First Baptist Church, Luverne, Alabama - A Study in What's Wrong with American Christianity

The Washington Post has a very lengthy piece that tries to reconcile claims of Christian godliness and evangelical Christian support for Donald Trump and, I would argue by extension the GOP's reverse Robin Hood agenda.  The problem, in my view, is the two cannot be reconciled.  Not if one truly believes in the New Testament message.  Trump is the embodiment of the seven deadly sins and should represent everything true Christians reject and condemn.  Instead, throughout the articles making excuses for their own failure to put Christ's message first and instead embracing the foul and toxic individual occupy the White House. Perhaps the most favored excuse: that God put Trump in the White House.  Sorry, but no, God had nothing to do with it.  Look instead at Vladimir Putin, Russian interference, Trump and the GOP's incessant lies, and most importantly those who put their racial fears and bigotry first.   While perhaps not intended to be such, the piece is, in my view, an indictment of conservative Christianity in America.  People like these parishioners are why I rarely call myself a Christian anymore.  If they are what it means to be Christian, I want nothing to do with it.   Here are some highlights where even the pastor fails the test of putting Christ's larger message and the truth first.  It's a study in cowardice and moral bankruptcy:

He prayed about what he was going to do. He was the pastor of First Baptist Church in the town of Luverne, Ala., which meant he was the moral leader of a congregation that overwhelmingly supported a president who was an alleged adulterer. For the past six weeks, Crum had been preaching a series of sermons on the Ten Commandments, and now it was time for number seven.

It was summer, and all over the Bible Belt, support for President Trump was rising among voters who had traditionally proclaimed the importance of Christian character in leaders and warned of the slippery slope of moral compromise. In Crenshaw County, where Luverne is located, Trump had won 72 percent of the vote. Recent national polls showed the president’s approval among white evangelical Christians at a high of 77 percent. One survey indicated that his support among Southern Baptists was even higher, surpassing 80 percent . . .  

They settled into the seafoam-green cushions along the wooden pews, some of which also had back cushions to make them more comfortable. They opened old Bibles bookmarked with birthday cards and photos of grandchildren, and after they all sang “I was sinking deep into sin, far from the peaceful shore,” Crum walked up to the podium to deliver the sermon God had told him to deliver.

“What is adultery?” Crum began.

Jewell Killough was listening.

“Adultery, simply stated, is a breach of commitment,” Crum said. “When one person turns their back on a commitment that they made and seeks out something else to fulfill themselves.”

He talked about the dangers of temporary satisfaction, of looking at “anything unclean,” and in the choir behind him, Jack Jones nodded. He talked about other kinds of adultery, such as “hardheartedness” and avoiding personal responsibility.

“See, we don’t want to look at ourselves,” Crum said. “We don’t want to say, ‘I’m part of the problem.’”

Someone in the congregation coughed. Someone unwrapped a caramel candy.

“The purpose of the commandment is so we can see the sin, so we can repent of the sin and then fully experience the complete grace of god,” he said. “But only when we admit it. Only when we repent of it. And only when we return to him by faith.”

He was at the end of his sermon. If he was going to say anything about Trump, or presidents, or politicians, or how having a Christian character was important for the leader of the United States, now was the time. His Bible was open. He was preaching without notes.

He looked out at all the faces of people who felt threatened and despised in a changing America, who thought Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were sent by Satan to destroy them, and that Donald Trump was sent by God to protect them, and who could always count on Clay Crum to remind them of what they all believed to be the true meaning of Jesus Christ — that he died to forgive all of their sins, to save them from death and secure their salvation in a place that was 15,000 miles wide, full of gardens, appliances, and a floor of stars.

Not now, he decided. Not yet. He closed his Bible. He had one last thing to say to them before the sermon was over.  “Let us pray.”

The pastor said one thing that was true: he and his congregation do not want to look at themselves and admit that they are the problem.  Sadly, the same phenomenon is replicated thousands of times in "conservative" churches across America - some right here in Hampton, Virginia.  Religion is again proving that it is a great evil. 

