So it turns out Friday is Homophobia Fun Day on Michael Medved's Townhall blog. Here he reads a story about California allowing conjugal visits for prisoners with legal domestic partnerships and starts fuming about gay sex.
Because of the state's new "civil unions" law, the gay convicts who linked themselves to partners before incarceration [read: fell in love and got the equivalent of a marriage certificate] are now entitled to scheduled sessions of intimacy, just like their married counterparts. This means that prison staffers who spend their time in desperate efforts to prevent behind-bars gay conduct, including rape, must now assist selected prisoners with trysts involving their "domestic partners."
I've never been a prison guard; maybe Medved has. So he might know whether guards are sweating the gay conduct that happens in their prisons or worried about the forced, raw sex. Line 3007 of the prison code prevents both kinds of sex, but are they really that bothered with the sex that isn't rape? They usually seek special placement of homosexual prisoners and they're done worrying about that.
More of the mustache:
This absurd innovation exposes the true nature of the so-called gay rights agenda: it's not about equality, it's about governmental promotion of behavior that many Americans still consider disgusting and immoral. Gay conjugal visits should cause the public to look past platitudes about love to focus on the raw actuality of male-male eroticism. Is this practice – with all its hygienic, physiological harm—really deserving of governmental (and prison system) support?
Ah, so we're worried about filthy gays bringing disease into the prison via their conjugal visits? Really? Given that the HIV/AIDS rate in prisons is about five times higher than the rate outside, and that the conjugal visitor or prison is going to be providing condoms, and that the prisoners are monitored during the visit, the visiting room might be the most disease-free room on the prison grounds.
Well, I'm not going to convince Medved. What will?