Quick! Lock your doors and hide! Gay terrorists are out to get you!

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Shaking in their boots in the wake of a national poll showing overwhelming support for legal recognition for same-sex couples, followed by an even more overwhelming poll showing Coloradans’ support for legal recognition, and in the face of hundreds of peaceful protests nationwide against the passage of California’s Proposition 8, the mainstream of the religious right is going absolutely insane.

Said Pat Boone of the protests, “Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what’s happening right now in our cities?”

Then today, we see that Seamus Hasson, of the mainstream conservative Beckett Fund, said, “well, whether it’s an organized movement like Al Qaeda or whether it’s the Al Qaeda-like, um, inspired acts of terrorism elsewhere, people are right to be concerned” in response to the anti-Prop 8 protests.

Here’s a bit of advice for our friends in the  conservative movement: Barack Obama, Mark Udall, and candidates across the nation were subject to attack after attack comparing them to terrorists and despots. They all won by huge margins. Perhaps putting Ellen DeGeneres and Harvey Fierstein on the same level as Osama bin Laden is not the best strategy?

UPDATE:

And now Rabbi Nachum Shifren weighs in saying the protesters are just like Nazis, even going so far as to modify the famous Martin Niemöller poem to add a part about homosexuals that never existed.

25 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. redstateblues says:

    as a corollary to Godwin’s Law or something.

    If you call your opponent a terrorist, you lose.

  2. RedGreenRedGreen says:

    if we can call them the Taliban, it’s fine if they call us al Qaeda. All’s fair.

    It just makes the opposition to same-sex marriage look absurd, foaming at the mouth and hyper-reactionary. Or, i should say, makes them look even more so.

  3. Laughing Boy says:

    While I do think some of the anti-prop 8 protests were out of control and not cool, I have this sneaking suspicion that gay people are here to stay…

    Someone should tell Pat.

    BTW can someone tell me why this isn’t up to the individual churches whether or not to marry gay couples?

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      It’s up to individual churches whether they will marry straight couples.

      Try getting married in a Catholic(insert religion A) church if you are a Presbyterian(insert religion B) and see how far you get.

    • droll says:

      If all churches would come to a consensus, no one would perform gay marriages.  This issue didn’t crop up in the first place because of Justice of the Peace weddings.  Huge wedding in MA, Episcopalian bishop.  Poor Pat can’t get branches of his own camp straight, pardon the term, so he’s inflicting the fight on us.  I wish he’d stop.  You’re right, they aren’t going away, but all of this nonsense gives me headaches.

      http://www.edgeboston.com/inde

    • One Queer Dude says:

         Kind of like the same way individual churches can currently refuse to marry certain heterosexual couples?

        My parents were divorced and each subsequently married a new spouse.  Yet they were limited to civil ceremonies only because our church (Roman Catholic) would not allow either of them to marry in the church.

        I don’t take issue with that decision by the church.  Churches get to decide whether or not to perform a religious ceremony for a couple getting married.  Has been that way ever since the Free Exrcise Clause of the First Amendment has been in existence.

        It’s the prohibtion on the civil marriage that’s the only problem as far as I’m concerned.

    • BlueCat says:

      but in this country what makes marriage legal is the civil aspect.   To be legal it involves a marriage license and  a marriage certificate from the state.  A religious ceremony  is entirely optional.

      Plenty of heterosexual couples are married by secular officials such as a Justice of the Peace.  On the other hand if you only have a religious ceremony but with no marriage license or marriage certificate from the state you are not legally married.  Common law marriage is likewise a matter for the state, not religious authorities.

      Legal marriage is therefore already a civil, not religious, institution. This does not compel the clergy of any religion from declining to marry couples for religious reasons.  For instance, it’s always been perfectly legal in the US for Jews to marry non-Jews but Orthodox Jewish Rabbis have always refused to officiate at such marriages.  They aren’t compelled to simply because it’s legal.  Religious freedom allows them to do as they as they see fit.

      So nothing at all has to change in order for gays to marry other than the recognition that they are as entitled to legal marriage, a civil institution, as anyone else.  This would allow gays to marry without forcing a single clergy person to perform or church to sanction any marriage unless the clergy person so desired or the church approved. Simple equal rights with no interference with anyone’s religious rights. Simple as that.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        As usual, I was being snarky.  For individual Churches to rail against a civil marriage is, well, ‘not cool’.

        There are all kinds of people that get married in civil services that have no impact whatsoever on my family or marriage. Funny, but I have a feeling that gays would have the same effect on others’ families.  

        • BlueCat says:

          In fact a committed same gender couple with very nice children lives down the block from us and so far we have experienced no inexplicable desire to get divorced. We don’t see how that would change if the couple made it legal.  

  4. Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

    in place of 72 virgins?

  5. Jambalaya says:

    …it’s been done to death

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.