OMG Have you noticed the alarming increase in the number of marriages between one man and five women, one man and a goat, or between ten men, fifteen women, a dolphin, and a television remote lately? Neither have I. Yet as far as Fundamentalist Christian Bigots are concerned all of these things were bound to take place now that same-sex Marriage is legal in Massachusetts. Well Fundies, I don't mean to be a smart-mouthed bastard (it comes naturally) but uh...so...when are people gonna make with the polygamy? And I don't want to gloat (though if I do its only because I was right all along) but you're running out of time for your dire predictions to come true.
"Oh but you forget, rampant homosexuality and same-sex marriage presaged the downfall of the Roman Empire we can't take that risk!" Thou sayest.
Actually I can recall only one "same-sex" marriage that occured in Roman history, that of the Emperor Nero to a slave boy. However as I also recall, anyone who dared defy Nero invariably wound up dead. But same-sex marriage in ancient Rome was actually quite illegal. Ancient Romans in fact placed preminate value on heterosexual marriage and family life. In fact the Ancient Roman ideal of the family unit with the male as the leader of the household followed by the subservient woman (or women occasionally) and Leave-it-to-Beaver children would be something that modern Fundies in the United States could only achieve in their wettest dreams if not for that bothersome notion of "Freedom".
What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. That is of course an overgeneralization but I think one that aptly describes the antics of the anti-gay movement in America. If there is one constant in the ever changing dynamic of American politics its that: Fundamentalists SUCK when it comes to maintaining momentum for their cause. This is due in part to their reticence to embrace new ideas of course, but also because of their attitude that the world is organized in sharp contrasts. Black and White, good vs evil, right vs wrong, etc. And while they may have the ability to gain a victory politically what they don't seem to understand is that they have to maintain it.
Examples of ConservaFundie rationale:
- "Well we won the last election, why are you bothering registering Democrat voters? Don't you realize you lost?"
- "Voters passed Prop 22 the Defense of Marriage Act in California in 2000, it doesn't matter that a majority now support civil unions or same-sex marriage. Changing it now would go against the 'will of the voters'".
In the mindset of Conservatives (especially of the Fundamentalist Christian variety) changes in public opinion are irrelevant so long as at some point public opinion happened to coincide with their opinion. Whatever it was then is whatever it is now; it must be because opinions are set in stone...and change is scary. There are of course times when even the most stubborn fundy must concede defeat...at least internally. When that happens the ensuing drama is absolutely delicious.
Consider the screeching drama queens at VoteOnMarriage.org who organized to try and force a constitutional amendment be added to the Massachusetts's state constitution. After failing the first two times to get a majority in the admittedly left-leaning legislature to vote for the ballot initiative they tried a much less common (and more despicable) tactic. First they rounded up enough signatures (through scare mongering, threats, and we found out later: outright lying for Jesus) to require that only 1/4th the legislators vote in favor of the amendment in two consecutive terms for the question to be put to the voters. And: it happened. Oh you should have heard the cackles of sheer hategasm on the Fundie side.
"Now you queers are gonna PAY!" etc, etc. But like the Fundie style of lovemaking (both mostly clothed, missionary style through a hole in a sheet) it was over before you knew it had begun. The amendment failed to get the necessary 1/4th legislature support it needed the second time around. Gasp! Could it be that the legislators involved in the first vote over a year ago had time to listen to some of the concerns of their gay and lesbian constituents, took time to consider the impact of their decision, and accordingly changed their minds? Not according to VoteOnMarriage.org. Nay it was meddlesome outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi who "forced" (I guess through the Imperius curse or something) 11 lawmakers to change their vote.
VoteOnMarriage.org recently decided not to try a third time to gather signatures to bring the ballot before the legislature. Curious because they still claim "vast public support" for their small-penised brand of bigotry. Instead they now threaten the careers of lawmakers who don't vote the way they like. Yeah that always works. Dumbbutts