Thursday, November 20, 2008

Hide the Children!!

They're Coming to Your Town- sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers by way of Fire Island (Invasion of the Hot Body Snatchers?), this documentary from the Family Association of Families, or something like that, promises to tell you about what will happen when gays invade your small town. It focuses on one town in particular:

''Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment--had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.''

Hey, Ma and Pa Kettle, the Christmas Pageant is cancelled!! Mwah-ha-ha!!!

''The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas.'' [Formerly Little Rock]

Meanwhile, in the Meth Belt, otherwise known as the ''moral backbone of America'', good Christian Nebraska parents are apparently preparing for the coming gay onslaught. The state made the mistake, when offering ''safe haven'' to any parent looking to abandon their children at Nebraska hospitals, of not specifying what they meant by ''child''. The idea was to prevent ''dumpster babies'', but...

''Sure enough, 18 teenagers — five 17-year-olds, two 16-year-olds, six 15-year-olds, two 14-year-olds, three 13-year-olds — have been abandoned, along with eight children who were 11 or 12. Five of the children dropped off have been from out of state.''

Lest I remind you, this is exactly how Children of the Corn started...


narrator said...

I think we have the beginnings of a fine idea - any two people want to get married, "we," as a community, get to vote on it. Want to have kids? "we" get to vote again. This way we not only stop gay parenting, we might be able to stop Republicans marrying and breeding.

Its an idea based on the 19th C. Oneida Community, but in this day and age, we could devote a TV network to the requests, and vote by mobile phone.

rufus said...

Hey, good to see you around.

Yeah, it's funny. I've generally been skeptical that it's a good idea to challenge this stuff in court, if the public has already voted on it.

But, then I was thinking, and honestly I really don't understand the logic of allowing a simple majority to decide that a minority group can no longer be married. Why couldn't we do this with any group in the society? Wouldn't it now be possible to say that Muslims can't have kids, or Mormons can't be married, and just have a simple majority vote for it? At some point, doesn't any of this fall under fourteenth amendment protections? I've had law grad students tell me it wouldn't. Still, I have to wonder just what California is doing here.

narrator said...

so are you back home? is that Toronto? Anyway, Anglo-American, but particularly American, definitions of democracy revolve around "majority rule." No one else would suggest that. "Democracy" is more typically defined - at least in part - as protection against the tyranny of the majority. You couldn't take away Protestant rights in Ireland or Catholic rights in Germany - that's "why" they have "democracies." But as I watch US pre-service teachers learning to teach "social studies" I begin to understand what the problem is... we teach plebesceterial government here. Get half the voters to say anything? it must be right.