Gay/Lesbian Issues

Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee Appear in Anti-Gay (and anti-Muslim/anti-Trans) Documentary

Presidential candidates and sitting Congressmen are featured in a film which commands Christian soldiers to fight.

|

Two presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), appear 

Flag controversy
SDGLN.com

in the documentary feature, Light Wins: How to Overcome the Criminalization of Christianity (which also comes in an abridged 30 minute version).

An overwrought polemic cloaked in a veil of martyrdom, the film's main target is "the homosexual agenda," but it also takes aim at the transgendered, Muslims, and with the greatest helping of vitriol, the Christian "cowards" who stand silent while their own way of life is debased by "evil." It is a heavy-breathing, technically deficient, vicious work of fearful propaganda, with nary a word of Christian forgiveness or charity spoken.

The film is the brainchild of Faith2Action's Janet Porter, an author and former radio host who lost her show on the Christian network VCY for refusing management's edicts to stop espousing the Christian nationalist "dominion theology." During the film, Porter acts as an on-screen narrator, at one point sitting in the bleachers of a football field warning the viewer that "the Super Bowl for our country is being fought and our team is not even on the field."

I don't think I can top Salon's description of this as a kind of "a gay version of Reefer Madness." Like the hysterical 1930s anti-marijuana film, it is amateurishly edited, paranoid, and unambiguously bigoted.

Other notables appearing in the film include Congressmen Steve King (R-Ia.), Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), as well as Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, and Catholic League President Bill Donahue, all sounding the alarm about the coming criminalization of Christianity.

Speaking of criminalizing innocent people, the film also features testimonials from Scott Lively, the conservative Christian activist who helped engineer the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014, which though struck down by courts, would have included the death penalty for "practicing" homosexuality. 

Though most of the film's talking heads address an off-camera interviewer, Huckabee employs his familiar schtick of folksy socially conservative populism by looking directly into the camera as he advises his religious cohort to try to avoid being mean to homosexuals, but to get in the fight already to stop the spread of the dreaded "agenda." Any practical advice on how people should get into "the fight" without being mean is never made clear, but Huckabee is clearly proud of his involvement with the film.

The Light Wins official website boasts this ringing Huckabee endorsement:

Light Wins reveals the frightening trend not to simply ignore Christian believers, but to rid society of us altogether. This ground breaking, eye opening film will awaken viewers to the fact that being a spectator is no longer an option. One will be part of the solution or part of the problem, and I hope this riveting documentary will cause believers to take notice.

Paul, the other GOP presidential hopeful appearing in the film, appears briefly in a segment about the potential for certain ministries to lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. While Paul has repeatedly made it clear that he is a supporter of "traditional marriage," he clearly lacks the passion of the rest of the film's cast, and has tried to downplay the issue as one that should not define the Republican Party:

I don't really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue. 

Paul also seems unlikely to follow Huckabee's enthusiastic endorsement of Light Wins, having told the Huffington Post in April, "I don't know anything about (the film). I've never heard of it until today." 

Light Wins doesn't even push the squishy homophobia of "I don't care what gays do behind closed doors, but I shouldn't be forced to like it," it actually advocates for schools that teach "acceptance" of homosexuality to be liable for criminal charges if any of their students contract the AIDS virus.

Scripture is employed liberally (so to speak) and a reading of Revelations 11:8 is interpreted as biblical evidence that "homosexuality and Islam" are the modern-day equivalent of "Sodom and Egypt," that is to say, existential threats to Christianity.

The criticism levied at Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson for his homophobic comments is compared to the military tanks which massacred students in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The specter of Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexuality in society being placed in gulags is juxtaposed with scary Soviet Army marching footage. The American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality as a disorder from it's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is noted as a tragic moment in history for birthing the "gay civil rights movement."

The film has already been available for online purchase since April and other than the occasional pan is unlikely to cause a cultural or political splash on either side of the spectrum, particularly since the evangelical Huckabee's involvement is no real surprise and Paul's brief appearance in a wonky discussion about the privilege of religious tax exempt status is one of the film's less insane moments. But should Paul go deep into the race, this film could be what the college kids call "problematic" for the junior senator. 

For an extended trailer, watch below:

Advertisement

NEXT: From Free Speech Movement to This: Anything You Say May Create a Hostile Environment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Old news.

