Eeek...look out, it's a gay cheeseburger!Yes, it must be true, based on this Action Alert from the Family Research Council:
Action Alert: McDonald's is funding homosexual activism - and I'm NOT lovin' it!
That's right, it's right there on the opening page of the FRC website: Apparently, serving McFlurries and Big Macs to the public is no longer enough to satisfy the hunger of McDonald's to make a cultural impact on the United States. Sadly, McDonald's is now financing attacks on marriage and the family as a new Corporate Partner of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
Well, I would only say to the FRC what the hamburger would say: "BITE ME!"
The banner headline on the FRC site today is, of course: CA Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage. How dare the California Supreme Court majority (mostly Republicans, by the way) attack the holy sanctity of marriage, which is and can only be between one man and one woman? How dare they say that denying marriage to any couple is a violation of the California Constitution? They must all be gay (or maybe Communists, or something)!
The California Supreme Court ruling is a landmark decision that will help turn the legal tide in favor of constitutional rights for all Americans. To those people who find same sex marriage an attack on marriage, I can only say that they need to find something important to focus on, like world poverty, or war, or hunger, or something that is actually harming people. I don't have a problem with a churches declaring that only heterosexual couple can be married in the church - that's up to the members of the congregation. But when it comes to public services, provided by local or state government, the prohibition of same sex couples marriage is a violation of the constitution. Period.
Right on, brother. I just don't understand the extremists who want to codify discrimination in any form.
ReplyDeleteAs for attacks on the sanctity of marriage... rather than fighting against gay marriage, these folks should be lobbying for severe penalties (like a year in prison) for infidelity instead, or perhaps making divorce illegal. A constitutional amendment outlawing divorce makes WAY more sense to me than a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting gay people from getting married.
Which is to say, of course, that neither makes any sense at all.