And the hits just keep on coming!
I've ignored most of the conmail I've gotten recently, but I've kept around the ones I thought were most special, or struck a special chord with me for one reason or another. Time to clear out my inbox!
On July 14, the American Family Association wrote me with the hopeful message that "The President Is Waiting To Hear From You" (sic). As usual, though, the e-mail contained the much less hopeful message that "the liberals are bombarding the President with demands that he appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court."
Eh?
I'm not sure I know of any liberals who've called on Rove's finger puppet to appoint a liberal justice. I mean, let's face it, even if we did, it would never happen. But the point of judges and justices isn't their political leanings, it's their ability to
set aside personal opinions and personally held beliefs in the interest of the conscientious practice of jurisprudence. Radical wingnut judges who've proved in the past their determination to turn America into a new mix of oligarchy and theocracy by selectively upholding or creatively interpreting law do not fit that description.
So if the only wise and fair judges in America are liberal ones, so be it, then, we
do want a liberal justice. But doesn't your colorful reinvention of the truth undermine your assertion that liberal judges are activist judges, you creeps?
Ahem. Moving swiftly onward. Or backward, to July 1.
It was then that I received an AFA e-mail headlined, "Stand With The President, Ask Him To Keep His Promise And Appoint Another Scalia and Thomas To The Supreme Court".
I have nothing to add to that. I spontaneously spat out a mouthful of coffee the first time I read that one. I mean, really.
Oh, except there was one sentence in the e-mail that really gave me pause: "The President was elected by voters who share the President's philosophy."
Weirdly enough, even the people I know who voted for Bush largely don't share his philosophy on anything. They held their noses and voted for the creep, either rationalizing his, frankly, nutty views away or trying to reason that other concerns (to wit, his fabulous successes in the War on Terror[tm]) were overriding. The cognitive dissonance was truly headache-inducing.
OK, now we move to more recent times, with the AFA asserting this past Friday with alarm that, "New Bill Would Give One Group Protection Against Discrimination Based Solely On Their Sexual Behavior."
Oh, my word. I really thought this horse was dead, but still they flog.
Throughout the e-mail, the phrase 'sexual orientation' is enclosed in quotation marks, highlighting their rejection of the term, preferring instead 'sexual behavior.'
Idiots.
Stark, raving, Neanderthal, drooling, superstitious, "burn the witch! burn the witch!", "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!", my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do idiots.
Here's something for them to stick in their craw and suck on:
I realized I was gay at least eight years before I had my first intimate contact of any kind with a member of my own gender. It's so intensely hard-wired into the brain and into aspects of biology, more of which are discovered all the time, that it's simple-minded fear-mongering to dismiss it as an abhorrent and aberrant behavior.
Focussing on the mechanics of sex is merely trying to raise the revulsion of those who find it distasteful and to channel it into meanspirited action.
I find many sexual practices of straight couples revolting, or at the very least distasteful. I don't think they should be discriminated against in hiring if they are involved in specific practices that I dislike. I don't think they should be fired or passed up for promotions because they talk about their spouses or significant others openly. I find graphic public discussion of sex acts to be inappropriate whatever the orientation of the people involved.
Yeah. These people bug me.
