o KICKASS, i'm an EXPORT! Who wants a share of me?! WHO WANTS--

ooh, this is truly special:

Discussing his opposition to the Uniting American Families Act — “which would allow gay Americans the same right straight Americans have to sponsor a foreign partner for citizenship” — Family Research Council Vice President Peter Sprigg recently offered rhetorical support for exporting gay men and women from America. “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society,” said Sprigg.

Hey, can we choose where we get exported to? I always wanted to go to Rome. Maybe they could work out an exchange with some nice Italian marble, and--

Oh. Right. Sorry, dude. You were saying?



Oh. I see.

*

So, I take it the "exporting" probably won't be in the first-class section. Damn. I was really looking forward to the complimentary champagne.


More on Sprigg:

Of all the speakers that day, Sprigg worried me the most. He is a well-spoken man, articulate (at least when he's following a script), and his talk was sprinkled with references to other people's work -- I cannot bring myself to call it "research," but that is what he calls it. It sounds like he's quoting scientific research and stuff, but when you go look it up you discover that hardly any of it comes from respectable journals or authorities.

The theme of his talk that day was that he was going to dispel some "myths" about homosexuality. And it was the weirdest thing, every "myth" had a kind of rationale that followed it, which justified discrimination against gays...

But the thing that struck you, as he went on and on, was -- what motivates this guy? He spends his whole life thinking of ways to make gay people sound bad. I mean, really, he goes to work at the Family Research Council, and that's what he does. They must have meetings, where they take any tidbit of information and discuss how to spin it so that gay people look bad. They figure out how to twist arguments so their lobbyists can go into the halls of the Capitol Building and persuade our leaders to pass laws that make life harder for gay people. And why? Why not fight real bad guys, robbers and rapists and murderers and terrorists? Why gay people, of all things?...

also:

While Sprigg gave the usual compassionate-sounding phrases of the anti-gay movement—with statements like, "We desire the best for homosexuals, and desiring the best for someone and acting to bring that about is the essence of love…"— he "affirmed" the state of Florida for having the strongest prohibition against adoption by gay couples. He made the claim that "most children raised by homosexuals are the result of previous heterosexual relationships," and proceeded to pontificate about how this "undermines the notion that homosexuality is something fixed from birth and cannot change—there are very few homosexuals who have never had a heterosexual relationship."

Sprigg’s shining moment, I think, was when he chastised the "militant gay rights activists" for characterizing sexual orientation as tantamount to race. He stated that "homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality," and thus is not a civil rights issue like race.

We heard a lot about those "ex-gays" and then were addressed by "an ex-gay" in person: Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International. Chambers worried about "the militant activist groups out to co-opt family life, our rights, and change America into an America that is only good for them." We were told that these “militant gay activists” were "trying to co-opt our very way of life."

[Jaunty musclemen from the 'Family Guy'] In fact, the phrase "militant gay activist" was bandied around so much, I felt silly for having left my weaponry at home … I was also ashamed not to fit Chambers' image of what a gay man is: a "jaunty mustached muscleman," apparently, in contrast to the "nice young people, old people, and attractive women" progressives are said to use in our commercials and media campaigns. Chambers also claimed that "the gay activist movement is wealthy. None of us in the pro-family movement are making money. I am in poverty compared to what the executives of the pro-gay movement are making."

Chambers concluded by saying, "We have to stand up against an evil agenda."

This all sounds...oddly familiar. The rhetoric, the techniques...I mean, like, something recent familiar. What could it be? -think think think- Huh. Well, it'll come to me.

Meanwhile, this is the bill in question, the one people like Sprigg are fighting so hard. The Uniting American Families Act.



I leave you with a rather heartwarming example of how at least one person dealt with this particular assclown.

More of that, please. And, send your Congresscritters a note (yeah, it's HRC, but they're right about this one, and the form is there).