How America Can Free Itself from Guns

The recent horrific murders in Charleston have revived debate and posturing on America's insane gun ownership policies that help make gun violence off the charts compared to the rest of the developed world.  Advocates for unrestricted gun ownership cite the 2nd Amendment and believe their rights - much like the Christofascists do on religious belief - trump the rights of everyone else.  It is no surprise that both groups are core constituencies for the Republican Party that places the rights of the extremist few above the rights of the majority.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at strategies to end the gun insanity that plagues the nation.  Here are highlights:

Advocates of a saner approach to guns need a new strategy. We cannot go on like this, wringing our hands in frustration after every tragedy involving firearms. We said “enough” after Sandy Hook. We thought the moment for action had come. Yet nothing happened. We are saying “enough” after Charleston. But this time, we don’t even expect anything to happen.

What’s needed is a long-term national effort to change popular attitudes toward handgun ownership. And we need to insist on protecting the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns.

None of this should mean letting Congress off the hook or giving up on what might be done now. So kudos to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) for saying on Tuesday that they are looking for ways to bring back their proposal that would require background checks for gun sales. 

Lest anyone doubt that gun control measures can work, a study released this month by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring a permit or license contingent on passing a background check was associated with a 40 percent drop in gun homicides.

But as long as gun control is linked to ideology and party — and as long as the National Rifle Association and its allies claim a monopoly on arguments about individual rights — reasonable steps of this sort will be ground to death by the Washington Obstruction Machine.

That’s why the nation needs a public service offensive on behalf of the health and safety of us all. It could build on Sandy Hook Promise and other civic endeavors. If you doubt it could succeed, consider how quickly opinion changed on the Confederate battle flag.

My friend Guy Molyneux, a progressive pollster, laid out how it could happen. “We need to build a social movement devoted to the simple proposition that owning handguns makes us less safe, not more,” he told me. “The evidence is overwhelming that having a gun in your home increases the risks of suicide, domestic violence and fatal accidents, and yet the number one reason given for gun purchases is ‘personal safety.’ We need a public health campaign on the dangers of gun ownership, similar to the successful efforts against smoking and drunk driving.”

When we talk about guns, we don’t focus enough on the reality, reported in the 2015 Annual Review of Public Health, that nearly two-thirds of the deaths from firearm violence are suicides. Yes, people can try to kill themselves with pills, but there’s no coming back from a gunshot to the head. Those in the throes of depression who have a gun nearby are more likely to act on their darkest impulses.

Nor do we talk enough about accidental deaths when children get their hands on guns, or what happens when a domestic argument escalates and a firearm is readily available. The message is plain and simple: Households that voluntarily say no to guns are safer.

“This is not about the government saying you cannot own a handgun. This is about society saying you should not have a gun, especially in a home with children.”

“Those of us who want to live, shop, go to school and worship in gun-free spaces also have rights,” Molyneux said. “In what way is ‘freedom’ advanced by telling the owner of a bar or restaurant they cannot ban handguns in their own place of business, as many states now do? Today, it is the NRA that is the enemy of freedom, by seeking to impose its values on everyone else.”

The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: “Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.” “Not in our church.” We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.

Northern VA "Conservative" Parents Upset Over School Curriculum that Admits Gays and Transgender Exist

Having had three children go through the Virginia public schools over the course of the last 25+ years, one thing that never changes is the way in which Christofascists ALWAYS want the school curriculum to reflect their ignorance embracing beliefs that exclude the existence of gays and transgender individuals.  They are self-centered and truly care nothing for the rights of beliefs of others and demand that their darling children be forever sheltered from the realities of real life and the real world.  Now, the Fairfax County School Board has committed the cardinal sin of (i) voting to implement a non-discrimination policy to protect trans students and staff, and (ii) amending the curriculum to include lessons on gender identity and being transgender.  The hate-filled "godly folk" are going ballistic.  Here are highlights from Gay Star News:

Conservative parents are furious about proposed changes to the curriculum for grades 7 to 12 at some schools in Virginia..

Last week, the Fairfax County School Board voted to include gender identity in their non-discrimination policy to expand protection for trans students and staff.

Parents and students opposing the policy change claimed children could choose which bathroom or locker room to use, heightening the danger of sexual harassment.

