No doubt, it’s sure to get a chuckle from Mormons and Catholics … God’s on the line. Who’s He calling? Rome? Salt Lake City? Hilarity ensues.
Best.Joke.Ever. Just ask Matt Holland.
But I exaggerate.
Because it wasn’t until 2009 that Robby began deadpanning the funniest punchline of all time:
Public Discourse: What is the struggle over the legal recognition of same-sex unions a struggle about?
Robert P. George: Its about sex.
Yes, Professor George, a former presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a former member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, and a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is on record opining that the struggle for marriage equality is all about S-E-X.
In his own words:
Its about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, Im sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex marriage activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label marriage or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wifesomething that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionallyand in my view correctlyregarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.
I know we’ve covered this ground over and over again in these parts, but Dr. George’s various suggestions in the above graf are so ridiculous that I think they warrant opening the floor for a fresh round of rebuttals and mockery.