    OT: Anyone who thinks Rush has gone soft with the whole capitalism thing can explain to me why a T-Shirt and program can cost a total of $75. Not that it’s not worth it, but still…

    1. Tl;dr the article; getting late.
      Any comment on why RP would be “anti-gay”?

      1. It’s that letter in parentheses after his name. Means he’s bigoted about all sorts of things. I know because all the right and proper and goodthinkful people have a different letter in their parentheses.

      2. Oh, not from anything he really is quoted as saying. Mr Fisher raises the point that putting his name alongside people who really want to use the law against people they don’t like can be used to question his “small-government” credibility.

        1. Well I certainly appreciate Reason tying Paul in the headline to homophobic propaganda, while offering more nuance deep within the piece….where no one will ever actually notice it.

          I think the important thing is that we be 100% sure Reason hates biblebeaters just as much as Salon, not that Rand Paul hasnt been elected Grand Wizard in the local klan just yet.

          1. Well I certainly appreciate Reason tying Paul in the headline to homophobic propaganda, while offering more nuance deep within the piece….where no one will ever actually notice it.

            I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this. Basically, Paul’s positions doesn’t just “lack the passion of the rest of the film’s cast”. It’ basically is at odds with the dominionist nonsense the movie is claimed to be pushing.

            1. They really just should have headed it Rand Paul Hates Fags then followed it with an editorial from the Hihntard.

              91%!!! Extremesoconzz!!!

              1. The Paulista Cult thinks shitting on individual rights and the Constitution is funny. Tribalism for Jesus.

                1. I celebrate your right to suck a dick ASAP

                  1. Typical trashmouth thug.

          2. Wait, is Reason supposed to NOT be a lefty rag?

            *ducks* *grabs popcorn*

            1. To a libertarian, left and right are obsolete.

              This has been perverted, mostly from those brought in by Ron Paul.

    2. I saw the set list from Boston, looked good. How was the show?

      1. Great! My only beef was that they keep trying to be funny with those interstitial films and such. I never held against them not having much of a sense of humor. But they keep trying. Apart from that (and with the exception of The Trailer Park Boys making a cameo in one of the films) it was an amazing performance.

        1. Yeah, they did that in Nashville with the films too. Nerds gotta nerd. I saw the Moving Pictures tour, can’t believe they can still play that whole album so well.

    3. It took me a few moments to realize that you were talking about the band, not Limbaugh….

      1. Lol, seconded. I’m waiting for a 4am flight. Goofy.

  2. The Dominionists seem kind of weird, but I admit I can’t always keep tract of the various kids of Portestants out there 🙂

    But to Mr. Fisher – you and your pals are real sore winners. You’re about to win government-recognized gay marriage all over the country courtesy of the Supreme Court. Yet you seem more anxious and bent out of shape when you’re winning than my side when we’re losing.

    “Look, all we activists want to do is have laws that, if two people are playing house and want government recognition as a married couple, the government will recognize them as married. And we want to impose crippling fines on businesses who won’t recognize the relationship. Including private wedding chapels. And that wedding chapel run by a *church* in New Jersey. But really, why do you people feel so *threatened* by what we’re doing? Your protests are offensive to us!”

    1. To Mr. Fisher and likeminded folks, it’s still the 1920s, and they’re H. L. Mencken trying to get a Scotch, looking over their shoulder for the Prohibition agent demanding a bribe in exchange for looking the other way, because the Methodists have rammed the 18th Amendment down the country’s throat and plunged the nation into the darkness of theocracy.

      Or they’re back in 17th century Massachusetts, an they’re in the stocks for going the craft beer festival on the Sabbath rather than attending church.

      And meanwhile, the *real* antagonists of freedom are trampling on the 1st and 10th Amendments, and telling businesses whom they can serve or hire.

      1. Christ, you are a mendacious, ignorant bigot.

        And have you EVER completed a thought in one fucking comment and not replied to yourself.

        1. I don’t agree with him in general on this issue, but he has a point here. This is some small time ‘film’ self-produced by a hacky former Christian radio host. It will be watched by some people who already hate gays, and I emphasize a few. But now watch the Salon’s of the world get up in arms over it. This is guaranteed because they can attach Rand Paul’s name to it.

          Simply put, the left isn’t going to be happy because gay marriage is legal. They will invent new grievances to pander to their base.

          The progs aren’t good winners. There is no winning for them because it’s all about frothing up the different subsections of voting blocks that vote for them with identity politics.

          And Fischer’s story is playing it up. He didn’t even get to what Rand Paul said until half way through a fairly lengthy article, and then never bothered to explain how it came to happen.

          1. Paul, the other GOP presidential hopeful appearing in the film, appears briefly in a segment about the potential for certain ministries to lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. While Paul has repeatedly made it clear that he is a supporter of “traditional marriage,” he clearly lacks the passion of the rest of the film’s cast, and has tried to downplay the issue as one that should not define the Republican Party:

            I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.

            I don’t see an issue.

            1. The headline is Rand Paul and…in an anti-Gay movie. Rand Paul isn’t discussed until way down into the article. The film itself is inconsequential. That is bad writing and kind of dubious ethically even if eventually the writer gets to the point and doesn’t come down hard on Paul.

              They will be up in arms over this regardless of how inconsequential, but now they get to attach Rand Paul’s name to it. And Fisher did the same thing by making it the lead. It’s misleading.

              This was written like a Salon article, only they won’t even give Paul the small and incomplete paragraph explaining what he said. I’m not angry about Fisher having a pro-gay agenda. But the larger point about where the gay rights movement is going – GKC has a fair point.

              1. Ding ding ding

                My similar observation = I think we’d be fooling ourselves if this weren’t an editorial call. Its too obvious

              2. Brochettaward
                The headline is Rand Paul and…in an anti-Gay movie.

                Why else would libertarians care? In the process, we learn how wacky the more extreme socons are, a minority of even socons.

              3. And the attitude is poisonous. The “It isn’t enough that we have civil rights, you have to pretend you love us!” That turn what could have been a relatively painless transition into a bitter battle. You think that Gay marriage being accepted is backlash-proof? You think that of you piss the public off enough, your rights can’t get taken away by the State? The you haven’t been paying attention.

                The “We know best, and will obviously always be in power” attitude of the Left in general is ridiculouse in the light of the history of State sponsered liquidation of the Intellectual class. And somehow, these totalitarian States seem to come down pretty hard on homosexuals, too.

                So, there are people out there who disagree with you, and even thunk of you as evil. Congratulations; it’s a signthat you exist amd are breathing.

                1. And the attitude is poisonous. The “It isn’t enough that we have civil rights, you have to pretend you love us!”

                  Where do I ship your trophy for the most hysteria?

          2. It’s not the 90s anymore. Reason isn’t going to get young writers who skew libertarian anymore, they’re all going to be leftists of one sort or another. Note that half of the staff is never writing about gun issues, school choice, or economics… why do you think that is?

            1. But…..but…..mah pickup……

            2. They have different writers focus on different areas, it seems. I am not privy to Reason’s staff meetings. They right about gun issues and school choice a lot, though I do wish there were more articles on economics and less culture war.

              My issue is less with Reason, and more with this one article and my general annoyance over the propaganda storm against Paul that is going to come from this movie.

            3. empujado
              Reason isn’t going to get young writers who skew libertarian anymore, they’re all going to be leftists of one sort or another.

              On social issues, by definition, since 1969. The notion of only liberals and conservatives has been proven obsolete for decades. 59% now accept “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” — even while 91% of THEM reject the “libertarian” label. (Cato/Zogby survey)

              It’s the socons that are the biggest threat to liberty, equal to the fiscal liberals, both seeking government power to force their views on people, against the Constitution.

              The video is actually helpful, by showing how these people lie about everything, from the words of Christ (Matthew 19), to the Constitution, even violating the clearly expressed Will of God on the purpose of sex. Sadly, the video won’t get the wide viewership needed to show how morally corrupt they are.

              Goldwater and Reagan were correct to fight them. Now they’ve infiltrated even the libertarian movement. Scary times for individual liberty.

              Like we said in the beginning, “Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet. Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom. It’s only libertarians who want governrnent out of your LIFE.”

              1. It’s the socons that are the biggest threat to liberty…

                Yeah, those damned socons and their college speech codes….Oh, what…

                But, those damned socons and their getting young men kicked out of college on rape charges without due process….Whoops…

                But, surely those damned socons and their demands that businesses that don’t serve people the socons like get run out of business….Let me start over

                Those damned socons and their furor over a scientist’s shirt?

                Those damned scons getting Brandon Eich fired?

                1. Socons used to do all of those things. They simply have become powerless in recent years. If they got back their political power, they’d turn into the old slavers again.

                  1. Socons used to do all of those things. They simply have become powerless in recent years. If they got back their political power, they’d turn into the old slavers again.

