Captain Obvious: FReepers are Unbelievably Stupid, Part 3,742,897 (The Gay Thing)

[Captain Obvious is a feature of Greenlee Gazette that seeks to point out things that should be absolutely clear and obvious, but also, very obviously, are not. It predates the Hotels.com character, though I didn't invent the concept either.

The Gay Thing is a feature covering news and information about gay rights and gay culture. I've combined them both here for the first time.]


This past week there were huge news items about marriage equality, also known as gay marriage or same-sex marriage. First, the bad news. In Louisiana, a Federal Court judge upheld the state's same-sex marriage ban. It was the first judge at the Federal level to rule against marriage equality since Windsor, after a string of over twenty victories. This, understandably, was somewhat bad news to advocates like me, but also not unexpected. It's always be assumed we'd lose somewhere at the

Federal level, and what more likely a place than the Deep South? But of course, it was not happy news.

The opposition, such as those at the (badly named) National Organization for Marriage was positively giddy at the news. They declared that the tide had turned, and that what had been declared "inevitable" was practically dead in the water. One day later, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw a little (a lot really) of water onto their party. In a unanimous and scathing decision, the 7th declared Indiana's and Wisconsin's gay marriage bans unconstitutional. Illinois was unaffected, as they already have marriage equality. Needless to say, the 7th's decision was a bit more weighty than the decision out of Louisiana, particularly since that decision will be appealed to a circuit court itself.

So, people on my side of this issue were smiling again. Sure, we hit a little pot hole, but we corrected course immediately. Whenever I get that little happy-dance feeling, I always have to harsh my own buzz by going to FreeRepublic.com, to see what the bigots and homophobes* over there have to say about the decision. This can be simultaneously frightening, hilarious, head-shakingly sad, baffling and stupefying. FReepers--the denizens of this conservative, online bastion--are as capable of deductive reasoning and critical thought as they are of humor. . .which is to say, not at all. Below, are some choice quotes from the site:

"THIS NOT A CONSTITUIONAL RESPONSE The frrickin' JUDGE should be impeached for violating The Constitution !!!"
EDITOR: Actually, it was the laws he struck down that were unconstitutional. Idiot.

"Madness. Evil, lawless madness."

Ed.: Oh, yes, my 6-year marriage is just sinister and insane (boring, ordinary)!

"It is all about POWER. Their goal is more of the power. A society without fathers is dependent on government. Large centralized government. The destruction of the family unit and the elimination of the societal norm of men being involved in the rearing of their children equals more power for the Democrats as they are the party of big government."

Ed.: I'd love to know when gay people decided to get together to decided this. Must've missed the meeting.

"Homosexuals should be proud: they have officially destroyed the institution of marriage, long understood to be the union of one man and one woman."

Ed.: Allowing gay people to marry doesn't change the definition of marriage any more than allowing women to vote changed the definition of voting. And it certainly didn't "destroy" anything. Idiot.

"They destroyed a social concept that had become a vacuous, empty vestige of the hallowed institution of marriage."

"Don't be so sure that these judges won't allow polygamy, And, while we are at it, safeguard your French poodle lest a passing, ummm, dog lover finds your poodle irresistible and decides to elope."

Ed.: Comparing consenting, loving adults with diddling a dog is both insulting and stupid. Unless there is a canine out there who can both sign a contract and give informed consent. Asshole.

"In what line in the Constitution does it say that men can marry men and women marry women?"

Ed.: It doesn't. But the 14th Amendment promises equal treatment under the law. And the Supreme Court has already declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Repeatedly. Dumbass.

"Why do we even pretend that we live in a democracy anymore?"

Ed.: We don't. We live in a representative republic, where the tyranny of the majority cannot crush the rights of the minority. Basic civics.

"The above news is in opposition to this one: Federal judge upholds La. same-sex marriage ban
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200079/posts So, one judge rules one way and another judge rules the other. Whose ruling takes precedence?"

Ed.: This is a particularly stupid FReeper. The Louisiana case applies to Louisiana, and can be appealed to its own Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th's decision applies to the 7th Circuit. Neither takes precedence because they are separate regions. Idiot.

"Whose ruling takes precedence? Whichever one the Democrats like more."

Ed. Wow, even dumber than the person who asked the original question!

"Judge Feldman’s ruling in the Louisiana case is the case that we must look to and what every judge that hears gay marriage cases must look to for precedence."

Ed.: Well of course! The one guy who agrees with your side out of how many? Actually, no, Feldman's ruling applied to Louisiana alone, and will very likely be appealed.

"Wouldn’t the same rationale apply to striking down laws against pedophiles?"
Ed.: Ouch. My eyes hurt from rolling so hard. No, you despicable cretin, pedophiles violate others' rights. They violate consent. They injure other humans. This is not comparable.

As usual, there is much, much more. If you want to find it, simply go to FreeRepublic.com, and go to the heading, "Homosexual Agenda," whose title should tell you immediately what you're in for!



*I don't ordinarily characterize strangers as bigots and homophobes. But hopefully their own words, above, prove my case.