitimately before God what God ordained for a man and a woman from the beginning of time. It’s funny that they don’t think of it, but even Jesus Himself reaffirmed it – yeah, the same one they swear up and down He speaks nothing of the topic.

But they don’t want to hear it. They want what they want right now – just like the two-year-old who wants that I-gotta-have-it! toy and will scream child abuse if that’s what it takes to get it. That’s why they act like the Taliban towards people who remind them of what they cannot have because of those reasons. Yep, they act like the Taliban – whom they accuse us of being.

newton on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Using the government to define marriage for others based on the scriptural accounts of Jesus isn’t going to be supported by people who hold other beliefs or who think that church and state should not interfere with each other.

FWIW Jesus spoke more clearly on divorce as a sin than homosexuality.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM

ynot4tony2 on May 8, 2009 at 1:21 PM

A candidate from either party should be able to answer:

1.) The President has to represent people from all faiths.
2.) The slavery part.
3.) Up to the states.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 1:25 PM

You can always tell who is in the wrong by their actions.

When black people wanted equal rights, violence was used to put them down. That was wrong and fortunately the civil rights movement was successful.

Activist gays use violence and character defamation to further their cause. This is wrong.

Can we not see that those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are the ones who’s beliefs are being oppressed?

ConDem on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Doc … do you write for a living? Your stuff is always so well put together.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

3.) Up to the states.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 1:25 PM

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Obviously because it was an incorrect “answer.” Not resolved until the population heartily agrees.

Mommypundit on May 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Wonderful, Doc. Very well stated.

Weight of Glory on May 8, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

No reason too relevant to a POTUS contender.

CA is bouncing the issue between the 3 branches of its government along with a popular vote. Each state operates a little differently and the President should avoid the mess and stick with a principled federalist position that marriage laws are within the realm of the state not the federal government.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Used to be, gays just wanted to be left alone. Now it’s more you have to genuflect to yet another left wing ideology.

rbj on May 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Can we not see that those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are the ones who’s beliefs are being oppressed?

ConDem on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

There was a tremendous amount of violence in the 1960′s in black areas of major cities. MLK preached non-violence but not everyone followed.

Do divorced people oppress the beliefs of those who think marriage should be for life?

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Excellently phrased Doc Z. Another excellent article. I especially liked this:

if she’s such a naughty little minx in every other respect, she can’t have any logical reason for refusing to get on board with the gay agenda.

as we were just treated to pictures that as far as I can tell everyone finds as shocking and offensive as a Victoria’s Secret Catalog. On Que, the Homotrolls were trying to stir up HA, then dumbfounded that they were not getting outrage from the “Christians”.

GunRunner on May 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM

While I think the attention focused on Carrie Prejean is stupid, I can’t agree with your generalized assignment of motives behind it.

I support gay marriage (mainly because I’m gay, and married), but I don’t recognize in myself any of the motivations you have listed.

I got married, not because I saw it as an opportunity to take something away from people. I did it because first and foremost – I am in love. Secondly, I want the financial and contractual protections marriage offers.

To the leaders of the gay marriage movement – the people with microphones and cameras pointed at them – the battle to redefine marriage is not about gaining something, it’s about taking something away from those who don’t deserve it.

That’s just wrong. I could care less if you were married or not. And my being married takes nothing away from you.

As long as we are generalizing motives, it appears to me the opposition to gay marriage is strictly a result of religious beliefs. I understand that. And as a formerly devout Catholic, I can appreciate it. But I don’t expect to be forced to accept the religious principles of another. I want a civil marriage, not a religious one.

grahsco on May 8, 2009 at 1:03 PM

In the paragraph you cited, I went out of my way to state I was referring to the leaders of the gay marriage movement. You don’t sound like you have all that much in common with them. You don’t seem eager to beat Carrie Prejean into the ground, for one thing. That puts a fair bit of daylight between you and the leadership I was talking about. Let’s not be coy and pretend they don’t exist.

One more tactic of tyranny is the presumption that the loud, well-funded, self-appointed leadership of a designated interest group speaks for every member of that group, and you can’t object to anything they say without insulting everyone they claim to represent. I reject that concept utterly and without apology.

