Homophobia -- In Real Life (Part 1)

I've never liked the word homophobic.  I've always thought of it as a misnomer, seeing as it describes a situation as fear that I've always seen a simple disdain.  A better word, and the one I usually use, is hetero-centric, which I think better describes the situation where one believes that being straight makes a person superior in some way.  But a week ago Tuesday, I posted something on Facebook which made me see that sometimes it really is irrational fear that motivates some people.

 I just voted in my last Republican primary. The choices were between a dominionist who wants to use his office to take away civil and human rights from people he disapproves of and the supply-sider who thinks we can fix our schools by cutting taxes. Tough choice, but I figured the latter was the lesser of two evils. But the paperwork is already processed, and it goes into effect September first. Next election, I will no longer be a RINO.

 

What a twisted description of Paul Blair.

He'd get my vote if I lived in that area.

Now, I knew Paul Blair in High School.  Remember Biff, from "Back To The Future?" Well, Paul was one of those uncredited guys standing behind him.  Now he's the pastor of a small church that never grows, and which should probably lose its 501(c)(3) status.  He played football for the Chicago Bears for a while-- which he milks for all he can get-- but never gained any notoriety.  He was running for State Senate for the second time, and lost again, but only by a hair, so this past Tuesday was a run-off election.  He campaigned hard.  I was getting a flyer in the mail and one under the doormat every day for a couple of weeks before the election. He lost again.  He tried to blame his loss on "special interests," and a "changing world," but my Mom thinks the real problem is that too many people in town know him.

 We've been friends on Fb for a long time. No surprise there. But I don't believe that my description of him is unjust when he's quoted as describing the Obergefell decision as “an attempt to force everyone to celebrate a behavior that violates conscience and the Holy Scriptures, and to force the acceptance of that behavior on our children through public education,” and he called on the OK Government to "ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s unlawful Obergefell opinion. In fact, we want Oklahoma to be a “sanctuary state” for marriage, life and the Constitution." So no 14th Amendment for me and Gaby because his religion says so.

I don't care who you marry, Doc. You know that.
But part of the consequences of Obergefell is that it opens me up to a lawsuit if I refuse to do the ceremony as a licensed Southern Baptist Minister.
It also opened me up to a lawsuit if I refuse to do premarital counseling with you and Gaby as a Licensed Professional Counselor because of my religious beliefs.
So yeah. Tell me about your 14th while my 1st get thrown in the "dustbin of history."

Okay, so the first part of this is just flat wrong.   But the second part is a bit murkier, because he would be right if he lived in another state, but I don't know what kinds of anti-discrimination laws are in effect in the communities he works in.  Either way, he's assuming rights he doesn't actually have, as determined by a case from way back in 1968, Newman v Piggy Park Enterprises, wherein the SCOTUS described the defendant's religious exemption defense as "patently frivolous."  I've written about this before, and I'm still of the same opinion that this is all about using religion as an excuse to express personal prejudices.  In any case, though, it's highly unlikely the happy couple would choose someone as a counselor who is completely against their marriage.  Hence , the rolling eye remark:

 Keep me informed when it actually happens.

I've stopped doing premarital counseling.
And by the time you're "informed" it will be too late.

Ha! That threw me a bit.  The bulk of the paragraph above just went right out the window. I didn't actually laugh out loud, but I did chuckle a bit.

 lol. Well, we've already got a test case: Loving v Virginia (1967). What was the outcome of those resulting lawsuits?

I don't know that there actually were any lawsuits against pastors as a result of the Loving case, but I do know that the autonomy of the church is still a thing.  But he ignored that.

Genetic research doesn't support you.
Anecdotal reports aren't research.
But. You have the culture on your side, for the most part.
And you'll likely have a far left SCOTUS in a couple of years.
And a whole lot of really angry folks like me that you just "lol" at.

We've been through the "angry folks" thing before.  It's an American tradition that when some marginalized minority stands up and demands to be treated with the same respect and given the same rights as the white, straight, Christian, native-born males of this country, there are going to be "angry folks."  You can count on it. 

I'm going to stop now, Ron. Night.

  G'nite.

So there it is.

's reaction to the gay rights movement actually is based on fear. He actually sees my status in this world as a threat to his way of life. But..

I'm feeling a shift of gears.  This will have to be continued in Part 2.