                    Perhaps, so what?

                    NAZIs perpetrated unspeakable atrocities 70 years ago and would again were they to retain power. Does that mean that we should obsess over the neo-Nazi threat of dozen or so people that identify as such? Or that we should cast aspersions on the entire german community from which they arose?

                    1. Perhaps, so what?

                      Yeah, fuck the constitution and individual liberty.
                      (It is wrong to lump all social conservatives together, since the majority of them have no commitment to the extreme ones)

                  2. If they got back their political power, they’d turn into the old slavers again.

                    Maybe they would. Who knows. As I said, I’m not a mind reader. But, I think its damned well ridiculous to worry about the threat posed by people who have been rendered powerless while people with actual power are actively working against you.

                2. See Dalasio’s fucking lie here

                  Bill Dalasio
                  It’s the socons that are the biggest threat to liberty…

                  Yeah, those damned socons and their college speech codes….Oh, what…

                  But, those damned socons and their getting young men kicked out of college on rape charges without due process….Whoops…

                  Here’s the actual statement the goober lied about.

                  “It’s the socons that are the biggest threat to liberty, equal to the fiscal liberals, both seeking government power to force their views on people, against the Constitution.

                  …Let me start over

                  Without the pathetic fucking lie this time?
                  Another socon with no moral compass and no conscience.
                  Proving my point again. (lol)

                  1. Are you drunk, or just retarded?

                    1. Bill Dalasio
                      Are you drunk, or just retarded

                      (lol) Your lie was documented, thug

            4. Works both ways. A few days ago, I heard an interview with one of the head honchas of Code Pink. From her speech patterns, it was obvious that she was quite young. She was asked why CP doesn’t seem to be out there protesting the endless series of mini-wars that Obama has dragged us into. She replied that young people nowadays care much more about Global Warming and similar “environmental” issues than messy little things like war.

              1. Proving, as if her membership in Code Pick didn’t, that she is a brainless little twit and living proof that the suffragetttes worked in vain.

              2. Bizarre, considering that Code Pink is antiwar.

            5. *volunteers to write about gun rights, school choice and economics for Reason.

              For serious though, more articles on things that matter, less on the freaking culture.

              1. For serious though, more articles on things that matter, less on the freaking culture.

                You must be new to the movement. Not all of us are so narrow-minded.
                Or might you object to cultural conservatism being called out?
                We’ve been balanced, fiscally and socially, since 1959.

        2. Deal with your psychological problems. Please. It’s getting creepy.

      2. Or they’re back in 17th century Massachusetts, an they’re in the stocks for going the craft beer festival on the Sabbath rather than attending church.

        And meanwhile, the *real* antagonists of freedom are trampling on the 1st and 10th Amendments, and telling businesses whom they can serve or hire.

        You’re fucking kidding me Eddie, right? Being thrown in the stocks for having a beer instead of going to church wouldn’t be a *real* infringement on my freedom?

        1. Sure, that’s *totally* a fair summary of what I said.

          /sarc

        2. I think his point is that that isn’t happening and shows no sign of ever happening in anywhere near the foreseeable future.

          The violations of our rights and liberties by the progressives, who tend to be the loudest in positing a threat from the Christian Right, is current and ongoing.

          I don’t think he’s wrong on this one.

          1. The violations of our rights and liberties by the progressives, who tend to be the loudest in positing a threat from the Christian Right, is current and ongoing.

            And vice versa!!! (as you do here) … both of them posing a severe threat to individual liberty.

            1. As a practical matter where are the socons doing anything to violate my rights and liberties? Maybe they want to. I don’t know. I’m not Marvin the Mindreader. But, even if they did, it doesn’t seem they have the power to do so.

              But, today, in 2015, all the threats to my rights and liberties are coming from the progressives.

              1. Correct. These days the threats to liberty are coming from progressives. It took a long time to get to this point and get the social conservatives out of power. Let’s also hope we can keep the social conservatives from collaborating with the progressives, like they did in 1930s Germany.

                1. Bullshit. progressives started sodomizing civil liberties as soon as they had any power. Look at Progressive saint Woodrow Wilson, and his inquisitor Mitchell Palmer. The Progressive impulse is one with fascism at its core.

                  1. What people don’t seem to understand is that what we call ‘social conservatism’ is, in reality, the current iteration of ‘religious progressivism’.

                    They moved as the rest of the left became overtly hostile to religion.

