Visitors winning 13-0 in the bottom of the 9th

This editorial from Townhall is more than a month old, but I just found it today. It doesn’t need a lot of commentary; its logic is silly enough to be readily dismissed by anyone undecided on this issue. But consider a few lowlights:

But why are radical homosexual activists losing the fight?

Simply put – it’s a Godless proposition they are putting forth and the vast majority of Americans – even some liberals are not ready to bankroll a completely bankrupt values agenda.

Remember, God-fearing is the only way to vote, no matter what the Constitution says. But that’s not why I begin with this. This is:

Presently the reason homosexual activists are losing on the battle to redefine marriage is simple – it’s just plain wrong.

I know, it’s not a popular position to take. Neither is telling the uncle who is always drunk how alcohol might kill him someday. But if you really loved your uncle – wouldn’t you at least try? And you certainly let him get behind the wheel.

I’m baffled. The vast majority of Americans won’t accept a “Godless” proposition, but stating that the Homosexual Agenda&#153 is “just plain wrong” isn’t popular enough for that vast majority to say. Assuming there really is a “vast majority”, why should I listen to a bunch of meddlers who have a conviction (not rooted in our Constitution, mind you) but not the courage to stand by it publicly? Leadership through weakness is not family values at its finest.

On a minor note, I didn’t edit the last sentence of the excerpt that states “And you certainly let him get behind the wheel.” That is from the original, posted on July 31, 2006. More than a month later, that and the many other grammatical disasters remain. I suggest less focus on the love interests of others and more attention to learning English.

Most amusing, though, is this:

People all over the globe understand intuitively that two daddies will never be able to provide the needed guidance for a young girl that only a mommy and a daddy can bring. People understand easily – without argument – how a boy growing up with two mommies will never have the definition of what real manliness is by it being lived out in front of him. It just defies common sense to attempt to argue otherwise.

I can’t imagine a good, God-fearing situation in which a boy could be raised by two mommies. Aside from the successful example I’ve witnessed in my family, no other boy has ever been raised by multiple women. Say, a mother and grandmother. But that’s not fair, I know, since they’re not both acting as mommies in a loving, committed relationship. And yet, I can’t help myself from thinking. If the author’s problem is that the boy will have no successful role model in the house, should we do more than simply save traditional marriage? Perhaps a quick addition to family law that requires anyone with kids to provide a positive same-gender role model in the home for children.

Ridiculous? Maybe. But maybe opposition to recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage as neutral public-policy is just disguised bigotry, with a copious disrepect for individual rights to flavor the mix.