The Gay Agenda Enters the White House

This country has gone to the dog orgies

Obama has been president less than a week, and already this happens!

Matt Barber has an opinion piece over at One[sided]NewsNow. I don’t know if this is our gender-confused buddy J. Matt Barber, who was comfortably at home over at Concerned Women for America.

The Matt Barber who wrote this new article says he’s from Liberty Counsel, which is some sort of fundie lawyer posse that runs around filing asinine lawsuits. Austin Cline has a brief article about them. Here’s an excerpt of Austin’s excerpt of an Orlando Sentinel article (original article no longer online):

[Mathew Staver, head of Liberty Counsel] is spearheading fights in California, New York and Massachusetts, crafting appeals that could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also working to roll back other rights for gays, overturn Roe v. Wade and ensure that Christians can freely evangelize in public schools.… He fought to force two mentally retarded Florida women to give birth to children of rapists; supported “Choose Life” license plates; opposed gay adoptions and fought to retain “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

What a lovely group of people they are.

So let’s take a look at Matt Barber’s article, “Change We Never Imagined”:

While millions had hoped for a political “messiah,” it’s fast becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of “change we can believe in” is, in fact, “change we never imagined.”

The only extreme ideologue in the room is Matt Barber. As I previously reported, Obama is actually a far-right Democrat or a moderate Republican. Matt is also revealing his mental limitations. If Obama’s moderate-conservative proposals are “beyond imagination”, then Matt is so mentally rigid that he’s incapable of producing any ideas worth listening to.

(Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)

If that’s what he sees, then Matt is the Mr. Magoo of fundie-land.

Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of “The Agenda: Civil Rights” – to detail his wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.”

That’s funny. I went to that very White House web page, and I didn’t see the phrase “homosexual activist” anywhere. Matt clearly included it within the quoted text, and it wasn’t within brackets, so he apparently intended us to think that phrase is on there. Or maybe Matt is illiterate. Or a moron. He seems to know how to put sentences together otherwise. I’m going with moron.

His stated plans include the following:

• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by “gay marriage” activists.

Fundies love to put “gay marriage” in scare quotes. They act like it’s an alien concept that has never existed before. Let’s take a look at the Wikipedia entry on Marriage:

The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[citation needed]

Don't ask, don't tell, don't make a mistake
The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has
created some problems of its own.
(image from Airtoons)

So Matt is smoking his fundie-weed again, if he thinks gays weren’t actually married in the past. It was actually common. Although the term “marriage” wasn’t so common in that situation, the fact that it was used at all shoots holes in Matt’s holy delusion. Also note that apparently everything was fine until the Christians took over. (That piece of info is still awaiting verification. Anyone know a source, so we can update that article?)

I also wonder whose ass he pulled the “natural marriage” phrase out of. He doesn’t define it. Since animals don’t get married (but if we can pass gay marriage, then soon humans will be able to marry animals! Oops! Sorry. I didn’t know that part of the agenda was still a secret.), we can only look to human societies throughout history to see if there is any sort of universal definition of marriage.

[looking… looking… looking…] Nope! There isn’t!

Let’s get back to Matt’s reinterpretation of Obama’s goals:

• Repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop morale.

Really? Then I guess 20 out of the 26 NATO countries have dangerously disrupted militaries with low morale.

• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.  This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Because no state should be forcibly yanked out of the 12th century.

• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.

But the constitutionally-dubious and discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is OK. And since when is homosexuality deviant? The DSM doesn’t list homosexuality as a disorder. I think psychologists are more qualified to make that determination than Matt Barber.

Matt should also ask Ted Haggard just how changeable this behavior is.

I also dispute Matt’s claim that the behavior is immoral. The morality of a society changes with time—it certainly doesn’t come out of a dusty old book. Much of the world has already accepted the complex nature of human sexuality. It is long overdue for Matt to do the same.

• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.

Translation: Remove one of the last protected forms of discrimination.

• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

Well, I guess we just should have aborted them when we had the chance. What? Matt doesn’t like that idea either? Then he should just shut up and be glad that there is a loving family willing to adopt them.

Hey, that’s a pretty good idea. Matt should just shut up!

