Poor Ann Coulter. It’s gotta be hard being ‘her’! Ann has now gone on record being against full body scans because she believes it goes against our privacy and because she knows the full body scanners won’t be able to "find a bomb under a foreskin" or "stuck up someone’s ass".
Ironically, the only time that Ann Coulter actually likes lesbians and gays is when they are shelling out a lot of money for her to lambaste them in some masochistic ritual. The rest of the time, she is just another homophobe like her good buddy Carl Paladino. She has proclaimed that same-sex marriage is not a right because lesbians and gays are not black. She has, of course, felt compelled to defend her homophobe buddy Carl Paladino and try to spin his words as if they were something less homophobic and more, well, acceptable- at least to the non-Liberal LGBT Community.
Coulter told Bill O’Reilly, who is if not an ally of LGBT at least not a virulent homophobe, that Paladino was attacking only “gay left-wing activists” when he warned against gays “brainwashing” children. She noted that he did not read “the Leviticus part” of the speech, as she put it. She even tried to define how this was good politics after O’Reilly challenged her on it by stating “I think everybody but you in the world agrees this isn’t going to help the guy.” She replied that the audience didn’t “want to hear about the fiscal issues. They want to hear about the moral issues.” Though, he may have won the roughly twelve votes of the people there, he likely lost the votes of the majority of Manhattan, Albany, Buffalo, and other LGBT enclaves in New York.
Not that Paladino was likely to win anyway. He is currently trailing Andrew Cuomo by double digits in the polling.
And I get tired of hearing about Leviticus. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield has a very insightful article in Huffington Post concerning the significance given to Leviticus 18:22 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-brad-hirschfield/is-homosexuality-an-abomi_b_554299.html). The words of Leviticus 18:22 read as follows: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination" (sometimes rendered as "abhorrence").
The Rabbis points out:
Why are those who hold it to be legally binding so obsessed with this prohibition? Is it a reflection of the prohibition's being somehow unique by virtue of being abominable? Clearly not. If something being an abomination were our concern, then we would also be equally concerned about the other sexual, ritual, and ethical transgressions that are also described as such.
For example, I don't see people losing sleep over the consumption of pork, also prohibited by the Bible. And the same can be said for the relative calm over those who wear garments that weave together strands of linen and wool, also biblically prohibited. People do not make up ugly terms of derision for those who commit these transgressions as they do for gay people. Nor do they ask that the government intervene in limiting people's freedom to do these things as they do when it comes to providing full legal equality for gay people.
I am not suggesting that for one to be a good and compassionate reader of the Bible, one must let go of the notion that homosexual sex is biblically prohibited. I am simply suggesting that our culture's obsession with this issue probably says more about us than it does about either the Bible or our commitment to honoring what we see as its demands.So when Ann stops eating shell-fish and pork, and just comes out as the Gay Man she was born, let me know. And Ann you better ditch all those fancy linen and wool suits you own.