Nathan Tabor may have failed as a NC Senate candidate, but he’s got all the makings of a national homophobe champion:

It’s become the common refrain in numerous news reports around the country—Republicans are simply using the Marriage Amendment as an election-year ploy to get voters to back GOP candidates in the fall.

After all, state initiatives to ban same-sex marriage had people flocking to the polls in a previous election cycle.

But, in the interests of fairness, isn’t it reasonable to question the political posturing from the “other side of the aisle” in the marriage debate? After all, if Republicans could, theoretically, use the marriage issue to shore up their base, couldn’t Democrats, too?

Shorter Nathan: "Even though my argument doesn’t make much sense and can’t be substantiated with things like facts, why can’t I still make it?"

For decades now, homosexual activists have been part of the core of the Democratic Party. When Democrats talk about diversity, they are not simply speaking about skin color.

Yes, Nathan.  Glad you finally agree that Democrats, like more than half the country, aren’t just a bunch of white straight males.

National Democratic leaders, in fact, routinely invoke “gay pride” in their attempt to pander to people who want government validation for their lifestyle—a lifestyle that, in the end, can lead to a myriad of tragic consequences: STDs, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts.

Why, if it weren’t for the gays, there wouldn’t even be any STDs, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide in this country at all!

Legalizing same-sex marriage will not end the vicious cycle of desperation and depression which, as a number of ex-homosexuals readily attest, often accompany the ironically-termed “gay life.”

Wow, talk about strawmen.  Guess what Nathan?  Thousands of people who are depressed are heterosexual.  So (according to your logic) it must be because they engaged in heterosexual marriage.

Rather than building healthy families, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage will only further erode the stability of our communities.

Why, just last week, a neighbor of Nathan’s accidentally turned his TV to HBO’s "The L Word", and was so traumatized that he turned into a depressing, disease-ridden alcoholic.

As President George W. Bush stated in his weekly radio address, “Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”

I’m sorry, but this argument really makes my head explode.  What exactly is being "protected"?  How exactly is heterosexual marriage (or the raising of children by heterosexuals) threatened by the fact that two guys who live two streets away might want to solidfy their love for each other in a ceremonial bond?

And that’s the critical point here—serving the interests of all.

If by "serving the interests of all", you mean "serving the interests of some".

For years, the Democratic Party has been sacrificing the interests of ordinary Americans in the name of protecting special interest groups. These groups have included not only activists with a radical homosexual agenda, but also so-called “women’s rights” activists who have attempted to legitimize the killing of the most defenseless members of society—unborn children.

Women and gay people, of course, are not "ordinary Americans".  But straight white men and unborn children are.

Democratic Party kingpins have also pandered to people who have attempted to increase the racial divide, sanctioning discrimination when it served their political interests. In today’s world, highly-qualified people can be rejected for jobs simply because of their skin color, under the guise of “affirmative action.”

And that’s why Nathan is opposed to gays getting married — because he deplores discrimination.  Excuse me while my head explodes.

In a statement indicative of Democratic double-speak, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, “A vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.” For the government to say that marriage should be safeguarded as a union of a man and a woman is not bigotry. It’s common sense. It’s also an attempt to protect order in an increasingly disordered world.

Yes, it’s Ted Kennedy engaging in "doublespeak".  Ha!

The mayor of San Francisco—the hub of the homosexual rights movement—has had the audacity to say that the defense of marriage is a Republican attempt to placate evangelical Christians. As if a mayor who issues marriage licenses to homosexual couples in a city considered to be the center of “gay power” is not pandering to his “core constituency.”

Or could it be — just perhaps — the San Fran mayor issues marriages licenses tot gay couples because he sincerely believes it to be just?

The effort to protect marriage is not a political move. The traditional family is the strength of America. The family has given us Presidents and prelates, statesmen and scientists, diplomats and doctors.

Many of whom are gay.  In fact, I’m reasonably sure that every gay person is the product of a family.  I’m pretty sure they’re not hatched.

It is in the family that we first learn how to think…how to speak…and how to behave.

But if gays get married, we’ll all just go around grunting, and sticking our willies in the wrong places.

Granted, there are so many tragic cases of families in turmoil today, but it is not the institution of marriage that is to blame.

And who’s blaming the institution of marriage for anything?  Certainly not gay rights advocates.  That’s why they want to participate in it, moron!

Traditional marriage is, in fact, America’s best hope for keeping our society secure, our neighborhoods at peace, and our children safe from harm. Without marriage, we might as well put away the American flag and replace it with the white flag of surrender.

And that would be humilating — losing to a bunch of gays.

BONUS WINGNUT:

Pat Boone (describing a press conference he attended, at which a black — Pat wanted you to know he’s black — minister was speaking out against gay marriage):

[A]n angry reporter intruded, "All you people are religious – you’re quoting the Bible and God. What about those of us who don’t believe any of that – is there any other argument against same-sex marriage?"

He thought he would stump the preacher, but he was wrong.

""Why, sure, son," responded the minister. "Look in any dictionary in the world. You’ll see the definition of marriage as a contract, a union, between a man and a woman. Nothin’ else there. If you don’t believe God, at least believe Webster’s Dictionary!"

Um, not really.