Sorry, Conservatives: You Are a Bigot If You Oppose Gay Marriage:
Oh, how we laugh at the idiots of the past. When we watch TV shows and movies that were produced or take place in the past, through the 1980s, at least, how we shake our heads, most of us, at the men who think a woman's place is in the home. What fools they are, what narrow-minded, bigoted fools, we think, and we know we're on the good side of history because, well, shit, we are, despite the best efforts of some on the right (men and women) to tell us that the nation collapsed once women decided life could be something other than just taking care of the kids and cleaning the house. Or that careers could be more than teacher, nurse, maid, or nanny, professions that were seen as variations on housewife. But if you were to tell the men, including politicians and religious leaders, who believed in what they saw as a "natural order" or some such garbage that they were, indeed, bigoted fools, they would have said the exact same goddamned thing that opponents of gay marriage now say: Hey, we're not bigots just because we disagree with you.

(And that example could have been for any time one group has asserted agency, be it the right to vote or the right to live without fear of psychotic assholes lynching them.)

The cries of victimization coming from the anti-same sex marriage camp are ludicrous. The defense is that they're not bigots; they just believe in a Christian definition of marriage. John Nolte of Breitbart's rotting corpse sees it as an attack on Christianity writes, "I oppose same-sex marriage because marriage is a sacrament, and there is a big difference between asking one to be tolerant, and demanding one condone." He does support civil unions, just not marriage. There's some damn Catholic archbishop saying, "Those who believe what every human society since the beginning of the human race has believed about marriage, and is clearly the case from nature itself, will be regarded, and treated, as the next class of bigots. That's untrue, and it's not kind, and it doesn't seem to lead to a 'live and let live' pluralism."

And, soaring in madness above them all, is Erick "Erick" Erickson of the blog RedState, who has gone completely monkeyfuck insane since leaving CNN: "Christ himself is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. My church does not treat marriage as a sacrament, but it would be a sin to alter that which God himself ordained and established as an institution. Active sin without repenting, and without even feeling the need to repent, should be a big red flag on anyone’s salvation."

Here's the question the Rude Pundit has: If the government says, "Okay, we're not going to allow gay marriage because Christian tradition - oh, wait, let's say, 'Judeo-Christian,' just to sound briefly open-minded - says it should be for heterosexual couples only," then what's the difference between that and the Shariah Law all of you right-wingers are afraid of?

Jonah "Who Really Tweeted His Fruit Ninja Score" Goldberg of the National Review, and other places that strangely let him write, tries to solve the problem by saying that it's not cool if everyone is intolerant of each other, but, you know, states should be allowed to decide the issue and if people don't want marriage equality, then, hey, live and let live, except, you know, in places where they won't let some people do so. Thus, as ever, he takes the wimpiest possible position on an issue.

In a few years, dear, sweet, dumb conservatives, you will be mocked as fools not just by mocking liberals who are so very cruel in their mockery, but by the vast, vast majority of young people, who think you are just, to use Bill "Everwrong" Kristol's word, pathetic to have stood in the way of progress. In our pop culture of the future, you will have to sit on the couch while your children and grandchildren laugh at how ridiculously, needlessly cruel you truly were.