RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/17/2010

Far-right vs. Righteous by far: Laurie Higgins' historic FAIL

by Jeremy Hooper

Yet another social conservative has written a piece about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) and his suggestion that maybe, just maybe, the far-right should back the frick off of things like same-sex marriage and instead focus on some of the many actual problems that are plaguing this world. Laurie-HigginsThis time it's Laurie Higgins of the cash-strapped Illinois Family Institute who's having none of this call for a "culture war" truce. Because, you know -- the social conservatives' modern fight is fit to be likened to those who emancipated slaves:

"Governor Daniels reveals a troubling ignorance about what constitutes an "existential threat" to our country when he implies that legalized killing of the unborn and destruction of the natural family and traditional marriage do not pose a threat to the continued health, strength, and even existence of this country.

I wonder, if one of the "social issues" that divide the country were not the slaughter of the most defenseless but were instead the enslavement of African Americans, would these same immoderates, including Mitch Daniels, be chastising conservatives for refusing to subordinate social issues to fiscal issues?
" [SOURCE]

Isn't that precious? Laurie seriously thinks that her anti-LGBT camp is on the right side of history this time. She's seriously suggesting that their current cause of keeping two loving adults from having a civilly-recognized marriage is just like the past cause of freeing slaves. Even though the latter cause is all about freedom under the law and their current cause is all about denying the same, somehow Laurie think it's her hyper-verbose nonacceptance of "volitional homosexual acts" that will ultimately earn American history's grand prize. Odd.

But hey, we all tell ourselves what we need in order to get through the day. Like just now, I told myself that this whole "culture war" is really an intricate piece of performance art whose star "warriors" are nearing their fourth wall-breaking curtain call. [::writer closes eyes, looks toward an imaginative stage center, smiles an "aha!" moment smile, then rises to his feet in ovation::] Brava, Laurie H! Brava!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails