Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, basically a consortium of right-wing busybodies, recently wrote the following, "Gay couples increasingly are not taking advantage of civil union options, even though such unions grant them virtually all the rights and privileges of marriage, and are marriages in everything but name. The most likely explanation is that homosexuals, who have a notoriously adventurous and promiscuous lifestyle, realize that entering into a civil union, just like entering into a marriage, means giving up rights more than gaining rights." (link)

Hrm. The fact that some states are granting civil unions is a positive step towards true liberty, but Fischer seems to forget that just because one CAN get married doesn't mean one SHOULD. That's not even a gay/lesbian concern; it's universal. Like a ton of people in the Western world, I didn't marry the first person I had a relationship with. Or even the second. Or the third. What's more, I'm straight as they come.

As for a "notoriously adventurous and promiscuous lifestyle," methinks Fischer should get out more. It stands to reason that gays and lesbians living somewhere like South Beach in Miami are indeed somewhat likely to be promiscuous, but wouldn't that also be true of straight folks out there? Conversely, are gays and lesbians who live in small towns in Vermont sleeping with everything that moves? For the most part, I'd say no more or less than their straight counterparts.

We already know a state-directed command economy doesn't work, why assume a state-directed command society would? The Religious Right has a lot more in common with Marxist activists than they dare comprehend: both may be well-intentioned, but both propose solutions that are inherently anti-freedom. Consequently, free people have a moral obligation to oppose both. How's that for a testimony of faith?