Fischer Delivers a Macho Pledge of Resistence

One of the most amusing things for me over the last few months as the anti-gay bigots have begun to recognize that they’re likely to lose the marriage battle has been watching their hilarious William Wallace impersonations as they declare, ever more loudly, that they will never surrender or capitulate. Bryan Fischer, that’s your cue:

“This has got to be a non-negotiable red line for us,” Fischer said. “It is absolutely imperative that that we categorically, unambiguously, and publicly declare that we will NEVER … accept the normalization of homosexual marriage, and will NEVER capitulate to any Nazi-esque order from any government at any level to violate either conscience or biblical principle on this matter.”

“They can’t arrest us all, they can’t prosecute us all, they can’t lock us all up, they can’t shut down every Christian-run business, they can’t shut down every Christian school, they can’t shut down every Bible-believing church, they can’t shut down every Christian ministry,” he concluded. “They can’t lock us all up, but our determination to resist moral tyranny must be resolute enough to prompt them to try.”

Come on Bryan, you’re just not trying hard enough. You should actually paint your face blue and scream that at the top of your lungs atop your trusty steed (named Freedom, of course). Of course, no one is going to be locked up or rounded up into FEMA reeducation camps or any such nonsense. It’s so much easier to declare one’s own bravery in the face of an entirely mythical oppression.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dingojack

    No doubt by this time next year Bryan will be ‘either dead or in jail’ (but, on the bright side, at least he’ll have his Teddy to share his cot, and keep him company)…

    Dingo

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    You should actually paint your face blue and scream that at the top of your lungs atop your trusty steed (named Freedom, of course).

    While Fischer was going to name the horse Freedom, in a fit of nostalgia and a bid to recapture the utopian dreams of his youth, the Roy Rogers-loving (No Homo!) Fischer actually named the horse …

    …”Trigger-Freedom”.

  • wreck

    Bryan Fischer, the Bluto Blutarsky of bigots:

    What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

    Germans?

    Forget it, he’s rolling.

  • John Pieret

    You just wait! They’re all gonna close their bakeries and flower shops and then where will we be?!?!?*

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    “We’re resisting!”

    “That’s nice, but I’m just here to buy some flowers for a wedding.”

    “A gay wedding?”

    “Yes, but the flowers are the same.”

    “I won’t participate in a gay wedding.”

    “That’s not a problem. You weren’t invited.”

    “Tyranny!”

  • kenn

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

    Bluto had it wrong, of course. The Nazis were not at fault.

    “When are you gonna learn about Chinese treachery? Didn’t Pearl Harbor teach you anything?”

    –Maj. Frank Burns, to Hawkeye Pierce.

  • eric

    They can’t arrest us all, they can’t prosecute us all, they can’t lock us all up,

    Actually, I’m guessing that if they released everyone currently serving time for dope possession, there would be more empty cells than there are fundamentalist Christian wedding cake bakers. Or fundamentalist Christian wedding photograpers. Or both put together. So they can arrest you all.

  • eric

    @5: But what about the Schroedinger’s Wedding paradox?

    “We’re resisting!”

    “That’s nice, but I’m just here to buy some flowers for a wedding.”

    “A gay wedding?”

    “There’s a 50/50 chance. My hotel hosts two weddings this weekend. We know one is straight but don’t know about the other one.”

  • Trebuchet

    Macho, macho, man….I wanna be, a macho man!

  • carpenterman

    Since gays getting married will have absolutely NO impact on their lives, their heroic resistance will be… what? Sticking their fingers in their ears and going “LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOUR WEDDING VOWS! TAKE THAT GAY PEOPLE!”? Or will they simply refuse to get gay married themselves? *That* will show ’em.

  • dugglebogey

    Do they just take manifestos from the 60s and change the word “interracial” to “homosexual?”

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @eric:

    I don’t think any wedding is gay until someone observes it gaying.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Oh, and bad joke I recently came across to which i will now subject you all, since it’s apropos, even if not actually, y’know, all that funny. Except to me. It makes me giggle.

    Why is gay marriage even an issue?

    Because some people are fucking assholes.

  • John Pieret

    Gay segregation now, gay segregation tomorrow, gay segregation forever!

  • Al Dente

    Crip Dyke @13 wins the thread.

  • shadow

    @11 dugglebogey:

    Do they just take manifestos from the 60s and change the word “interracial” to “homosexual?”

    Short answer: yes.