Now the school board is reportedly planning to extend the curriculum to include lessons on gender identity and being transgender.

‘Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender,’ the district’s recommendations state.

‘Emphasis will be placed on recognizing that everyone is experiencing changes and the role of respectful, inclusive language in promoting an environment free of bias and discrimination.‘

Parents have been said to be ‘irate’ over the recommended changes; Fox News columnist Todd Starnes expressed his disagreement, calling the update ‘unadulterated sex indoctrination’.

Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council, called it ‘an attack on nature itself’, saying children would be taught they could choose their gender.

‘It’s only going to create more confusion in the minds of young people who don’t need any further confusion about sexual identity,’ he said.

The changes are set to be formally announced on 21 May; because lessons need to be planned, the schools are planning to implement the changes later next year.

 

Judge Overrules Religous Objections to Vaccinations

Increasingly America is facing a rise in diseases formerly almost wholly eradicated through vaccination programs.  So what is causing the near epidemic situation in some regions?  Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated based on claimed religious beliefs.  Like some many other things the Christofascist do in the name of "religious freedom," the refusal to have children vaccinated reflects a total disregard for the health and safety of others.  The motto of the Christofascists ought to be "It's all about me - everyone else, go f*ck yourself."  As the judge in the ruling in New York State concluded, the Christofascist movement against Vaccinations poses a public health threat.  Here are highlights from a piece in the Huffington Post:

Judge William F. Kuntz II has ruled to uphold a New York City policy that bars unvaccinated children from attending school when another student has a disease preventable by a vaccination, reports The New York Times.

In the ruling, Kuntz wrote that the Supreme Court, "strongly suggested that religious objectors are not constitutionally exempt from vaccinations."

Three families filing suit contended that the school policy preventing their unvaccinated children from attending school at risky times is a First Amendment violation of religious freedom. The Brooklyn Eagle reported that Nicole Phillips, Fabian Mendoza-Vaca and Dina Check had decided not to vaccinate their children on the grounds of "sincere religious belief."

From a public health standpoint, the small unvaccinated percentage of the population threatens efforts to eradicate preventable diseases from society. Depending on the contagiousness of the specific disease, a certain percentage of the population must be vaccinated in order to prevent an outbreak, due to a phenomenon known as "herd immunity," reports The Times. For highly contagious diseases like measles, that percentage is as high as 95%, which means that even a few unvaccinated children could pose a hazard to an entire school.

Kuntz cited a 109-year-old ruling on public health as a precedent in this case. He also pointed to a more recent Brooklyn federal court decision that said, "the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not provide a right for religious objectors to be exempt from New York's compulsory inoculation law.”

 I'm sorry, but these Christofascist are not only incredibly selfish but  they are insane to boot.  Kudos to Judge Kuntz.

Christofascist - Positions on Social Issues Are Alienating the Public

As noted before on this blog, members of the Millennial generation are leaving organized religion in record numbers and the exodus shows no signs of relenting.  Among the main reasons cited are (i) the hypocrisy and meanness of conservative Christians and (ii) the anti-gay agenda of the "godly folk."  Amazingly, living as they do in their alternate universe, the Christofascists seem incapable of recognizing the fact that is they themselves who are killing the Christian brand.  As a result, they go on repeating the same tired lies and demonstrating for all who will watch and listen that today's conservative Christians are at best a reincarnation of the biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned without mercy.  Yesterday on ABC's This Week, Franklin Graham - who would be a nobody but for his famous father - and Ralph Reed - who set my gaydar off when we met years ago - engaged in the usual Christofascist denunciation of gays, gay parenting and gay adoption.  Thankfully, as Mediate reports Cokie Roberts let them have it:

A comment by Reverend Franklin Graham, in which he alleged gay parents are “recruiting” when they adopt children and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was right to prohibit same-sex adoption, sent a panel on This Week with George Stephanopoulos going, with Cokie Roberts asking Ralph Reed whether he thought leaving children in orphanages was better than moving them into same-sex households.

