The Gay Agenda Enters the White House
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.
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!