We knew the Christian Right would be unhappy over any recognition that homosexuals are equal members of society worthy of protection under the law like everyone else, but I had no idea they'd completely freak out like Matt Barber does over Obama's agenda on those fronts. To hear Barber speak we are being invaded by aliens that are going to suck our nuptials right out of us:
"[Obama's] stated plans include the following:
Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by 'gay marriage' activists. Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called 'same-sex marriages' from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut."
Line of defense? Attacks? "Histrionic" and "propaganda" are too kind to describe or Barber's alarmist pig-squealing rhetoric. Let's start with the big lie. The definition of marriage has been different all over the world and has changed considerably over the last millenia. One man/one woman, one man/several women, one woman/several men, two people of any gender, and group marriage have all existed over the last millenia, and in some parts of the world the one man/one woman variety is still a minority. The notion that today's debate seeks to change something that has been unchanged and uniform for 1,000 years is either ignorance of staggering proportions, or an outright lie. Since people like Barber have been told this over and over, the latter seems the most likely explanation. Go read your Bible Mr. Barber, polygamy is common.
While you are at it, explain what form, exactly, this supposed attack on traditional marriage takes? Are heterosexuals no longer allowed to get married? Are they going to be forced to get divorces and marry gay people? Just where is the beef here? To get an idea of how absurd Barber's argument is, imagine if a soccer team advertised itself as a football team, and the NFL reacted like this:
"We must defend the millennia-old definition of football from attacks by 'futbol' activists. We must keep all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called 'futbol' games from extremely soccer-friendly states like Texas and California."
After we all stopped laughing, the crucial question would be asked: what exactly, is the harm to the NFL if soccer teams start calling themselves "futbol" teams? Are they prevented from playing football? Is anyone going to be harmed from this change? If not, then what exactly does the NFL need protection from?
So Matt Barber, what exactly do people in monogamous relationships need protecting from? Insert sound of crickets chirping here.
"Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory 'hate crimes' legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral."
You know your arguments against hate crimes are ridiculous when an ardent opponent of hate crimes like me comes down on you for them (for me existing crimes against assault and murder are sufficient). Again, this description is so dishonest, and the truth so impossible to hide from, I can only assume that once again Barber found the truth just too inconvenient for his political agenda, and hoped his ignorant followers would be too lazy to notice.
The laws are not based on the behavior of the victim, but on the motivation of the perpetrator. The idea is to make it a crime to attack someone merely because of their perceived gayness, which in turn is (if true) determined by orientation, not behavior. To illustrate, imagine I am walking down the street with a male friend, and some redneck decides we are gay and attacks us. We're the victims of a hate crime, gay or not.
It is interesting here to point out yet another front of hypocrisy from people like Barber on this issue. They claim not allowing gays to marry each other is not discriminatory because gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. Well, no one is stopping heterosexuals from choosing to look or act gay and be the victim of hate crimes either. They can't have it both ways. If homosexuality is to be treated as a choice, then they can't whine if they perceive homosexuals as getting some privilege they want, since they too could choose to get it.
Finally, since when does Barber care what the rest of the world considers immoral anyway? Well, when it suits his argument of course. The rest of the time he's warning of the dangers of allowing the world to dictate our morality and lifestyle. If the rest of the world, or at least the part most culturally similar to us, say Europe, decided homosexuality was a healthy variant in society and was to be treated like everyone else with regard to marriage, is Barber going to support that position?
"Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law."
Again, this is stark nonsense. The laws forbid those business owners from discriminating in their hiring/firing and promoting against gays. They may hold whatever values in their own life they choose. This is one of the many ways people like Barber insanely interpret their freedom of religion as allowing them to violate those rights in others. The right to free speech does not give one the right to shout down dissenters exercising their rights.
"Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding 'gay adoption.'"
This idiotic statement is born of the assumption that being gay is a choice, and thus children can be "turned gay". Barber has no scientific basis for this or any of his other proclamations. He is afraid of the gay bogey man. Children are going to no more be sexually confused by being raised with a gay couple than they are to be raised by a single man who lives with his brother. To hear Barber talk, homosexual couples have sex in front of the children they adopt.
It is also worth noting how irrational Barber is that he decries an adoptive home of homosexuals as fatherless/motherless while ignoring the fact that those children come out of situations where they are both fatherless and motherless.
"People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years."
Yes, if you think your freedom of religion gives you the right to discriminate against homosexuals. It is just like your racist brethren 40 years ago who resisted being told they could no longer discriminate against blacks, and those before them who thought it was OK to discriminate against those who held different religious beliefs. Change is indeed coming. Keep up, or be left behind.