Here in Maryland this election year, my heterosexual neighbors will be deciding whether or not their gay neighbors can get married. Oh, gay Marylanders can vote on it too…all possibly two to ten percent of us depending on who you ask are the percentage of homosexuals in a given human population.   On the one hand homosexuals are a small minority whose needs can be easily and casually erased by the heterosexual majority with a simple flick of a voting booth button.   On the other hand we are a terrifying threat to civilization itself.

One of our local numbskulls…no not Don Dwyer…state delegate Emmitt Burns (note: a Democrat), threatened Baltimore Ravens players for speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage.   This prompted another NFL player, Chris Kluwe, to pen a scorching hot missive back at Burns, wondering in part…

Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different from what you believe, or act differently from you? How does gay marriage affect your life in any way, shape, or form? Are you worried that if gay marriage became legal, all of a sudden you’d start thinking about penis? (“Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!”) Will all your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely. Gay people enjoy watching football, too.)

All in good fun…right?   Burns backed off a tad, allowing that even football players can speak their mind from time to time.   But of course the kook pews couldn’t let the matter rest there.   It was starting to look like the most manly of sports was open to the idea of gay people being something other then human garbage.   So out comes another Ravens player, Matt Birk just to prove that football hasn’t entirely succumbed…

I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.

The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as “marriage” for a reason, and it’s not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced “I am my brother’s keeper” and “love your neighbor as yourself” with “live and let live” and “if it feels good, go ahead and do it.”

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution. How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids? Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children — the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as “bigots” and “homophobic.” Aren’t we past that as a society?

Don’t we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate.

You can almost hear him pleading with his readers to pay attention to all that I Am Not A Bigot hand waving at the end and not the fact that an editorial against same-sex marriage ending with a call for reason and charity had absolutely none of either of those things to offer.

How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids?

Chris Kluwe shot a response back that pretty well sums it up:

The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less? What will your actions speak to them, 15 years from now, when they ask you why they can’t enjoy the same relationship that you and your wife have now? And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred…

But pay attention to how reliably that Save Our Children rhetoric pops out of their mouths.   When you see this, it’s a red flag, because as Kluwe says, some kids are gay.   What you’re seeing there isn’t about kids at all, it’s about the old slander that homosexuals are child molesters.   Birk isn’t thinking about the welfare of gay kids when he argues that same-sex marriage is a threat to children because there aren’t any gay kids.   Nobody is born gay, they’re recruited into it.   It’s knowledge so deeply ingrained within him it colors everything he says throughout the editorial.   There are no gay kids so I don’t have to worry about my kids being gay.   I worry that they’ll be recruited into the lifestyle. I worry that homosexuality will be normalized.

That’s the problem he has with same-sex marriage.   But don’t call him a bigot because…you know…he has Reasons.   Just don’t ask him for any.

Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions.

Er…Matt…   In this entire editorial you don’t give Any reasons that have to do with same-sex unions.   It’s marriages is about the welfare of children and if we let same-sex couples marry that will destroy marriage which would be a very bad thing for children.   But don’t ask me why letting homosexuals get married will destroy marriage when we let heterosexual couples incapable of having children get married all the time because then I’ll have to say something like because….homosexuals!   And then you’d call me a bigot and I’m not so stop trying to silence me!

I am not a bigot.   I respect everyone.   Even the folks whose ring fingers I want to cut off and whose lives I don’t have clue one about…

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.

Seems you never worked with any same-sex parents Matt.   But you have an opinion about the fitness of their families.   Why is that Matt?   Where did that opinion come from if it wasn’t first hand experience knowing and being a part of the lives of gay couples and their families.

Ah…I think I know…

NFL Player Matt Birk Makes Anti-Gay Ad for Catholic Church and Equality Advocate Chris Kluwe Responds: VIDEO

In a video for the Minnesota Catholic Conference, Baltimore Raven center Matt Birk doubles down on the anti-gay sentiment he expressed in an op-ed for the Star Tribune this week in support of Minnesota’s upcoming ballot measure that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.

First comes the editorial, then the video, and this was a spontaneous display of support for the heterosexual prerogative like all those Mormons coming together spontaneously to work for Proposition 8 was.

This is the Catholic church talking through a willing football player.   But again…take notice of all that I Am Not A Bigot And Calling Me One Amounts To Censorship hand waving at the end.   His critics aren’t trying to silence him, he’s trying to silence his critics.   This is How Dare You Take Issue With My Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs You Bigot! It’s the only song they have left now apparently. The only reason people support the right of gay couples to marry is because they hate Jesus.

I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.

Same-sex marriage is not healthy.   Same-sex marriages are not authentic.   And charity is you treat me better then I am willing to treat my homosexual neighbor.   And don’t be calling me a bigot simply because the only reasons I have for denying gay couples the right to marry are my religious beliefs and a knee jerk reflex that homosexuals somehow threaten my children.