21 Responses to “The Gay Agenda Enters the White House”

  1. arkonbey Says:

    While I personally have no issues with gays, it is true that a vast majority of service members today do not support openly gay personnel.

    When I was in I had guys complaining that the DADT rule was just opening the door to openly serving gays. They truly believed that, even though they’d be the minority, gays would be accosting straights in the showers.

  2. Jeff Eyges Says:

    And since when is homosexuality deviant? The DSM doesn’t list homosexuality as a disorder.

    Didn’t you know? The APA removed it from the DSM under pressure from the gay lobby.

    Actually, I wish there were a gay lobby. At least it would be tastefully decorated!

  3. Ron Britton Says:

    The military is very conservative. If we left it up to them, they’d probably never open up. Like a lot of issues, once it is done and people have a chance to get used to it, they’ll wonder why they were so opposed to it. It does not appear to be a big problem for the countries that have already debigoted their militaries.

  4. TheOtherOne Says:

    millennia-old definition of natural marriage

    Think anyone’s bothered to point out to him that this definition has changed quite a bit in relatively modern times? After all, these days, liberally-minded fathers ask their daughters what they think of the guy before negotiating the dowry. Or so I’ve heard.

    There are even a few widows that are now controlling their own lives, as opposed to becoming wards of whatever closely-related male can be bothered to take her in.

    And when exactly did we let go of that Old Testament tradition of multiple wives?

    Boy, that traditional definition of marriage is slipping FAST…

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Didn’t you know? The APA removed it from the DSM under pressure from the gay lobby.

    That, of course, is the standard line we hear from the fundies. I believe there was a bit of controversy about homosexuality being listed in the first DSM as deviant. Psychology is such an imprecise science. It takes a long time for enough data to come in to convince enough psychologists that any particular entry needs revising. After all, they still don’t list religious belief as deviant, even though it meets all the requirements listed in the DSM for an abnormality.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Indeed, Ron, deviant behavior in psychology is only deviant when it not only greatly differs from the norm, but somehow causes great mental or physical harm to the patient or others.

    Depression is in the DSM because it can lead to an unenjoyable life and possibly suicide. On the other hand, homosexuality itself does not lead to any harm unless there is risky sexual practices (which is unrelated to homosexuality itself) or something. In fact, suppressing homosexuality leads to more harm in the patient. Back when it was listed, I believe the prevailing thought was not “ew icky gays” but concern that the patient could be happier by not being gay. Now of course there were many bigots, but I think some therapists truly believed that and it was a point worth exploring at the time. Of course, these days we realize that unhappiness in homosexuality is due to stresses put on by other people not willing to accept the homosexual’s homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself.

    The key to remember is that psychology is incredibly subjective. It is not a precise science. Don’t worry, I’m not going all Tom Cruise on you guys. I’ve been helped immensely at times by good therapists, so I don’t dis on it, but it’s important to remember how it can, and does, change over time.

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The only extreme ideologue in the room is Matt Barber. As I previously reported, Obama is actually a far-right Democrat or a moderate Republican.

    I take issue with that definition. If you were to say Obama is more like a moderate Republican circa Goldwater, I might be more inclined to agree. But the definition of Republican and Democrat changes over time since they are political parties and not political positions.

    Indeed, on a world-wide scale, Obama may be center-right, but I strain to see how he is “Moderate Republican” or even “Conservative Democrat.”

    Obama is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who is attempting to actually compromise somewhat rightward in an effort to unify the country. Personally, I think unification is overrated and basically impossible (disagreement is good), but if he can get us back to where we can have a “gentleman’s disagreement” instead of Hannity-style mud slinging, maybe it is worth it.

  8. Ron Britton Says:

    Indeed, Ron, deviant behavior in psychology is only deviant when it not only greatly differs from the norm, but somehow causes great mental or physical harm to the patient or others.

    Which just backs up my statement:

    …they still don’t list religious belief as deviant, even though it meets all the requirements listed in the DSM for an abnormality.

    I covered this briefly in an article about Harvey.