  • P. Christopher

    Go ahead and resist Bryan. Please feel free not to accept my marriage. You can even go right on ahead using the scare-quotes around the word marriage to symbolize that you don’t consider it a true “marriage”. I have a feeling on our wedding day, my boyfriend and I won’t give a shit anyway. We really only care how the government treats us, not you.

    P.S. I never watch this idiot’s show, but I plan to make a fresh bowl of popcorn and watch it the day after the Supreme Court rules in favor of equality. The macho bluster and tears will feel so wonderful. Oh yeah, the equality under the law thing after decades of legal discrimination will feel nice for once too.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @dugglebogey #11 & shadow #16:

    Do they just take manifestos from the 60s and change the word “interracial” to “homosexual?”

    Longer answer?

    I did some research on this in the 90s. They’ve been cutting and pasting since at least the 17th century!

    In the early-mid 1600s when Quakerism is born in Britain (I think in England, but I won’t swear to that), the little-known truth is that the first response of the government was not to stock up on delicious, wholesome, reasonably priced breakfast oats.

    No, the first notice that the British central government officially takes of Quakerism is to declare that Quaker marriages have no legal standing because Quakers, having rejected the Church of England without even the half-decent excuse of not-yet-having-left-the-formerly-true-church-to-end-all-true-churches, the RCC, are obviously anti-God. The interpersonal turbulence produced by Quakers’ rejection of the One Really True Church and even the One Not Really True but Too Powerful To Oppress Church clearly demonstrated that the Quakers’ didn’t care about the feelings of their parents and other family members who must live with the knowledge that little Bobby is going to hell. Thus the Quakers were obviously anti-family. Being largely agrarian, they drank British beer, not the delicate and sensible wines the upper classes imported from nations with sunlight. Like people who smoke a bowl when they could be slamming back a Calico Jack, the Quakers’ were clearly in the terrible grip of an immoral relationship to chemical mood-modifiers. The dirty farmers were also said to be disease spreaders, because lower class. Thus, although this wasn’t particularly unique to them and was more a class issue, they were portrayed as disease carriers. Finally, because many conversions to Quakerism happened when someone fell in love with a Quaker and was then motivated to learn about the religion, it was apparent to the British Crown that a terrible sex addiction was all too prevalent among quakers.

    That’s right, Quakers marriages were publicly denounced **by the government** as anti-God, anti-family, drug-ridden, disease-riddled, nests of iniquitous sexual desire.

    In the 1650s.

    When I first started researching this, it gave me the most eerie calm. There have been a number of marriage limiting laws intended to simultaneous denounce as lesser and legally oppress a certain group. I investigated several, but by no means all, focussing on laws or lawmaking attempts targeting: Quaker marriages of the 1600s, royal marriages in the 1800s as democracy activists sought to delegitimize the various European monarchies, Black marriages of the 1600s to 1800s in the North American colonies of Britain and later in the US, interracial marriages of the 1700s to the 1960s in the North American colonies of Britain and later in the US, the marriages of people with a criminal history and/or with disabilities, especially alcoholism, epilepsy, chronic syphilis, limbs functionally malformed at birth, and “feeblemindedness” in the US from immediately post-Galton to 1980 or so, protestant/Catholic marriages in Ireland, usually in specific counties though the social stigma and arguments appeared throughout the island, from the 1800s to the 1990s, Jewish/non-Jewish marriages in Israel, from its inception to the 1990s, and, finally, queer marriages in the US.

    In literally ***every*** case, at least 4 of the same 5 arguments were used in lobbying to legislate against such marriage or in publicly justifying such laws.

    I’ve been a very lazy activist on the issue ever since. My research showed me that the arguments used had a 100% failure rate in every case I examined.

    Even before my research, I thought that the morality of equal rights would eventually win the day.

    After my research I was blown away by the fact that the media took these folk seriously at all, given that these arguments are trotted out repeatedly against disfavored groups and fail every single time.

    Nonetheless, I took it for granted that history would repeat itself so long as the Right insisted on using those same arguments.

    They’ve stuck to script, and my calm confidence continues to hold: their position on queer marriage is already consignable to the same scrap heap of history as the oh-so-relevant-and-well-remembered noble campaign to keep those dangerous Quakers from hitching up in marriage ceremonies that amounted to veritable satanic bacchanals.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden : Thanks for taht. Something new I’ve learnt today.

    @17. P. Christopher : Congratulations to you and your boyfriend, best wishes to you both and have fun!

  • samgardner

    Personally,I think their threat should be that they no longer consider the US a Christian nation.