After the Supreme Court's rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 last week, the anti-gay crusaders made their grave pronouncements about 'God's law' and 'founding fathers' and the 'sanctity of marriage' on the Sunday talk shows. Michele Bachmann, of course, gave a breathless world-is-coming-to-an-end press conference the day of, which prompted the now famous 'Who cares?' remark from Nancy Pelosi.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council appeared on Face the Nation and over at NBC, Christian firebrand Ralph Reed and Jim (ultrasound) DeMint, two longtime vaudevillians on the homophobic circuit, sparred with out CNBC commentator Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press
Perkins is particularly versed on the latest playbook from the religious right who know they are loosing ground in this marriage equality debate. Perkins has switched the Sodom and Gomorrah rag, which goes, this is about children, not about the love of two gay people. Oh and then there is polygamy, love of dog and the other creepy, psychotic slippery slopes that they put forward at the drop of a hat. Uncle Mike Huckabee is singing the same song along with a verse about not being a homophobe (ok Mike, meet you at the club).
Perkins called the Supreme Court 'car-jacking' the American electorate with this. (I don't remember such protestations when the court rules in favor of radical right positions). Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer let him off the hook for the most part. But, he did land a solid punch in seeming pretty baffled at Perkins' assertion that all across the land florists, bakers and photographers were being forced to provide services to gay customers on pain of federal action. "How un-American is that?" Perkins' asked. A Google search of such cases show one or two in Washington and Colorado, with countersuits in the name of religious freedom pending as well.
All of these anti gay crusaders -- Perkins, the morbid Bryan (Renew America) Fischer, Bachmann and the rest of the gang -- get a lot of mileage stirring up the falsehood that Christian 'freedoms' and first amendment rights are being assaulted by if gays are allowed to marry. The only way this framework that this holds any logic is that they are mad and want to retain the right to be mad as they feed on their own hatred of gays. They want to be able to continue to stomp their feet until we gays are invisible to them.
In fact, the anti-gay crusaders are obsessed with gay male anal sex and making it the primary focus of gay life.These people have nothing to say about the fact that Edith Windsor was with her partner for 37 years and was by her side every minute in catastrophic illness. Or the same sex couples who adopt children that no one else wants. Or the gay professionals who give of themselves through their professions through thousands of organizations and through charities. Or gay people who routinely take care of their aging parents. Or gay medical workers, lawyers and educators. Not to mention gay military.
Reed's organization FRC assured that the Supreme Court cases will galvanize evangelical voters and many Americans who are outraged that they came down on the side of marriage equality rights for gay America. DeMint was there to present the indisputable view that marriage is between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. That's right Britney, your 72-hour Vegas marriage was sanctioned by DeMint's God, so don't hesitate to do it again whenever you get bored.
Meanwhile, Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan) is introducing legislation in Congress today to install a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The crusaders just keep hitting the reset button when things don't go their homophobic way. MTP anchor David Gregory fuzzily challenged Huelskamp on the assertion that kids always need a heterosexual couple to thrive, but he basically let this new homophobic star off the hook.
I'm fed-up with homophobic politicians being called conservative, they are religious radicals hellbent on imposing their morbid view on everybody. They do not acknowledge that there are non-Christians and atheists in this country who are entitled to Constitutional rights.
Maddow direct challenge didn't phase Reed or DeMint "... you guys have been arguing for a generation that public policy ought to essentially demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist, but you don't make any less of us exist. You just are arguing in favor of more discrimination, and more discrimination doesn't make straight people's lives any better."
Reed nahed back, saying that Maddow's argument would mean that Obama, who first stated his support for gay marriage last May, was a "bigot" until 14 months ago. Maddow would not be baited. "No one's calling anybody a bigot," Maddow shot back. "You're the only one who's saying 'bigot.'"
Maddow was doing the heavy lifting that the host journalist should have been doing. These anchors have to start throwing some hard balls at these anti gay pundits who spew the same myths, lies and specious aspersions against gays. They constantly let them off the hook.
So here are some suggested questions for the befuddled anchors:
1. Since it is so clear in your mind that gay marriage will harm straight marriage and ruin us, give us one concrete example that led you to that conclusion?
2. Gays serving openly in the armed forces is an unqualified success, would you tell gay military and their families, fighting for your freedoms and the freedoms of your families, face to face that they don't deserve the benefits that you do?
3. If you say you aren't homophobic, why are you motivated to campaign and profit from demeaning gays and prop up societal homophobia?
4. Do you believe that gays should be criminalized, which is happening in totalitarian countries around the world?
Time to skip to number 86. Homosexuality is not against the law in the U.S., why do you feel it is your role to demean, judge and harm gays?