Amazing considering that Trump is President, Mike Pence is Vice-President, Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader and most of the judges from the Supreme Court on down are all Judicial Watch nominees thanks to those two.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He’s lost the plot, missed the point. 1 Corinthians 13 applies.

Those who oppose his views must be careful we too don’t fall into the same trap. That we pass the test, and remain Galadriel.

Powerful stuff!

There are people making that case, strongly. I also have advocated for it. But we have literally hundreds of years of laws dating back to prior to the formation of the United States itself that would need to be rewritten at the federal, state and local level, as well as international agreements for travelers abroad (just ask gay and lesbian couples about how it works when they leave the US for a country that does not recognize their marriage).

Originally I took the position to just abolish marriage as a government recognized concept. Then after researching the situation I realized we have literally decades of work before that would be feasible due to the massive patchwork of laws at all levels that would need to be rewritten. I couldn’t let a theoretically ‘perfect’ solution be the enemy of the ‘better’ which was just letting LGBTQ people get married and worry about writing better laws later.

Honestly in my ideal world there would be a simple form outlining the common rights granted by various government recognized arrangements/relationships, ranging from business to personal to medical and financial, and I could put a list of names in order of priority on each section and file it with an agency somewhere to be consulted upon any triggering event ranging from taxation to death.

Long way away from that though.

On the marriage thing, I just mean that if marriage is a container for certain rights and benefits and is not grounded in a specific biological function/purpose, then to exclude people from “marrying” for any reason, ever, seems to be highly discriminatory. I would rather that the government just legally recognized households of any number of adults and dropped all commitment to retaining some approximate form of traditional marriage. If a mother and her son want to share the legal benefits enjoyed by married couples, I do not understand why they need to conform to an arbitrary governmental definition of legitimate relationship. If people want to get married and pledge their love and fidelity to each other, they can do that in church (or in the woods).

I’m only afraid of bad drag queens. And brother, there are some really bad ones.

Actually, being an old fart, I was paraphrasing this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-09/destroying-a-quote-s-history-in-order-to-save-it

But, you’re right. That is the logic of comic book villainy where someone has to be the villain so that there can be a hero to save us.

And, come to think of it, I remember hearing that reason for voting for Trump from several sources, that those dreadful liberal villains had made it “necessary to destroy the town to save it,” and Trump was just the person to do that.

For whatever reason Christian Conservatives seem terrified of men wearing clothes perceived as female. I equate it to irrational fear of clowns, not because drag queens are equivalent to clowns per say, but because some people are irrationally afraid of people who dress differently or in ways that stand out.

To be fair, this seems to be the last line for them, they spent a good chunk of the last century freaking out about women wearing clothing perceived as being too male after all.