As the world continues to learn more about coronavirus and its spread, it's vital to stay up-to-date on the latest developments. However, it's also important to make sure that the information being distributed is from credible sources. To that end, Between The Lines has compiled, [...]
You know what would be great? If you could just round up a group of people you don’t like and get rid of them. Maybe pack them into some train cars or something. I don’t know. Whatever it takes to get them out of the country so that they don’t bother you any more.
Of course, in today’s hyper politically correct world, you’d have to come up with a good name for the whole process. You wouldn’t, for example, want to call what you were doing deportation. After all, that sounds kind of punitive. You’d need a positive spin on it. Something that makes the country on the receiving end of the deal feel like they’re getting something positive…
I know just the term! Or, rather, Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council’s vice president for policy, does: exportation (not to be confused with exploitation, which Sprigg is also in favor of). And Sprigg knows just who he would do it to (no pun intended, I swear): the gays.
Responding to questions about a bill that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for citizenship, Sprigg said, “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.”
That’s right, folks. Instead of letting Americans sponsor their foreign partners, just get rid of ’em both!
Sprigg made his remarks during a Medill Reports story about The Uniting American Families Act that ran online March 19. The act, introduced nearly a year ago in Congress, would allow the partners of gay Americans to receive citizenship just as the foreign wife or husband of an American. Currently, gay couples often have to either separate or leave the United States altogether.
FRC, no surprise, is working hard to make sure this bill never passes. “We oppose this bill because it is, although it’s a, maybe a march at the margins, but it’s part of an assault on the definition of family,” Sprigg said.
“We also strongly believe at Family Research Council that homosexuality itself that homosexual relationships are harmful to the people who engage in them and to society at large,” he said. “They are not something we should be discouraging or facilitating, they should be something we should be actively discouraging.”
Yep. He said, “not something we should be discouraging.” He probably misspoke, but I prefer to call it a Freudian slip.
“This [bill] is one reason why the presidential election and the congressional elections this fall are going to be very important,” Sprigg said. “A bill like this, I would imagine, if it were to pass this year, it would probably be vetoed by President Bush,” Sprigg said. “It’s pretty clear from statements that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have made that if either of them is elected president this year they will make a strong effort to extend more of the rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples.”
A girl can dream. Until then, let’s “export” the lesbians to Paradise Island and the gay men to, um, Fire Island, I guess. They can always secede.