Friday, Oct. 25, 2002 | 4:48 a.m.
I think they are deviants and sickos who should not be allowed to marry. And I want to make sure they can never acquire any rights that normal people have.
A lot of my friends think I shouldn't be so honest, that I should try, as so many of us are doing, to pretend that I support the Protection of Marriage purely out of love for the institution. You see, we are motivated out of love, not hate.
Oh, and I'm supposed to offer that clever rationale about how we want to stop all those queers from leaving Vermont to follow the credo of "Go West, Gay Couples" if we let them legalize marriage here.
(Don't tell anybody, but they're not trying to make it legal here. And state law already defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, so the initiative is redundant, which shows we have ulterior motives. Our real goal is to deny those people reciprocal benefits, hospital visitation rights and anything else normal folks can get. That's why we made all those candidates sign that pledge so they can help us later with our agenda.)
But why sugarcoat it? These are people who display aberrant behavior, who would copulate in the streets and in bars if we let them and who are shaking the very foundation of society. They must be stopped and shunned. We can't quarantine them, so this is the next best thing.
I'm not supposed to say that, though, because it doesn't really sound like love, like we embrace all people, like we are just trying to protect unions between people who do not choose to promiscuously sodomize each other.
And it is a choice. These freaks choose to be gay; it's just not natural. It's not in the Bible. And it sure isn't Darwinian -- although they should be naturally selected right out of here, if you ask me.
I have to acknowledge I have a tough time explaining why anyone would choose to be a homo when it's a lifestyle that guarantees ridicule, discrimination and maybe even violence. But no matter. As I said, this is about love.
And it's about what our leader, Richard Ziser, recently called "the essence of marriage" and allowing gays to believe their marriage would be a "moral equivalent." Who do they think determines what's moral and what's not? We do.
Sometimes I have to chuckle at our hypocrisy. Here we are talking about how pernicious it would be to allow gays to marry, how we have to protect marriage in the divorce capital of the world! We talk about how marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for a child to be raised, yet I wonder how we argue that a loving, committed gay couple would be a worse environment than an abusive or even loveless heterosexual marriage.
No matter. Don't want logic or reality to intrude on what we are trying to do -- impose our values on everyone else.
I do think, though, that Ziser gives away too much on that protection of marriage website -- www.protectmarriagenv.org. He gets into all kinds of stuff that isn't covered by that simple initiative, including our fears that the gay lifestyle will be taught in schools. Yes, we believe that we should not expose our kids to anything so awful -- maybe we should stop teaching the Holocaust, Stalin's butchery and even Huck Finn. Some might call this censorship or moral authoritarianism; we call it love.
The website also tries to debunk the myth that homosexuality is "an immutable genetic trait." After all, what is any science in the face of our omniscience? Next thing, they'll be telling us that Adam and Eve didn't exist and that we evolved from apes. Can't expose our kids to that, either.
I must say a word about that pledge, though. I still don't understand why we had to telegraph our motives by asking candidates to sign a document that goes far beyond the actual initiative. Just read this part:
"I recognize that the various 'domestic partnership,' 'civil union,' or 'reciprocal beneficiary relationship' benefits belong exclusively to marriage ..."
What's the point? So we can shove this in politicians' faces later and ask them to stick to their commitment? As if that will happen.
We knew going in how many of them were cowardly jellyfish who only signed it because they were afraid of our electoral power. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. But they're not. Sort of like us.
Frankly, our side generally believes people are plain stupid. We kept the initiative simple so they would think it's a simple question, like an opinion poll. But this is no ordinary survey and it's intended to fool people into thinking this is about marriage, which already is embedded in state law, when really it is about pursuing our homophobic, discriminatory agenda. That's really what we want to protect.
So if you, too, believe in hate masquerading as love, in pretending to unify while trying to divide, in sowing bigotry and hatred while smiling benignly, join me in voting for Question 2. And anyone who doesn't believe what we believe, you and your fairy friends can go jump in the Great Salt Lake.
archive