Marriage is not something that can be redefined without “taking it away” from the people that have held it sacred for thousands of generations. I believe it is worth defending in its current form, and I plan to offer that defense, if you’d care to consider it. (The post I put up today started as the preamble to that discussion, but it got a little too big for that…) I can see why you would take the defense of marriage to be born entirely of religious belief, because there is great overlap between the religious community and the defenders of marriage. My own argument for marriage is not based in religion, but I’m glad to have the religious community on my side. They’re feisty and tenacious!

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Doc … do you write for a living? Your stuff is always so well put together.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Not yet, although I’ve always dreamed of being able to write professionally. I did win a local newspaper Halloween Horror Story contest once. Other than that, Hot Air is the only place I’ve published anything to date. It’s really great that they gave me this opportunity!

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I agree. So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Because the gays in California know what all good libs everywhere know, that when you have a very liberal judicial branch, they legislate from the bench, and that each time the citizens vote for or against an amendment placed on their ballot, all they have to do is challenge it in the courts, and it will be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of what the majority wants.

Susanboo on May 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM

No reason too relevant to a POTUS contender.

CA is bouncing the issue between the 3 branches of its government along with a popular vote. Each state operates a little differently and the President should avoid the mess and stick with a principled federalist position that marriage laws are within the realm of the state not the federal government.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I’m all in favor of federalism myself, but why is it a principle applied solely to arguments the Left can’t win conclusively at the national level? Why are we supposed to let fifty state legislatures decide what they think “marriage” means, but meekly allow a huge beauracracy in Washington decide how the children born to those marriages should be educated? Especially when said beauracracy is a miserable failure, and every attempt to escape from it is ground under the iron-heeled boot of someone like Barack Obama? Is there nowhere else we could initially direct our resurgent love of federalism?

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

So why didn’t the Proposition 8 vote settle the matter in California?

SailorDave on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Because liberals only love democracy and representative government and freedom and equality …

… when it does what they think its supposed to do.

The rest of the time, they’d prefer Stalinist totalitarianism. Just ask Carrie Prejean.

There is no such thing as a liberal who actually holds to liberal principles. They don’t even exist anymore.

The “people” don’t matter to liberals – unless the “people” are doing what they want them to do.

Professor Blather on May 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM

In the paragraph you cited, I went out of my way to state I was referring to the leaders of the gay marriage movement. You don’t sound like you have all that much in common with them. You don’t seem eager to beat Carrie Prejean into the ground, for one thing. That puts a fair bit of daylight between you and the leadership I was talking about. Let’s not be coy and pretend they don’t exist.

One more tactic of tyranny is the presumption that the loud, well-funded, self-appointed leadership of a designated interest group speaks for every member of that group, and you can’t object to anything they say without insulting everyone they claim to represent. I reject that concept utterly and without apology.

Fair enough. Perhaps I did read it somewhat too broadly.

Frankly, while I support gay marriage, I support individual liberty and capitalism more. I really wish the marriage argument would go away (obviously with my side winning) so people would start to realize that we’re all socialists now.

grahsco on May 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Especially when said beauracracy is a miserable failure, and every attempt to escape from it is ground under the iron-heeled boot of someone like Barack Obama? Is there nowhere else we could initially direct our resurgent love of federalism?

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I think vouchers are a very good idea and Obama is wrong. Education is an area where a students can benefit from a federalist approach that allows for experimentation in areas that have have different needs.

We’d probably be better off as a country if abortion was decided, not buy SCOTUS, but by state law.

The question from 1:21 PM that I was responding to was hypothetically directed at a POTUS candidate. It is a bit of a dodge, but appropriate for the marriage question–much better than answering that the federal government should take regulation of marriage away from the states and make a uniform national decision.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Great piece as usual, Dr 0, but I do have to quibble with one statement you made above, in the comments:

Marriage is not something that can be redefined without “taking it away” from the people that have held it sacred for thousands of generations

Humankind as we know it hasn’t existed for thousands of generations. More to the point, the genealogy of the modern civil and legal institution of marriage is complex. I point this out not because I’m anything but in total sympathy with your viewpoint, but because I don’t believe it serves our side well when its most articulate spokespeople, such as yourself, resort to exaggeration or oversimplification. We’re already accused too often of opposing the re-definition of marriage out of blind belief and ignorance.

