It's really weird that the gay marriage debate is being undertaken by temper tantrums, hissy fits, and cries of victimization. Oh wait, it's actually not weird at all. That's how Democrats "argue" social issues.
Some say politics is war fought by other means. But I don't remember Plan B on D-Day being "OK boys if the fight gets too thick, curl up in the fetal position and cry really loud that the Germans are being mean to you."
But last week, a pro-marriage legislators horrified the entire legislature, earning condemnations from both parties simply by bringing a dude who exited the gay lifestyle onto the House floor to discuss why gay marriage isn't such a good idea.
Minnesota Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen introduced a friend on the House floor by saying, "He was active in the gay lifestyle for about 10 years, and then he left it, got married and he now has three children."
Then what happened, according to news reports?
Soon after he made the comment, the House shut down the sound from the floor session, which was near its conclusion. According to legislators who were on the floor, some members were visibly outraged.Now, to be fair, it's hard to figure out what part was most offensive to the Democrats as many feel equally offended by active homosexuals who became straight as three babies being born. But let's assume it was the now-straight dude.
“It was a completely inappropriate statement to make on the House floor,” House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said later. “I also think the content of his statement at that point in time in this legislative session was inappropriate in itself.”
He said he personally found the statement offensive.
But then comes the kicker. What always happens when Democrats pretend to be offended. Then Republicans also have to pretend to be even more offended. Because nothing says, "I care" like claiming to be offended.
Republican House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt said: “Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen’s comments today on the floor were inappropriate and it was not the proper use of a point of personal privilege.”
Inappropriate how? I wonder if they would all say it was inappropriate to bring a currently active homosexual in to discuss gay marriage. I'm betting they wouldn't. I'm betting they'd all be falling over themselves to thank him for his moving testimony.
Remember, when Republicans wanted to hold a hearing about religious liberty last year, the Democrats demanded that a law student from Fordham be heard to talk about something completely different - namely her wanting to get it on with men any darn time she pleases without having to pay for birth control.
But when a Republican brings in someone who exited the gay lifestyle to actually talk about gay marriage, that's completely off-topic and the whole freaking legislature must be shut down. Give me a break.
Let's face it, so much of the gay marriage argument stems from the argument that these people have no choice in what they are or what they do. So a man coming in to say they do have a choice is actually kind of a big deal. But remember when Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, who is an active lesbian, suggested in an interview that homosexuality is a choice they came after her in a big way. They called her misinformed. They called her ignorant.
Silence is the pro-gay marriage folks' best weapon. If you're not counting spineless Republicans.