|
Ok so in the first part of this article I actually agreed with him for once. He was criticizing the city of Oklahoma for taking down fliers advertising "a forum for people of faith to express their views on the comtemporary issues of the day. With respect for the natural family, marriage and family values" calling it "homophobic" and disruptive after they had allowed and advertisement called "Happy Coming Out Day." I've always been a strong supporter of free speech. Furthermore I don't find the words to be offensive. In fact, as a supporter of gay rights, if I lived in Oklahoma I might be inclined to go to this seminar and talk about how homosexual relationships occur naturally, how homosexual behavior has been discovered in animals, how I'm such a supporter of marriage that I want it to be expanded to more people and how I consider tolerance and equality to be family values. So Will's first point I totally agree with him. But then he he makes a huge incomprehensible leap and says,"Congress is trying to enact another 'hate crime' law that would authorize ehanced punishments for crimes committed because of, among other things, sexual orientation." He then goes on to say that people have united against it out of fear that it will be used to put a "muzzle" on the church. How the hell could the hate crime law be used to put a muzzle on the church unless the church plans on committing any crimes against homosexuals? The law doesn't create any new crimes, it just, as Will himself stated "enhances punishments for crimes committed because of sexual orientation." So unless anyone was already planning on doing something illegal it couldn't possibly be used as a muzzle. It infuriates me when conservatives make reasonable, rational arguments and then try to somehow connect those arguments to completely absurd claims. I couldn't find this article on line (I think you have to be registered to get it from the Washington Post site) but if someone is able to find it and post it i would be greatly appreciative, i think it was in yesterday's paper.
|