Gee, I wonder what settlement the gaystapo will impose...

Ross Douthat on the gay marriage tsunami and the gaystapo:

[T]he press coverage [of the Religious Freedom bill], which was mendacious and hysterical — evinc[ed] no familiarity with the legal issues, and endlessly parrot[ed] the line that the bill would institute “Jim Crow” for gays. (Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out.) Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke. 

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore. 

Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform. 

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution. 

But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.

Douthat is much more complacent about the "settlement the victors will impose" than I am. I am a more defiant sort, and I sure as hell won't collaborate with the gaystapo. This is a very serious matter-- the rise of gay fascism is the most serious cultural and legal challenge our nation has faced since we defeated segregation, and this is no time to collaborate with manifest evil. Douthat already does-- you don't work at the New York Times without bending over. Douthat has to insert gaystapo-approved tropes to get published in the New York Times. Again:

"Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.)"  So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution. 

Bullshit. Obviously there have been situations in which Christians (and everyone else) have been cruel to gays. Everyone has been cruel to everyone, at one time or another. Nothing Christians have done comes anywhere near the cruelty Muslims still show to gays, yet the Gaystapo and its public relations firm is silent as a Charlie Chaplin film about Muslim executions of gays. It's being without cake, rather than without a head, that seems to matter most to professional gay victims. Christians are subjected to gross persecution by gays for not baking a wedding cake. Muslims who execute gays are-- well we have to respect their faith, now, don't we?

Christianity demands that we treat all sinners (that is, each of us) with love and respect, and treating sinners with love and respect of course precludes enabling their sin. To love and respect an alcoholic or a drug addict is to discourage, not abet, his addiction. To love and respect a homosexual is to discourage, not abet, his sin.  

If we Christians had been more emphatic about the sinful nature of male homosexual behavior over the past half-century, instead of abetting it as "sexual freedom", perhaps we could have spared more of our gay brothers and sisters the horror of AIDS and the squalor and sadness of lives spent in promiscuity and gross sin. And we would have helped save souls.  

And, speaking of persecutions, gays have of course persecuted others as well, on a massive scale that dwarfs anything ever done to them. Don't forget that the SA-- the Nazi Brownshirts/Storm Troopers-- was a homosexual organization, led by a bevy of dominant homosexuals like Ernst Rohm. 

Fascism has long had a particularly strong appeal to homosexuals, as Johann Hari points out in the Huffington Post. 

We Americans are going to get a much more clear understanding-- a more first-hand understanding-- of homosexual fascism in the next few years.