" . . .the social science is also irrefutable that a child raised in an orphanage is in much worse shape than a child raised in a home,” Roberts objected. “And the fact that people are willing to take these children and raise them, and raise them in a loving way, is clearly better for these children.”

“Would you agree with that?” host Martha Raddatz asked. “Would you rather have a child sitting in an orphanage than have gay parents?”

[N]obody on the panel agreed with Graham’s assessment of Putin.

I believe that it is telling when the Christofascists are aligning themselves with a corrupt and brutal Russian dictator.  It shows their true colors and underscores their desire to force their beliefs on others and to trample on the rights of other Americans.  There are few people more self-centered and selfish than today's "godly Christians."

NOM's Maggie Gallagher Admits Defeat But Remains a Bitter, Lying Bitch

This blog has looked at Maggie Gallagher (pictured at right) and what I view as her bitter and warped mindset that seemingly tracks back to her unwed mother pregnancy in college - something that she has never overcome psychologically.  Adding to Gallagher's hypocrisy is her marriage to a Hindu, someone whom her Christofascist brethren say is doomed to go straight to Hell.  In a recent interview recounted in Huffington Post, Gallagher conceded that her anti-gay marriage jihad had likely failed and that same sex marriage would soon be a nation wide phenomenon in America.  Beyond that, however, Gallagher remains the same bigoted, mean spirited bitch woman and takes umbrage that her anti-gay bigotry and support for special rights fro evangelical Christians is at its core little different from the Jim Crow laws that once predominated across the South and elsewhere.  Here are some interview highlights:

She doesn't dispute that the tide has turned in the fight for gay rights since she entered it. But she isn’t completely dejected about the recent string of losses. "I have a lot more freedom now to figure out what I want to do with the next 20 years of my life," she wrote in an email on Thursday.
She weighed in on what's next for the social conservative movement and the growing number of religious Americans in favor of same-sex marriage, among a range of other issues, not excluding the recent St. Patrick's Day controversy.

At this point, what do you think is the most effective way to push the message of "traditional marriage" forward?

As I said last summer, it was clear to me from reading Windsor [the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor], gay marriage advocates now have five votes for inserting a right to gay marriage in our Constitution. We are now in the 'gay marriage in all 50 states' phase whether we like it or not. What's next? In my view people who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage, and believe that it matters, have to become a creative minority, finding way to both express these sexual views, culturally, artistically and intellectually and to engage with the newly dominant cultural view of marriage respectfully but not submissively.

Lots of thoughts packed into the latter sentence.  As for social conservatives as a political movement, even to retain religious liberty protections is going to require a new and more serious engagement with politics.

Do you support the religious exemption legislation that several southern states have been pressing?

I haven't read the legislation in question -- it was vetoed in Arizona practically before I became aware it existed, but assuming the religious liberty scholars (including Prof. Doug Laycock) who wrote about it were correct, yes I would support it. I do not think religion should be used to discriminate against gay people in everyday life and I also do not think whole professions should be closed to people who cannot affirm gay unions as marriages, because then, once in a while, a gay person will have to find another photographer.

The comparison of these efforts to "Jim Crow" is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Jim Crow was a system where powerful elites tried to crush the ability of black people to live their lives as part of ordinary society.
[R]right now what I see, as I suspect you do: powerful corporations, elite institutions are all lining up to protect and proclaim the dignity of gay people. Small numbers of unusually devoted Christians are just trying to feed their kids. I do not see who is benefited really by putting them out of business. 

Have you seen this recent survey showing a really dramatic shift in public opinion among religious groups, and what do you make of it?

Religious people do not exist in a vacuum and as opposition to gay marriage becomes defined in the public sphere as a bigoted and discriminatory impulse, many religious people want to get good with the newly dominant public morality. The new rule is: the only way to express concern and care for gay people is to be for gay marriage, so of course many religious people wanting to express concern and care for gay people generally and for the gay people in their lives will go that route.

Has this been a difficult time for you? Does it come up often in conversation with others who oppose legalizing same-sex marriage, and if so, how is it talked about?

No, it's really not been a difficult time for me personally. I went into this fight, in good conscience, because I believed it mattered and that I had something to contribute. I did not promise myself I would win. I promised myself I would do everything I could see, to do this good, to fight for marriage as a universal human institution with certain goods and goals. I feel a great deal of contentment about that.

