Wednesday, November 10, 2004

"Homophobia" vs. Christophobia

So, the GOP is the "homophobic party," according to losers of last week's election? Based on what?

Ah, the drive to ban sodomarriage. Which has never been legal going back some five millennia. Which was (ostensibly) opposed by Bill Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Which could never, EVER have been legalized ANYWHERE democratically, that being why four unelected Massachusetts state supreme court justices imposed it by fiat. Which was (ostensibly) opposed by John Kerry. Which was rejected at the polls overwhelmingly in all eleven states on which it was on the ballot, including ecotopian, granola-munching, Kerry-supporting Oregon. And opposition to which was never accompanied by the slightest degree of anything remotely resembling vitriol.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have unquestionably proven themselves to be the Christophobic party. And their opposition to evangelicals' colossal effrontery to actually be "salt and light" in their own country by participating in its democratic process is not just accompanied by a ton of vitriol, but is defined by it.

Here's a thought to ponder: until Larry O'Donnell manages to get all Christians disenfranchised (soon to be followed, no doubt, by herding them onto cattlecars bound for "to be announced" destinations), there are approximately three times as many voting-eligible evangelicals as there are Dem-leaning homosexuals.

Which group does it make less sense to piss off?