Supremely Gay Arguments

Gay marriage was argued before the Supreme Court last week

Gay rights are advancing on three fronts in our society:  Church, State, and each human heart. 

The Church

I don't understand churches striking homosexual acts from the canon of sins, but why not?  The same churches give the AOK to people shacking up and they have no problem with serial marriages, divorces and remarriages.  So, like the other teachings they've dropped, they must be jumping on the gay bandwagon out of attempted trendiness, and in a twisted way, fairness.

I don't know what else explains it;  we've experienced no earth-shaking new revelation or important archeological or theological discovery that would warrant changing a 2,000 year old New Testament teaching.  But this is America, where we copiously invent and reinvent religions.
 
So, like Pope Francis, I shrug my shoulders.  In a secular Democratic Republic, who am I to question religious freedom?

The State

Argumentation before the Supreme court is shot through with fuzzy but important concepts like respect, respectability, acceptance, normal, and validation.  And all in the pursuit of equality before the law.

A majority of Americans (including me) agree that gay couples should enjoy all the same legal rights as heteros:  Work-related benefits, inheritance, etc.  That can be accomplished by government without redefining a millenia-old institution that cuts across all cultures.

What gay marriage advocates seek from the state is not just equality before the law, but a bundle of new laws to bludgeon the unenlightened and the dangerously religous.  A redefinition of marriage from the Supreme Court will not change hearts.  If anything, battle lines will harden, and the next battleground will be churches.

The Human Heart

This battle has been won.  Even those opposed to gay marriage and who think homosexuality is a sin overwhelmingly express the opinion that gay couples should enjoy the same benefits before the law as heteros.  So why does the gay lobby keep pushing and demand we call it marriage?

Because it's not about equality before the law.  It's about using the law to force everyone to march in the gay parade.  All in the name of stamping out hatred, of course, but it is a sloppy broad brush wielded by dogma-driven propagandists to say that opposing gay marriage is hatred.

Try going into a HuffPo comment forum and stating you oppose gay marriage because of your Christian beliefs, then tell me who the haters are.

The best any of us can expect from others is toleration. Live and let live.  We leave each other alone to conduct our own lives as we see fit. Anything above that is icing on the cake. To expect people to embrace and celebrate acts and lifestyles they do not condone is childish, and asking the state to enforce such unicorn worship is dangerous.

The Savage Approach

As a bonus, I'm including a full episode of The Savage Nation dedicated to this topic.  Those who believe Doc Savage to be a fire-breathing hater will be disappointed, and those unfamiliar with the show will be surprised at how many gay, lesbian and liberal listeners he has.

I only include this because it is blessedly free of angry boilerplate, trite blabbering and predictable talking points.  It is full of real people, almost all gays and lesbians, having a real discussion with sexual libertarian and cultural conservative Michael Savage about gay marriage.

An 800 Pound Mozilla

The Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary the Mozilla Corporation is most widely known for its free and open source browser: Firefox.  You may recognize it's logo below:

 

Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and the creator of the Java Script programming language was appointed as CEO about a week ago and has since stepped down amid a swirl of controversy.

In 2008 Brendan Eich donated $1000 in support of California Proposition 8 to add "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", a measure I might add that passed with 52.8% of the vote. Mr. Eich was forced to step down after news of his donation became public.

"It is clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting"... “That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness”

~Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla

Mozilla has since released a statement on the controversy:

...Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard.

 ROFLMAO

 Yeah, right. 

You know you've gone beyond left-wing lunacy when even Bill Maher comes out against you

So does this mean I can fire anyone stupid enough to have donated to the Obama campaign?  If not, Why? What's the difference?

Might be time for me to switch to Google's Chrome.