  9. Ron Britton Says:

    I take issue with that definition. If you were to say Obama is more like a moderate Republican circa Goldwater, I might be more inclined to agree. But the definition of Republican and Democrat changes over time since they are political parties and not political positions.

    The Democrats sold out liberalism years ago. It’s time they’re held accountable.

  10. Thomas Says:

    It’s not really practical to define certain positions as liberal or conservative in any sense besides the climate of a given moment.

    Remember that it was a Republican who championed anti-business trust busting and the expansion of the national park service and a Democrat that oversaw most of Vietnam. The great conservative prophet of the 80′s was also the only president to have also have been head of a labor union.

  11. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The Democrats sold out liberalism years ago. It’s time they’re held accountable.

    I don’t disagree with that statement, but it only goes to support my point further: Obama is a “moderate democrat.” The definition of Republican these days (even moderate) involves a great deal of fascist behavior which Obama does not exhibit.

    On the bright side, the “radical left” movement seems to have a lot more steam than the “radical right” so hopefully we can continue this trend leftward. It’s common in midterm elections for the president’s party to lose ground. If Democrats can gain ground and, even more important, good liberal Democrats can gain ground (either by replacing a Republican or a bad incumbant Dem), then I will be even happier than I was in November.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Thomas – Good point, except that the 80s conservative prophet was not exactly pro-union when it wasn’t to help his own ass, so I’m not sure that’s a good example.

  13. Jeff Eyges Says:

    If Democrats can gain ground and, even more important, good liberal Democrats can gain ground (either by replacing a Republican or a bad incumbant Dem), then I will be even happier than I was in November.

    I’ve been thinking about this over the past couple of days. The romance of the inauguration has been over for only a few days, and already the Republicans, including McCain, are opposing him (does that guy have any independent opinions any more?). We may have to wait another two years, and hope that enough people continue to wake up to vote even more of them out of office – but then we’ll only have two years left. It won’t be enough time. I’m not convinced that it isn’t too late now.

  14. Parrotlover77 Says:

    It’s important to note that although the Republicans can fillibuster, doing so is more dangerous from a re-election standpoint. What the Democrats need to start doing is acting like a majority party and push around the Republicans. Phrase the debate to show that they are the ones obstructing progress, not the Dems. Democrats have always sucked at doing that. Right now the prevailing thought is “reaching across the aisle” but if Republicans don’t meet them halfway, it won’t work. I think a month or two of this will wear down Obama’s nerves and you might start seeing him pressure the other party leaders (AHEM HARRY REID AHEM AHEM) to stand up and put pressure back. I think a quick solution to Republican obstructionism is simply to force a real fillibuster. Once it goes from being a procedural move where they all get to go home and turns back into needing to man the floor 24/7, we might see actual compromise.

  15. Brian Says:

    As far as Republicans are concerned, I think they’re walking into a trap. For two elections now they’ve shown a complete lack of awareness of the country’s mood. If they think opposing a popular new president on a bill intended to jump-start the economy so as to please their precious base is wise, they’re going to learn a hard lesson. Obama’s trip to Capitol Hill was brilliant because, by reaching out to them, Republicans will be the bad guys if this thing doesn’t pass.

    I also agree with Ron that the Democrats (Obama and a few others notwithstanding) have forgotten how to stand up for what is right. With their numerical advantages in both houses, they ought to be able to pass whatever they want. But I sense they’re already becoming drunk with power by playing by the same rules the Republicans used for years. I actually think Obama will have more problems, going forward, with his own party than with Republicans.

    Getting back to the original point of this article, I wish Obama were more enlightened on matters of gay equality, but he’s already light-years beyond his predecessor, so in all, that’s a plus. In other areas I wish he’d move with greater urgency, also, such as prosecuting anyone who tortured or spied on us illegally, despite the obvious political risks. I can understand why he’s not, and I suppose its a good thing that I don’t agree with him completely.

    One more thing, at the risk of thread derailment. His interview with Islamic television was a brilliant tactical move. The only way to truly defeat Islamic fundamentalism is to destroy its popular support. I have no more regard for Islam than I do for something I’d wipe off the bottom of my shoe so as not to track it into my house, but I’m glad he’s extending an open hand and not a closed fist. “Bomb them back to the stone age”, is the attitude of so many on the right. Of course, these people in third-world shitholes already live in the stone age which is why asinine concepts like Islam can thrive in the first place.

