JUST ONE MORE QUESTION...

AMERICAblog reader Bill writes in about his phone call to Senator Crapo's office (R-ID) this afternoon:

"Is Senator Crap-o in favor of traditional marriage?
Yes he is, he's a cosponsor of the bill (the bill being the Federal Bigotry - er, Federal Marriage Amendment.
He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
I could not tell you that.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
I cannot tell you that either.
Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio? (All bibilically prohibited).
What is the purpose of this questioning?
It's regarding his views on traditional marriage. (It's really regarding what a hypocrite the crapster is)
Okay, he supports the bill.
Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
I could not give you an answer on that.
Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
I could not answer that.
Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
It's regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
Any one of those questions I could not answer. (As Captain Kirk said, "You can't, or you wont!")
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Again, I will not answer that.
It's nobody's business, right?
That's right.
Okay, thank you."

**************************************************************************
As the Federal Bigotry Amendment was being "debated" today (i.e. as Republican politicians were looking their best as they mugged for the camera to lovingly tailor the message to King Jimmy Dobson - who talks more about men's penises than any gay man does), Senator Sam Brownshirt said, "People should watch their language (Ari Fleischer fascism alert) when they call proponents of this amendment "bigots." Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not "bigotry."

45 states have statutes embracing this exact definition. 19 states have constitutional amendments embracing this exact definition. Brownshirt and his Republican cohorts have introduced the FBA because they say that traditional marriage is threatened. By whom? Activist judges. They try to assiduously avoid whom they really believe it's being "threatened" by - gay people trying to marry - yes, people like gay people in Massachusetts - who have been married for two years now. We can already see how civilization has been ruined by these marriages. The "threatened" argument is akin to saying "lack of police protection threatens public safety." When someone says that, he is implicitly saying that that which is not "public safety" - i.e. a lack of "proper" law and order - is bad. Similarly, when an "activist judge" threatens traditional marriage, that which is not traditional marriage - i.e. marriage by gays - is bad. So people who make the "threatened" argument - a group that includes each and every Republican senator - is bigoted against gay people. Why don't they just admit this and call it a good thing? After all, they THINK it's a good thing. When are they going to learn that you can't have your cake and eat it too? By the way, they are bigoted against judges, too.
Arguably, not EVERYONE who supports the FBA is a bigot. Some people may support it simply because they believe that's what marriage is. The idea that the amendment writes discrimination into the Constitution simply might not occur to them. These people may not be bigots, but they are ignorant and uninformed citizens. Bigots need such citizens to promote their agenda.