The take away? Gallagher remains a self-centered bitch woman who, due to her own psychological issues/frailties, still would if allowed like to force her religious beliefs on all citizens.   The only positive is that she is not so delusional as to be incapable of realizing that her size has lost the battle.  As for her lack of regret, she made a huge amount of money peddling hate and bigotry and now can live comfortably.  She may be comfortable as to what she did, but I suspect the money means more to her than any true concern for the so-called "sanctity of marriage."  Bottom line, Gallagher is NOT what I consider a nice and decent person.

The Dishonest Defense of Homophobia

I noted recently Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times that wrongly tried to defend Arizona SB 1062 and, like most who put their own religious beliefs above the civil rights of others (usually to avoid thinking for themselves and making true moral choices), Douthat made bigots out to be the real victims of same sex marriage in particular and gay rights advances in general.  A column in Salon does a terrific job of basically ripping Douthat a new one.  Here are column excerpts:

A married lesbian couple bring their children to a restaurant. The host refuses to seat them because, as he explains, interaction with gay people violates his religious beliefs. The mothers speak to the manager, who reminds the host of the restaurant’s non-discrimination policy and demands that he seat the family. Who is the victim? The mothers, who must explain to their children why their parents’ mere existence is, for some, a despicable sin? The children, who were forced to watch their parents shamed and humiliated in public?

None of the above, according to New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat: By his moral calculus, the host would be the true victim, the family the “victors,” and the hypothetical—which is far from fanciful—demonstrates not the continuing threat of discrimination in America, but, rather, the marginalization of devout Christians at the hands of bellicose pro-gay forces.

In his most recent column, Douthat strives to reframe the current debate about anti-gay discrimination (and even segregation) into one about sincere believers being brutally trampled by gay rights activists eager to bury religious freedom. It’s a failed effort, but a useful failure nonetheless.
Douthat’s column is such an effective piece of homophobic apologia that I expect many red state politicians to borrow from its playbook in the coming months and years. To make their job easier, I’ve laid out the most effective means of disguising raw hatred as religious liberty and rounding discrimination down to “dissent.”

If you’re thinking about introducing an anti-gay discrimination bill to your own state’s legislature, you should pay close attention.

Step 1: Put your tail between your legs.  Douthat’s piece is so self-pitying that he actually has to spend a paragraph explaining why he doesn’t mean to be self-pitying. This is a brilliant move. . . . This pity distracts us from the absurdity of his claims: . . . . G iven the horrifying ubiquity of LGBT workplace discrimination, the jarring lack of state and federal laws protecting gay people, and the continuing lack of marriage equality in most states, Douthat’s theory is ludicrous at best and insulting at worst. 

Step 2: Make homophobes the real victims.  Only a tiny handful of business owners have been sued under LGBT anti-discrimination laws in the minority of states that have them. Douthat, like most state legislators who have defended “religious liberty” bills, explicitly cites that infamous trio: a florist, a photographer, and a baker, who claimed their Christianity required that they deny service to gay couples. . . . . Never mind that the real victim isn’t the business owner who acted on his hatred, but the customer who suffered from his discriminatory policies. If you tilt the looking glass just right, you can reverse these roles, turning a bigot into a principled entrepreneur and a wronged minority into entitled bullies.

Step 3: Find an audience-appropriate euphemism for “discrimination.”   Douthat knows the typical Times reader is sophisticated enough to see past the hackneyed doublespeak of “religious liberty,” so he lands on a clever new euphemism for anti-gay discrimination: “dissent.” According to Douthat, the Arizona bill was just a way for “religious conservatives” to “carv[e] out protections for dissent.” . . . .   By rebranding anti-gay bigots as dissenters, Douthat transforms them from retrograde homophobes to virtuous objectors, unwilling to bend their beliefs to match public opinion.

