She’s back!

They Violated My Rights! by Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg

Maggie Gallagher says:

We are already seeing the engine of state power being used to exclude traditional religious believers, especially from posts of cultural power [...]]]> Life’s been busy, so I’m again allowing Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg to publish another guest column. (And I believe he owes a H/T to JoeMyGod.)

They Violated My Rights!
by Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg

Maggie Gallagher says:

We are already seeing the engine of state power being used to exclude traditional religious believers, especially from posts of cultural power – in the U.S. for example, graduate schools are now kicking out counseling students who say they cannot help gay couples maintain their relationships.

As usual, she’s right.  I imagine she’s talking about aspiring mental-health counselor Jennifer Keeton, who is in trouble with Augusta State University’s Counselor Education program.  She believes:

• Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a state of being.
• Same-sex attraction is “identify confusion.”
• Homosexuals should seek reparative therapy.

While Jennifer says these are her religious beliefs, the school claims to have “scientific” evidence that they do “harm” to patients.  They threatened to drop her from the program if she didn’t take “sensitivity training.”  A federal judge has backed them up.

What’s wrong with these people? The First Amendment allows students to write down anything they want on a test and get a perfect grade as long as it reflects their religion! But we’ve strayed far from the path of Constitutional righteousness, my friends, very far indeed.

I speak from experience.  I have flunked out of many schools.  Look at these violations of my religious freedom.

• I flunked out of a Geology program for saying the Earth is 6000 years old.  My proof?  My religion says so.  They violated my rights!

• I flunked out of an Atmospheric Physics program for saying global warming is a myth. And I didn’t get the science wrong because I didn’t use science to prove it:  I based it purely on my religion.  They violated my rights!

• I flunked out of a Marriage Counseling program when I told a married man with a wandering eye that he should pluck it out.  In fact I had him pinned down with forceps in my hand when they pulled me and off and expelled me.  But I was only following my religion.  They violated my rights!

• I flunked out of a Zookeeping program when I saw a bunch of kids making fun of an old man’s bald head.  I was just letting two she-bears out of their cage to maul the children when they kicked me out.  But I had religious precedent.  They violated my rights!

When a academic institution insists on “science” and “evidence” they are violating religious freedom.  And when a federal judge allows them to do so, he’s persecuting believers.

Good lord, what do these people think schools are for, anyway?

A Modest Proposal by Peter Barber Gallagher Sprigg

Children have a right to a mother and a father.

That’s uncontroversial, right?  Any [...]]]> I’ve been awfully busy the last week or two, so I’ve asked Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg to pen a guest column.  I haven’t got time to review it, so I’m just posting it as written.  Enjoy!

A Modest Proposal
by Peter Barber Gallagher Sprigg

Children have a right to a mother and a father.

That’s uncontroversial, right?  Any opposite-sex couple, no matter how callous, abusive, or drunken, will make better parents than any same-sex couple.  Protectors of traditional marriage have made this point so often that it must feel truthy by now.

The problem is this:  they don’t go far enough.  If every child has this right, and if parenting is about the needs of the child, not the wishes of the adult, then let’s take the next logical step.  And so, full of courage, I modestly propose the following law:

The federal government will strip widows of their children.

That’s right.    Take them away and give them to women who had enough sense to keep their husbands.  Does this need explanation?  Is it not obvious?  Truthfully, how many of you are smacking your head right now, saying, “D’Oh!  Of course!”  But for those of you who have no respect for the traditional family, let me anticipate your objections.

Why only widows?  Why not divorcees? That’s easy.  A child of divorced parents still has a mother and father.  Even in unbroken homes, the mother and father are often in different rooms — it’s the same for divorced parents, except the rooms are really far apart.  That’s why we focus on making “gay” marriage illegal even as we ourselves are remarrying and remarrying and remarrying.

Why only widows?  Why not widowers? This is a really stupid question, one that only a liberal could ask.  We spit on you, stupid liberals!  But we’ll answer your question.  As our anti-homo colleagues have pointed out, mothers and fathers are different:  two fathers could never raise a child because children need a mother’s nurturing instinct, the kind you see in a mama grizzly or a good retriever bitch.  Obviously, then, a single dad — good lord! — will quickly abandon his kids, dumping them by the side of the road along with the family cat and any dog not used for hunting.   Once the children are safely deposited on a random street corner, we can be sure someone will see to their well-being.  A single mother, though, will cling to her children (that’s how boys become homosexuals).  So we must take them away.

What if the widow promises to remarry? That’s a great question.  It nails the real purpose of the law: Getting those widows to find their kids a dad.  What could better accomplish that than threatening to take their rugrats away?  So we’ll give mom some time to hitch herself back up.  Not too long, though.  The longer a child stays with an unmarried mother, the more likely he is to accept the unnatural as natural.  And become homosexual.

How much time is the right amount of time? A year is too long, obviously.  A week seems hasty.  Let’s say eight weeks.  If that’s long enough for a newborn puppy to be ready for adoption, it’s plenty for kids, too.

What if the government can’t find an opposite-sex couple to take care of the kids? We put them in orphanages.  Anything is better than letting them think their single-parent family is normal.  We ought to make the orphanages as unpleasant as possible, all the better to make the kids long for a mother and father.  We don’t want them to be homosexuals, so we’ll segregate them by gender.  The boys can reinforce each other’s masculinity by competing in sports, and wrestling, and playing snap-towel in the showers.  The girls can sew.

Right now you’re thinking the plan is perfect, but actually it’s not.  This may surprise you, but I’m a feminist (the real kind, not one of those fakes who want unequal genders treated equally).  I know it’s hard for a woman to raise her children and have a job and find a husband.  Who would want such a creature?

We need to make men desperate enough to take her.

This is where the plan turns genius.  It’s part 2 of the law:

The federal government will dissolve childless marriages.

Marriage is about procreation.  That’s it.  There’s no reason to let a marriage stand if it’s not churning out babies.  That goes for the elderly, too.  By dissolving those worthless marriages, we’ll free up men, depriving them of sex, ready to be caught in our widows’ webs.  Hopefully by week 5, so there’s time to plan a proper wedding.  We want this to be a traditional family, after all.

Not only is this plan morally sound, it’s fiscally conservative, too.  By shmushing families together, we’ll eliminate the need for programs like Welfare and Aid to Families with Slacker Children — oops, sorry, let’s be politically correct: dependent children.  This will cut federal spending and open the door to lower taxes and a smaller, less intrusive government.   God, I’m good.  I’m Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg, and I’m here to make the world better.

Please share if you like it.  Note that the Closed Captioning button is active if you want subtitles.

CollegeHumor ]]> Only marginally gay, but I love it.

Don’t flip-flop on DOMA.