                    They want what the rest of the Left wants, they just want the glory to be ascribed to God. Puritanism, Nanny-statism, substance prohibition(for your own good/because it’s a sin), censorship, collectivism.

                  2. No more fascist than the Christian Taliban.

              2. Bill Dalasio
                As a practical matter where are the socons doing anything to violate my rights and liberties?

                Almost as wacky as you lying about what I said.here.
                https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5400327

                Perhaps you’ve been out of the country for a few decades?

                But, today, in 2015, all the threats to my rights and liberties are coming from the progressives.

                Umm, it’s not just YOUR rights, or your tribe’s.
                We have this thing called a Constitution, and a founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-Given rights. The more extreme socons, including Ron and Rand Paul, shit on all of that. Thanks for proving my point

                PS Also a government of delegated powers, versus the wacky concept of states having powers that were never delegated. A statist notion best shown, perhaps, when Orval Faubus activated his state militia to defy equal rights with armed force. Eisenhower sent in armed troops, ordered to use force if necessary. Who do you stand with, Faubus or Eisenhower?

                Ron and Rand Paul are a threat to liberty, as is their cult, for the same reason Faubus was. Any more questions?

                1. So, in Hihn-world, Rand Paul = Orval Faubus.

                  Again, are you drunk, or just retarded?

                  1. Bill Dalasio
                    So, in Hihn-world, Rand Paul = Orval Faubus.

                    So you’re also ignorant of US History? Central High School? Little Rock? 1957? States rights bullshit? Hello? Hello?

                    http://constitutioncenter.org/…../full-text

                    Again, are you drunk, or just retarded?

                    (lol) One more time, cyber-bully: do you stand with Faubus or Eisenhower?

    1. Fuck the Republicans. It’s all for show.

      These are the same assholes who just granted Obama more power earlier in the week. Not a single thing Obama wants done that requires legislation should get done, and these assholes caved.

      1. Agreed, but I like this show.

        Make him veto it.

        1. Senate Dems won’t let it through. They’re back to considering the filibuster sacred, you know.

    2. Article III Section 2 says no.

      The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

      I guarantee that would be a 9-0 overturn. The one part of the constitution where every judge is a literalist.

      1. Diminished? I thought Obamacare was a vast expansion of services and a panacea to all the ill of the world?

        1. I’d love the optics of some Justice suing to prevent themselves from being subject to Obamacare and then ruling in their own favor when it reached SCOTUS.

        2. SugarFree
          Diminished? I thought Obamacare was a vast expansion of services…

          It’s about compensation for their services, not the services themselves.

    3. House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare

      At first glance, seems as crazy as the “special exemption” that Congress never got.

  3. In Reason writer who quotes Salon in anything but a derogatory manner is dead to me.

    DEAD TO ME.

    and other than the occasional pan is unlikely to cause a cultural or political splash on either side of the spectrum

    No, it’s just going to be something nitwits like you and the writers at Salon use to bludgeon him with.

    The gay marriage issue is all but over whether anyone likes it or not. The Supreme Court will issue its ruling almost certainly allowing it nationwide. Rand Paul’s position on gay marriage has no relevancy beyond culture war BS.

    Salon’s article has one sentence on Paul, and they have nothing to peg him with. But their blaring giant headline is Rand Paul appears in evil homophobic movie. I wonder how many of Salon’s esteemed readers even read the entire article.

    1. Actually, I am continually surprised that Solon’s fans can read at all. They certainly don’t THINK.

      1. I read salon sometimes. they have some good satire. I think they’re trying to take over the onion’s spot in online media

    2. Ich auch.

  4. “the Super Bowl for our country is being fought and our team is not even on the field.”

    Oh, so the Browns then.

    1. You know a Super Bowl for the presidency would be highly amusing. Teams composed of D and R Senators and Congresscritters, no ringers. Quarterback of the winning team gets to be President. Of course the Libertarians and Greens don’t get to play until they can field a team.

  5. I don’t think I can top Salon

    A damning, although completely accurate, admission.

  6. Speaking of criminalizing innocent people, the film also features testimonials from Scott Lively, the conservative Christian activist who helped engineer the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014, which though struck down by courts, would have included the death penalty for “practicing” homosexuality.

    “Helped engineer” might be just a bit of an exaggeration (speaking of being a self-confessed cut-rate imitation of Salon…)

    In March 2009, Lively, along with evangelical activists Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge, arrived in Kampala to give a series of talks. “The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “‘the gay agenda ? that whole hidden and dark agenda’ ? and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.”