Step 4: Dog whistle to homophobes.  How can Douthat distinguish religious homophobia from religious racism? He can’t, of course: As ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser explained, racists across America raised analogous—indeed, often nearly identical—objections to non-discrimination protections for blacks, which were definitively struck down by a near-unanimous Supreme Court in 1981. Yet Douthat scoffs at these comparisons, labeling them “mendacious and hysterical.”

By the internal logic of Douthat’s piece, homophobia is simply more defensible than racism. Nothing else could explain why denying gay customers is OK while denying black customers isn’t.

Utah Nutcase Vows To Starve Self Until Gays Can No Longer Marry

As studies have shown, the loudest homophobes are the ones most aroused by gay porn.  That said, one has to wonder how big of a self-loathing closet case Utah resident Trestin Meacham (pictured at right) is in light of his announced self-starvation over gay marriages taking places in Utah.  Other explanations for Meacham's behavior in my view are (i) he is psychologically disturbed if gays marrying is so frightening to him, or (ii) his claimed religious faith is not very strong if gays marrying is such a terrifying prospect.  It is also noteworthy how Meacham - like most Christofascists and far right Mormons - has no regard for the concept of religious freedom for all.  Like most such selfish, self-centered individuals he wants it for himself, but anyone with differing beliefs can basically go f*ck themselves.    I also find Meacham's claim that he "doesn't hate gays" to be disingenuous.  You do not (a) call people evil or (b) seek to deprive individuals of civil rights if you like them.  The Bilerico Project looks at this latest batshitery from one of the "godly folk":

Trestin Meacham, a 35-year-old unhinged whackjob former Constitution Party candidate for the Utah State Senate, says he is fasting to stop same-sex marriage in Utah.
Meacham, who claims to have begun his fast on the day that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah's marriage discrimination amendment unconstitutional, says he's lost 25 pounds so far.
His goal is to draw attention to the discredited legal theory of "nullification." This bogus theory holds that states -- not the federal government -- hold supreme authority and have the right to invalidate any federal law they like.
Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed the notion that states have the power to unilaterally overrule federal law, and the country fought a nasty 19th-century skirmish called the Civil War that should have put nullification to bed permanently. However, many southern states cited the concept in the 1950s in their racist effort to prevent public school integration before the Supremes smacked it down again in their 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision.
But these details don't concern Meacham. "[The state] can end this tomorrow," Meacham told ABC 4 Utah. "They don't have to go through legal court battles and waste our money. They can end it tomorrow with the act of nullification."

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/01/desperate_utahn_vows_to_starve_self_until_gays_can.php#3w0IgdGxo5v5K48l.99

Trestin Meacham, a 35-year-old unhinged whackjob former Constitution Party candidate for the Utah State Senate, says he is fasting to stop same-sex marriage in Utah.

Meacham, who claims to have begun his fast on the day that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah's marriage discrimination amendment unconstitutional, says he's lost 25 pounds so far.

His goal is to draw attention to the discredited legal theory of "nullification." This bogus theory holds that states -- not the federal government -- hold supreme authority and have the right to invalidate any federal law they like.

Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed the notion that states have the power to unilaterally overrule federal law, and the country fought a nasty 19th-century skirmish called the Civil War that should have put nullification to bed permanently. However, many southern states cited the concept in the 1950s in their racist effort to prevent public school integration before the Supremes smacked it down again in their 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision.

But these details don't concern Meacham. "[The state] can end this tomorrow," Meacham told ABC 4 Utah. "They don't have to go through legal court battles and waste our money. They can end it tomorrow with the act of nullification."

 

In a December 21 Facebook posting announcing his fast, Meacham frames his struggle in heroic terms:

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home. Some things in life are worth sacrificing one's heath and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.

He continued on Facebook, writing: "Let's be clear about something. Just because you disagree with someone's lifestyle [sic] does not mean you hate them. And standing up to evil does not make you unchristian. Do we not remember how He drove the moneychangers from the temple?"

Riiiiight. In Trestin Meacham's world, the fact that he's willing to literally starve himself to protest others' happiness -- that he's that committed to preventing same-sex couples from legally pledging their lives to one another and blocking them from realizing our nation's promise of equal justice under the law -- doesn't make him a hateful, bigoted extremist. It's all about the "Constitution," silly!