    If a long-term, concerted effort can be made to improve education, health care, industry and the economies of such places as Afghanistan and Sudan, al-Qaeda will have fewer dark places in which to hide.

    Of course we have our own fundies to deal with here, as well, but at least they’re not strapping on bombs and strolling into daycare centers to do God’s work. Sure, they’re trying to undermine science, interfere with women’s reproductive freedom, revise history to fit their agenda, and demonize certain groups for their own advantage, and they must be confronted. Maybe Obama won’t go as far as I’d like on that score, but I don’t think he’s going to allow it to get any worse, and that’s a win, kind of.

  16. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I agree with you Brian about the brilliance of the first post-president interview being on islamic teevee. That was absolutely brilliant!

    I must stress though not to conflate islam with the islamic. I know it’s hard, but they are victims moreso than even our american fundies. These kids grow up in oppressive regimes and don’t realize that there are other possible religious options, let alone non-religious options. In a way, it’s a cycle of abuse.

    I’m not condoning islamic extermism, but I am sympathizing with a people that doesn’t realize that allah will not, in fact, come down and smite them should they disobey islamic law.

  17. Brian Says:

    PL,

    That’s exactly why we need to find a way to show these people that they can have a better life than they currently must endure.

    I believe that begins with education, especially for the women of the Islamic world. Naturally, female empowerment would eventually follow, leading to the demise, one would hope, of barbarities such as female circumcision, arranged marriage and permanent subservience. The powers-that-be (you know, men) won’t allow this because they know that’ll upset the whole apple cart and deny them their current positions of power, which is quite analogous to how our own fundies are determined to screw up education here because they are afraid of too many intelligent people poking holes in their collective fantasy.

    The “War on Terror” has always been an absurd idea, but then I really didn’t expect anything better from the Bush Administration. A far more accurate approach would be to wage a “War on Ignorance” which is at the root of so many of the world’s problems, especially terrorism and our old friend, religious extremism. I can only hope President Obama realizes this and can take steps in that direction.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I agree with the sentiment, but I’m pretty tired of the “war on…” PR move. Why does everything have to be a war? So far, all the “war on [not a country]” have failed miserably, because it’s presenting a war-like attitude on a concept that cannot ever be defeated. For example, no matter how long the “war on drugs” goes, they will never win. Even in a complete police state, people will find a way to get high. It is absolutely unwinnable.

    I would prefer that PR gimmic would go away. We should certainly do things to help those addicted to drugs to get off drugs. We should certainly do what we can to prevent another terrorist attack, including, possibly, waging war on regimes directly responsible for terrorism. But declaring war on a concept will always fail.

    But, yes, we should be promoting education around the world. It would do much to stamp out extermism in its many forms. Education and also, you know, like, shelter and food and stuff like that too. Food, shelter, and education tend to sway minds better than bombs.

  19. Brian Says:

    In what can only be a crippling kick to the collective nuts of fundies across America, Iowa has shown how civilized it is and will henceforth recognize same-sex marriages. What’s really beautiful about this decision is that there seems to be no further legal recourse possible for the forces of evil, so until they can try for the inevitable constitutional amendment, they’re going to have to live with it.

    I’m not only happy for the gay and lesbian citizens of that enlightened state, but I’m also laughing my ass off at the poor, “oppressed” Christians who will wring their hands and gnash their teeth over this for a long time to come. No doubt people like Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and our old friend James Dobson are firing up their computers at this moment to send out an “alert” to their sheep, while simultaneously using this emergency as a convenient excuse to beg for more money.

    As we watch our society undergo a progressive change toward tolerance and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters, the fundies sputter about in apoplectic fits of bigotry, showing the world how ignorant and hateful they are. I love it.

  20. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Iowa? Seriously? How in the world did they manage that one?

    Right in the fundies’ front yard. Well, well…

  21. Emily Says:

    He fought to force two mentally retarded Florida women to give birth to children of rapists

    This just makes me sick.