Matt Barber and the Power of The Gay

Matt Barber of the terribly misnamed Liberty Counsel is ratcheting up the rhetoric against marriage equality as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in both the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case. Nothing less than the future of civilization itself is at stake, people.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

You know what will happen if gay people are allowed to get married? Some gay people will get married. The end. And all this hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to sound really, really stupid — just like those same arguments, when they were used against interracial marriage in the 50s and 60s, sound really, really stupid today.


  1. says

    That’s nothing. A post in FSTDT recenlty said that the very universe will be torn asunder if America allows gays to marry. With gaymarriage the law just across the border in Canada and also in many Uropeun countries, it would appear that such blasphemy would put us over some tipping point in the number of recognized gay unions that would get the Lord’s attention.
    I don’t know what will happen when he finally gets around to expressing his displeasure, but it probably will be something like what would happen if the rose is destroyed in Stephen King’s “Gunslinger” series.

  2. brucecoppola says

    I have to admit I’ve been on the fence about gay “marriage”. But if I can get me some of that “freaky deaky”, then I”m all for it!

  3. Doug Little says

    then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow

    Where do I sign up? Me likey some freaky deaky. What’s with these guys and their obsession with sex between consenting adults, however freaky deaky that may be. Jealousy??

  4. Snoof says

    Look, it’s very simple. Same sex marriages are un-marriages. That means any time a gay couple get married, an opposite-sex marriage vanishes. Memories destroyed! Love gone forever! Children made orphans, or erased from time itself!

    (I joke, but frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the next argument that gets made.)

  5. says

    Don’t 50% of (first?) hertero-marriages end in extinction now? Gay marriages would probably increase the numbers: but those would all be the extinction of gay marriages.
    The only downside of gay marriage being, therefore, that divorce lawyers will be happy.

  6. Doug Little says

    Look, it’s very simple. Same sex marriages are un-marriages. That means any time a gay couple get married, an opposite-sex marriage vanishes.

    Actually heterosexual marriages decay spontaneously when they are bought in close proximity to the cheaton particle. Homosexual – heterosexual marriage annihilation is one hypothesis that has no experimental evidence supporting it.

  7. Kengi says

    I don’t know. I think they have a point with the slippery slope argument. After all, the same logic for making interracial marriage legal is now used for same-sex marriage. The people warning about the slippery slope back then were right.

    Equal rights has a nasty way of catching on and spreading. Who knows where equality might spread from here? This could lead to white straight males having less privilege.

  8. Mr Ed says

    It has been four and a half years since gay marriage has been legal in Connecticut. It is a post apocalyptic world here with roving bands of liberals looting the few groups of survivors. A few of us managed to find enough gas to get the old Buick going in hopes of making it to a free state.

  9. Doug Little says

    Mr Ed @10,

    Ahhh so “The Walking Dead” is a documentary about Connecticut, it all makes sense now.

  10. Synfandel says

    The camel’s nose is truly under the tent. We endorsed same-sex marriage here in Canada and now they’re talking about banning hockey fights. Where do we draw the line?

  11. abb3w says

    As usual, it’s relatively easy to make a couple substitutions to the piece and turn it into one arguing against interracial marriage.

  12. Abby Normal says

    all this hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to sound really, really stupid

    “Going to”? I’m way ahead of you.

    It’s funny how these slippery slope arguments always seem to put the top of the hill at whatever the status quo was when the person was 12. Never mind all the times marriage was redefined before they were around to take notice. Interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, divorce protection, non-arranged marriages, the end of dowries, banning polygamy, each redefined what was at the time, traditional marriage. At every step there have been small-minded fearful chumps predicting doom. Yet this is the change that will start the downward slide. This time it’s different. It’s so silly!

  13. says

    Another great “plot” for another really bad gay-porn movie…”The Power of the Gay, Part II!” You’ll shake with fright (or maybe somethng else) when you see how gay sex will literally shake Western Civilization to its core! In fact, you’be amazed that so many gay bars are still standing after all the shakin’ goin’ on! The shakes — I mean stakes — could not be higher (or harder)! And if you think that’s sick, just wait till you see all the freaky deaky that’s sure to follow in Part III! Prepare to shake and/or be shaken!

  14. says

    “Marriage reality”? Would that be the estimated 1100 marriage rights that are granted, guaranteed and/or protected under the federal statute? The estimated 800 to 1300 statutes per state (depending on the state) that do the same thing? The uncountable number of statutes at the local level? Regulations governing insurance coverage? Corporate policies covering benefits and family leave?

    We don’t want to destroy that reality: we want to make it our own.

  15. fastlane says

    I’m still chuckling over ‘freaky deaky’. It’s like these morons really are stuck at a 12 year old maturity level.

    I know here in WA, it’s really going down fast (see what I did there?) since we legalized both gay marriage and pot!

  16. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    I don’t know what will happen when he finally gets around to expressing his displeasure, but it probably will be something like what would happen if the rose is destroyed in Stephen King’s “Gunslinger” series. indistinguishable from what would happen if God never noticed all the gay marriages in the first place. God is like that.

  17. Sastra says

    The slippery slope didn’t start with interracial marriage. The slippery slope which concerns Barber and folks like him started when churches began allowing people of different faiths to get married and not have to “choose” who converts. And then the government helped people marry without religion at all.

  18. looseleaf says

    I think by freaky deaky he means really crazy, like the woman on top, or using a vibrator. You know, weird.

  19. Pierce R. Butler says

    I’m not even gay, but I’m sure someone would get more than a little toasted if I were to find my house surrounded by white people picketing – regardless of their issue…

  20. Doug Little says

    Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence

    Well sure, white picket fences were so last week.

  21. khms says

    Actually, I’d like a little slippery slope here, because even with same-sex marriage equality there’s still too much intervention of the state.

    Given that, even traditionally, the production of children, sex, and love are really completely independent from marriage unless people voluntarily connect them, I think we should go to a model where we can have a kind of family contract (resource distribution being pretty much the only single thing always associated with marriage, to the point that if you want to avoid it even partially you have to make an explicit contract that says so), and if you want marriage, that’s a private thing that doesn’t interest the state at all.

    Protect the family directly, no matter what it’s shape. That means that these family contracts could be between any number (one or more) of adults of any gender (“parents”), and define any number of children (zero or more; direct children of the parents, adopted by parents or the family, or inherited from relatives for whatever reason, most likely death) as additional beneficiaries of the enterprise. I’m assuming there would still be rules (such as when and how care of a child moves from one family or individual to another), but not as to who is allowed to be a member other than they’d be adults, and all other adults on the contract have to agree. Well, maybe that being on more than one contract is not allowed.

    What those adults may or may not do in bedrooms would be unconnected. Unless, perhaps, they explicitly write that into the contract.

    Of course, that would involve a large amount of work. Go over every rule relevant to marriages, see if under the new model it should apply to families, produce appropriate wording for the new shape of the rule. And then get it all past the lawmakers.

    Can’t do that right now. Need to shift the Overton window first. By quite a bit. Which is where that slippery slope comes in.

    Disclosure: I’m not married, and unlikely to marry or enter such a family contract under any model whatsoever (pretty much unless it turns out I’m the only surviving adult who can be responsible for any surviving children, and even then I’m not convinced that would be wise), so for me this is mostly theory (until I find out someone I know is in trouble with the current system, which so far hasn’t happened).

Leave a Reply