I hope to be putting up my own observations on this topic when the time feels right, and I expect taht I’ll be referring (and tracking back) to your insights.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM

As always, good stuff Doc……….

“Are those who passionately believe in global warming expected to begin statements of their faith with cheerful salutes to the validity of their opponents’ choices, and end with an apology to anyone who doesn’t share their fanatical beliefs?”

……….. that would be a good start.

Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Humankind as we know it hasn’t existed for thousands of generations. More to the point, the genealogy of the modern civil and legal institution of marriage is complex. I point this out not because I’m anything but in total sympathy with your viewpoint, but because I don’t believe it serves our side well when its most articulate spokespeople, such as yourself, resort to exaggeration or oversimplification. We’re already accused too often of opposing the re-definition of marriage out of blind belief and ignorance.

I hope to be putting up my own observations on this topic when the time feels right, and I expect taht I’ll be referring (and tracking back) to your insights.

CK MacLeod on May 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Are you saying “Stargate: Atlantis” has led me wrong? Okay, maybe not thousands of generations, then. But lots. Possibly even scads. That is a good point about avoiding exaggerations.

The question from 1:21 PM that I was responding to was hypothetically directed at a POTUS candidate. It is a bit of a dodge, but appropriate for the marriage question–much better than answering that the federal government should take regulation of marriage away from the states and make a uniform national decision.

dedalus on May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Didn’t mean that to sound like I was bashing you… but I’d really like to hear any number of congressmen or the President answer that question about federalism. Come to think of it, I’d like to hear them answer the three questions you were responding to. I’d kick over Obama’s teleprompter right after I asked them. (I guess my odds of moderating the next presidential debate just went down…)

Doctor Zero on May 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Personally, I lay this at the feet of the pageant personnel–who not only obviously invited Hilton purely to use the pageant as a political soapbox, but who neither defended Prejean nor scolded Hilton for his vicious personal attacks. However, I remain unconvinced that Prejean’s answer actually COST her the crown; every judge I’ve heard so far says that she was behind before that question was asked.

q2600 on May 8, 2009 at 3:44 PM

As if the vile personal attacks on Prejean aren’t sick enough, they are eerily similar to Andrew Sullivan’s attack on Sarah Palin and her child Trig.

Both attacks amount to publicly raping and attempting to publicly destroy two women who just happen to disagree with leftist party line. The pure sick zeal contained in Hilton’s bullying attacks and that of his and Sullivan’s sycophants should be cause for grave concern in a society that calls itself civilized.

These attacks exceed the limits of even the roughest acceptable political discourse and serve to erode our society.

The media savor the attacks, egging on some of the sickest members of our society to ever greater acts of degradation against these women.

That the sickest of these kinds of attacks are against heterosexual, conservative women is not an accident, rather a psychosis.

DrDeano on May 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Obviously because it was an incorrect “answer.” Not resolved until the population heartily agrees.

Mommypundit on May 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM

They don’t care if people heartily agree as long as they surrender. Prop 8 should have settled it because the people of the state followed the law and the amendment process. That just wasn’t good enough for gay-tivist.

I remember a time when all they wanted was declare themselves and not loose their jobs. Now they get people fired or take their businesses from them if they even voice a disagreement about the lifestyle.

The only people that have not flinched from them are the churches. That’s what this is about – going after the churches. Once gay marriage is the law of the land they can start suing and closing down the churches.

This isn’t crazy raving, this is their goal.

It was once thought crazy that gays would go after marriage.

vapig on May 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM

It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question – he was demanding submission.

Hilton was explicit on that point later, with a statement something along the lines of “Of course I want my beauty pageant contestants to be PC.”

JeffWeimer on May 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM