To get myself in the mood for ridiculing bigots, I’m watching Blazing Saddles and The Constitution USA with Peter Sagal as I write this post. On June 22, 2014, there appeared an anonymous advertisement on page A16 of the Harrisburg Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA). It was ostensibly about how “wrong” Judge Jones III was when he struck down Pennsylvania’s protection of heterosexual marriage nonsense.
It’s quite a word salad, always using a $5 word where a $1 word would do. What it boils down to is the old claims that if we allow homosexual marriage, then we’ll allow people to marry trees and that the marriage of two heterosexuals is the only “natural” marriage because it’ll result in children. I guess that my marriage of 20+ years isn’t a “natural marriage”. I’m guessing that we can safely assume that our anonymous ad poster is a Roman Catholic, since they are so impressed by claims of “natural” whatever and having children. Of course, I probably offended our anonymous source by saying that such a TrueChristian is a Catholic since, you know, Catholics are sun worshippers, or Satanists or Papists, or whatever Protestant Christians want to call them in their Christian “love”.
The above is all I really need to say about the ad, thanks to the usual lack of creativity of the average TrueChristian. However, it’s just too much fun to actually read this mess and point out its failures. Let’s proceed, shall we? Alas, this isn’t available online, since it’s just an ad and not actually part of the paper. I’ll do my best of picking out the best and most representative quotes from our anonymous TrueChristian source. I think I’ll call them “Annie”, just like a character I particularly revile from the unfortunate prequels from the Star Wars universe….. (If someone really wants to look at this mess in the original, just ask and I’ll scan it in.)
First Paragraph: “In effect, he (Judge Jones) reinforced the truth that all are created equal and have individual rights that can’t be denied; thereby, proving that homosexual individuals have been discriminated against.”
Isn’t it great that a TrueChristian has admitted that they’ve been lying all along and that everyone is created equal and deserves individual rights? Why, Annie is admitting that there is indeed discrimination. I wonder, would Annie support the attempts to pass laws in PA to prevent discrimination of homosexuals in jobs and other daily activities? I somehow doubt this but alas, we can’t ask Annie since he/she is hiding.
Ah, but then Annie decides that the problem with Judge Jones’ decision is that homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are innately different and thus can’t be considered “equal”. Our Annie claims that Judge Jones did this “In doing so, he immediately stepped away from the Constitutional protections of due process, and the rights and equality of individuals.” Annie wants to claim that unions are different from individuals and thus have different rights. If the marriages aren’t “equal”, then Annie claims, they can’t be treated as equal.
So, how aren’t these marriages equal? Why yes, dear reader, it’s because marriages are only expected to produce children. Again, per Annie, my marriage of over 20 years isn’t a real marriage, only marriages that he/she approves of are “real”. Let’s see what Annie says: “An essential importance that focuses on the core difference is that a homosexual union hasn’t the physical structure, or capability within itself, to conceive another human being, or raise offspring with a male (father) and female (mother) influence as intended by a marriage.” Just like our other TrueChristian, Brandon McGinley, we get to see TrueChristians insisting that no one but them and those who agree with them have real marriages and real families. At least our Annie has decided that families with adoptive children are real families as opposed to Mr. McGinley. Alas, they are only “real” families if they have a male and a female in the household, so sorry you folks who have single parents thanks to divorce, death or any other reason. You simply don’t qualify.
“There must be a physical make-up, within a union, to at least indicate potential to beget a child.” Ah, so we get here that folks who are infertile don’t have real marriages either. I guess I might qualify, though I have no idea if I could have a child or not, or if my husband could produce sperm to produce one. Now,, Annie does try to claim that “the lack of desire to beget children or infertility has no impact on the matter.” Why not, if the only thing that is important to Annie is that children can be “begot”? I do love that biblical wording.
Yes, one does wonder if TrueChristians think before they write. As far as I can tell, it’s not a common occurrence.
Poor Annie, now he/she declares that this makes marriages of one set of people less equal than another set. But to follow his/her logic, this means that any marriage that Annie doesn’t like is less than marriages he/she does like. If we don’t toe the line that Annie has drawn, we are not equal at all, and neither are our marriages. So much for the truth that people are equal, something that even Annie says is true.
Annie then says this, one of the more hilarious claims in Annie’s nonsense: “This logic (that homosexuals unions are less equal than heterosexual ones, as decreed by Annie) is independent of tradition, which is akin to history, love, or any religious beliefs – it’s nature at work in its own domain.” Pardon me? Your opinion, which is so very not based on “logic”, is supposedly nature at work in its own domain? I love my husband, my personal one true love. My dear friend loves her one true love who just happens to be the same sex as her. One is just as “natural” as the other. Please do show that it isn’t, you great twits. 😛
History shows that Christianity and its claims aren’t true. History shows that no godly wrath will come if we do something against one religion or another. And “any religious beliefs” are “nature at work”? Yep, sure it is, when I get to see all TrueTheists insist that every religion except theirs is not true and only theirs is.
Annie claims that “He (Judge Jones) didn’t support is finding on Constitutional grounds.” And there we have one more lie told for Jesus Christ. Yes, Judge Jones did support his finding with the US Constitution and on legal precedent. As usual, Annie didn’t actually read Judge Jones’ decision, depending on lies and ignorance to support his/her claims.
Of course, Annie claims that his/her baseless claims aren’t meant to offend. “This is not to demean or offend, it is factual.” Alas, for Annie, it is not. It is just one more pile of lies, destined for the “ash heap of history.” And again, funny how someone is so ashamed of his/her “facts” that they refuse to put their name to them.
I know, one would think this mess from Annie would have stopped there. But it doesn’t. Let’s continue to watch the train wreck.
Poor Annie, he/she mentions miscegenation, the marriage between races. He/she is horrified that this is mentioned in conjunction with same sex marriage. Let’s see what Annie has to say about this: “That ban was based on racial discrimination against black individuals and the actual deprivation of due process, rights and equality.” Oh noes, “actual deprivation” of due process, rights and equality. Hmmm. So, Annie, do you mean that as long as people are denied due process, rights and equality, it’s a bad thing? Just like homosexual people who are prevented from the same rights that you and I have? Seems like you support same sex marriage just like me. But you don’t, because you want to declare that some people deserve rights and some don’t. In Judge Jones’ decision, page 18, it cites exactly where the SCOTUS says that the right of marriage is with the individual. Annie seems to have missed that.
Oh the boxcars and tanker cars are piling up. Let’s see what else Annie has to say “Judge Jones also mentioned the overturned law seeking equal but separate education as a supporting issue. That is bogus and has no relationship to a homosexual union and the marriage of two heterosexuals. In fact, there is no supporting analogy in that finding. If you apply the theme of that decision, you must conclude that a homosexual union is not equal to a marriage and it should be viewed as a separate entity. In effect the more accurate conclusion to be drawn is that a homosexual union should have its own label, licensing process and attendant names for its actors.” It seems that Annie seems to think that the same nonsense of segregation should apply to homosexual marriage, the good ol’ “separate but equal” nonsense that’s failed long ago. Dear Annie, Brown v. Board of Education showed that this fails, and it still fails when you want to claim that no one but you gets the term “marriage”. I have no problem in sharing the definition of marriage and don’t consider it “imposing” and “intruding” on the definition of marriage at all to allow everyone who wants to make a commitment to be considered “married”.
Annie is right on one thing. “This issue didn’t progress in a vacuum.” It surely didn’t. It was the result of very hard work, the same hard work done by the folks who didn’t take “no” or “wait” back in 1868, the early 1900s, 1950s and 60s when they were working for rights for various groups, be they people of different ancestry, women, etc. Annie is horrified that anyone dares talk positively about anything that Annie doesn’t like, even in public schools and in the media! Of course, Annie is sure that it’s only “propaganda” that has changed people’s minds, not actually thinking about the issue and wondering why only some people should have rights and some people shouldn’t. Indeed, it’s not hard to rewrite everything that Annie says decrying African Americans, women, Hispanics, Asians (remember those lovely internment camps circa WWII?)
Annie is sure that allowing same sex marriage is a “dangerous tsunami”, the usual invocation of fear and ignorance from someone who doesn’t want their opinions to be shown to be wrong. The controversy will indeed continue, but it will find its way to the “ash heap of history” along with the twits who were sure that people who had a bit more melanin in their skins were part of “Cain’s Curse” and those twits who think women are less human than men (oh, let me tell you about the jackasses who are sure that women can’t cut meat in the meat department…) Annie is sure that “those who favor polygamy, polyandry and bigamy” will be part of this “dangerous tsunami”, the usual slippery slope argument that theists often use to much hilarity. Indeed, what of whom wants to marry what, as long as no one, thing or critter is harmed? Oh yes, then it would damage the TrueChristian claim that everyone is promiscuous, except them.
Annie ends with “If you don’t believe that (his/her slippery slope argument), why not! The Jones’ finding invalidated the natural characteristics of a marriage between two heterosexuals!” Yep, there were exclamation points, used as if that made things more “true”. Well, Annie, I don’t believe your lies because they have no evidence supporting them. Per your nonsense, my marriage would “invalidate” what you claim to be “natural characteristics” of marriage. I invite you to try to get my marriage invalidated if what you claim is true. But I’m sure you won’t and that is because you are a coward, nothing more.
In a postscript, a Mormon, Robin, came to this blog insistent that I was wrong, and quite proud of the fact that he was a “high priest” (which are a dime a dozen in the LDS, as long as you are white and male). He quoted this: “Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds. – Orison Swett Marden. Now, people like Annie, and Robin, surely have a lot of opposition, and they certainly are sure that they are right. But that does not mean that they are right are or are successful. It’s a nice quote, one that many people hope to own but as many easy aphorisms, it fails to realize that many many people have been opposed by many good people and were still convinced that their ridiculous, and often harmful, claims were right. They all end up on the ash heap of history. Declaring “success” to only be if one is opposed is silly. Success requires hard work and actual change.
Postscript 2– for Robin the high priest, I’m sure happy to see just how “tolerant” the Church of Latter Day Saints is. You know, with all of the excommunications for disagreeing with the Church.
* and for those folks who may whine that I’m anonymous. I’m not. it just takes a little work to find out who I am if you really want to know. 😉
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people’s spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness. From Positive Atheism’s list of Jefferson quotes.