The Tea Party have a strange fondness for oxymorons.  Here are some oldies but goodies:

1. “Obama supports gay marriage because he’s tryin’ to pass sharia law!”
2. “Obama’s a warmonger who’s guttin’ the military!”
3. “Obama’s a socialist who supports crony capitalism!”
4. “Obama’s a Muslim and a disciple of Reverend Wright!”
5. “Obama’s a fascist and a communist!”
5. “Obama is a Muslim puppet of the atheist, Satanic Illuminati, which is a conspiracy in which the world’s competing corporations get together and share power, because they’re only pretending to be competing, because they’re actually secretly socialists!”
6. “Obama is just anything bad you can think of, even if some of those things are exact opposites!”

And so on. But now, emerging from the Phil Robertson debate, there is a new one: “You have to be tolerant of intolerance.”  This idea that Sarah Palin and others are pushing (that intolerance itself should be tolerated, rendering the word “tolerance” meaningless) should be discredited.

Let’s get something straight here, hillbillies: HUMAN RIGHTS TRUMP RELIGION.  You can no longer say that your religion commands you to persecute innocent people.  If your religion says to do that, then that’s your problem.

Yes, it is protected free speech, meaning that, as long as you’re not threatening violence, you cannot be arrested for saying it.  But the First Amendment does not make something socially acceptable nor does it protect your job.

I do agree that the idea of suspending Phil Robertson (any relation to Pat?) is a bit over the top, especially since he didn’t even say these things (which, among the disparaging remarks he slung at various groups, included the outrageous suggestion the black people were quite content during Jim Crow) on the actual show that he was suspended from.  He said it in a print interview, which is a different forum from a basic cable station that most Americans subscribe to as part of generic TV package. And while it may not even matter that much what the star of a show about duck hunters even thinks, the substance of what he said has gotten enough press that it merits a rebuke.

Being gay is not a choice.  This is clear from evidence and from common sense.  Did you choose to be straight?  As a straight man, would you be comfortable marrying another man?

It is immoral to force people to do things sexually that they don’t want to do.  Encouraging gay people to attend summer camps where they learn to be straight is considered, by all major medical organizations, psychological abuse.  And having closeted gay men marry women is just dumb for obvious reasons.

And as far as the slippery slope of gay marriage leading to polygamy, I’ll say this: I agree and think it’s awesome.  I REALLY DON’T CARE IF FIVE PEOPLE WANT TO MARRY FIVE OTHER PEOPLE, OR WHATEVER.  Knock yourself out.  It’s simply a legal agreement to share finances.  Any religious significance you attach to it is your personal belief.

As for bestiality, this is, maybe, one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.  First of all, there is no bestiality lobby that I am aware of.  This is a not an issue.  Like voter fraud and secondary crime caused by marijuana, concerns of escalating bestiality are  non-problems pushed by propagandists.

Secondly, our constitution would have to be radically rewritten to legalize marrying your pets.  Pets are not citizens, they are property.  It would be like trying to marry your TV, or a piece of exercise equipment.  And, under laws against animal cruelty, it wouldn’t be legal to rape your pets either.  This is a ridiculous conversation even to have.

So enough with the bestiality.  And as far as polygamy goes, I don’t carry if you marry more than one women. If your idea of fun is five women telling you to take the garbage out while you’re trying to watch the NBA Finals, then have at it.