Well, label me all the above because I’m going to speak up and say the gay agenda-pushers are going way too far when they start putting lesbians and blacks in kid’s cartoons

Funny, but that sounds a lot like some folks I knew in the South even though Muir says gay rights is completely different from the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Change one word and it sounds pretty silly not to compare to the two.

Strangely enough, kids run into families with two mommies so showing that they exist wouldn’t normally be controversial.

I grew up with a single mother and while I’m the first to admit that isn’t ideal (think about trying to do it all alone amazes me), but it certainly is normal.

What people seem to miss in ranting about the ‘gay agenda’ is that one doesn’t have to approve of the gay relationships, but teaching kids to understand that there are differences in families and you’ll run into those differences is a good thing generally.

There are families in which the wife is subservient to the husband due to religious beliefs. I believe that is wrong and I teach my girls that, but I don’t expect them to be sheltered from such beliefs and I certainly expect them to be tolerant of such relationships. Would I be offended by a cartoon that showed such a family? No. I’d point out to my girls why we don’t believe in women being subservient and let them think about it. It’s called broadening their horizons.

And as I like to point ad naseum to people like Muir, the public opinion polling is pretty murky on same sex relationships. A majority of people oppose same sex marriages, but a majority also supports domestic partnerships.

In more reactionary fun, Muir takes to task a woman who is in a same-sex relationship comparing the qualifications for marriage to that of a drivers license:

This comment is simply another tired ploy by the gay community to liken its cause to the civil rights movement, which is insulting at best and absurd at worst. And let me also say her allegation that individuals have been denied equal rights concerning marriage is unequivocally wrong. […]

(I)t seems that proponents of gay marriage really don’t want equal rights — they already have equal rights just like the rest of us — they want special rights. This argument would be comparable to a 16-year-old screaming discrimination because he or she can’t vote or a 12-year-old claiming their equal rights have been denied because they can’t obtain a driver’s license.

Ummm..no, actually the point of the drivers license is that it is age tested because age is a factor in how well one can operate a motor vehicle.

Now, if one views marriage as only for procreation, then there is an argument against gays and lesbians, but also anyone infertile. Otherwise, whether someone is of the same sex as their partner should have no impact on the state’s interest in extending contractual benefits between two adults. Muir seems to stop the analysis at the point of saying “It’s the law”.

When we discriminate, I’d like to think we do it for cause–something about the identified trait makes it important to exclude someone–such as age and driving. In terms of same sex partnerships or marriage, the question should be is there a compelling state interest to denying such relationships. In this case, the argument appears to be that it makes a majority of people feel icky.

There are others who make the argument that gay marriages destroy straight ones, but there’s little evidence to support such an argument.

I don’t know if Muir is a redneck and I don’t care. I do care that he can barely string an argument together other than to say, the world is eroding because of two bunnies on a children’s cartoon make him feel uncomfortable.

Via Capitol Fax