Excluding the Exclusionists
This whole piece is poop, but by assaulting the money shot I think I can easily point out the stupidity:
“It won’t. But it will surely send a message to those who believe in marriage, that they will be viciously attacked for expressing, or merely believing, that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Ms. Kolbert provides just the latest example of how the forces of “tolerance” and “diversity” quickly abandon their principles of “live and let live” when somebody disagrees with them.”
Not only does Mr Lorence admit that his side (apparently Christianity) isn’t one for “tolerance” or “diversity”, but the bulk of his argument is “Hey, you guys said you would accept everybody!” which seems like an odd turn about for mudslinging. This kind of “Aw, c’mon guys!” argument sounds doubly hollow from the whistling throat of a member of the church.
I’m sure in the name of Judge Not\the LORD therefore be judge\etc, Mr. Lorence’s church has found a passionately gay man to say some words before the next few Sunday sermons. Actually, that’s not the best example despite it being a nice bit of turnabout, more appropriate might be inviting a militant atheist to speak. The logic of why this wouldn’t please everyone is obvious to any adult.
There are apparently people trying to soften the reasoning for Warren not being wanted at the inauguration, giving idiots like Lorence room to hide, so let’s be clear: He’s unwanted because Obama ran, and won, on a progressive platform, one of the major tenants of which Warren vehemently opposes. While articles like Lorence’s may serve to whip up the angrys who still have time to be upset about gay marriage and not just that they can no longer pay their mortgage, its infantile whininess simply underscores the dumb beast that is that portion of the right that’s still obsessed with other people’s dinkies and hoohahs.