    The talks inspired the development of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, a private member’s bill in the Ugandan parliament. The bill, submitted in November 2009, called for the death penalty in some cases, and was harshly criticized in the international community.

    Lively expressed disappointment that “the legislation was so harsh.” “Lively says he recommended an approach rooted in rehabilitation, not punishment and says an anti-gay bill being considered by the Ugandan Parliament goes too far,” even though he himself is not opposed to criminalizing homosexuality

    1. In March 2010, Lively wrote:

      In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society — but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private. Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere. It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride” on the world.

      Being a shitkicker is not exactly the same as being a genocidal maniac.

      1. Hey man, are you suggesting the Left-wing lunatic fringe isn’t a reliable and objective source of information about the Right-wing lunatic fringe??

        1. Oh, they’re reliable enogh. In all my years of paying attention to politics, they haven’t gotten any story about the fringe right even close to the truth.

          1. About the same as the right-wing fringe … and they each have their own tribal truth.

      2. Being a shitkicker is not exactly the same as being a genocidal maniac.

        But both violators of individual liberties.
        This is a libertarian website, eh?

    2. Lively expressed disappointment that “the legislation was so harsh.” “Lively says he recommended an approach rooted in rehabilitation, not punishment and says an anti-gay bill being considered by the Ugandan Parliament goes too far,” even though he himself is not opposed to criminalizing homosexuality

      If you’re willing to criminalize anything then that means you’re willing to kill to enforce it.

      1. I don’t think forced “rehabilitation” is any better. If anything it’s more insidious. And again, resistance still leads to death.

      2. True, of course, although the line is still a bit of an exaggeration. Calling for lining up homosexuals against the wall for executions and calling for petty tyranny that could eventually lead to death-by-enforcement is different in tone and scope, if not in character. And by the sounds of it, calling the guy one of the “engineers” of the Ugandan law is a stretch. By that logic, the morons who called Friedman a fascism apologist vis-a-vis the Pinochet regime were justified in doing so.

      3. If you’re willing to criminalize anything then that means you’re willing to kill to enforce it.

        The death penalty for shoplifting? … and/or shooting them to death?

  7. Wow, this is exactly 100% as important as Confederate flags. “Slow news day” clearly isn’t an excuse. So… why?

    1. The Reason Editors really don’t want…somebody…to have to deal with serious opposition in the upcomin’.

      1. Speaking of which, why do they not run any Gary Johnson or LP stuff, whats with the Republicrat obsession

        1. Well I don’t rhink Johnson has announced yet. Needs to wait to make sure he doesn’t run out of money too quickly. Would be nice to see some lp stuff I agree.

        2. VicRattlehead
          Speaking of which, why do they not run any Gary Johnson or LP stuff, whats with the Republicrat obsession

          Not since Gary tore them a new asshole for claiming that Rand Paul (or was it Ron?) is libertarian.

    2. I heard the confederate flag shot a bunch of people.

  8. The #1 existential threat to Christianity is Christians. That and the off chance people might actually read the Bible.

      1. I have it on good authority that witches can turn people into newts.

        1. The horror!

          http://www.newrepublic.com/sit….._deeds.jpg

        2. …yeah but i got better

      2. But then again, I’ve never heard of a witch burning a Christian at the stake. They pretty much just cast spells making good Christian folk commit adultry against their better nature.

        1. No, the people who mass execute Christians don’t tend to be witches, and don’t use burning much.

        2. Oh, wow, no…. Why there’s vast array of witch-related maladies. Everything from the explosion in autism , climate change, income inequality…. You should read Salon more often. They are like ‘witchery weekly’ and don’t even know it. They think they’re complaining about this stuff? And 99% of the time they caused it in the first place
          Joan Walsh is like the arch-witch. Just look at some of them! I’d have thought this was obvious.

          1. Boy, that is a hand in the cookie jar face:)

  9. It sure would have been interesting if the article talked about how Paul ended up in the movie if he didn’t hear about it till he was complete. Where was that interview from?

    1. That was too much work to do on a Friday.

    2. They couldn’t use him without his permission. We don’t know if he understood what the movie is about … but we do know he panders to the extreme Christian right, and the video was made by a freaky organization. At least he didn’t call for tent revivals this tirme!

  10. Getting ready for Hillary, I see.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.