Within hours, the Supreme Court will rule on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’
And it's unclear how they will decide. We've also seen the fight for marriage equality fought in the streets, with protest signs as weapons. But the outcome of this battle is as undecided as the Supreme Court's decision. It is really hard to tell which side of the debate has the better signs.
Which side is cleverer? Which side makes more spelling mistakes? To answer these questions, we will have to take a close look and engage in some deep analysis.
While there is some evidence of devil possession among the gays, it is anecdotal, at best. Statistically, lesbians are more attractive than homophobes, so it follows that they would be able to obtain more ... success among women. Winner: The Gays!
Technically, marriage and not marridge, is made up of one man and one woman. Of course the gentleman carrying the protest sign has a misspelled word as well, but that's intentional and used to mock the less than stellar spelling record of bigots. And he very may well have come to the protest hoping to defecate on Shirley Phelps, the spokeswoman of Westboro Baptist Church. Once again, this round goes to the gays.
Again, the anti-marriage equality protester struggled with spelling. The protesters defending marriage equality, however, have mastered each word on their sign and the sign contains more words. The interracial couple connects the fight for marriage equality based on sexual orientation to the fight for marriage equality based on race (I know! race is a construct. I did go to Wesleyan! But you know what I mean.) They persuasively present marriage as a civil rights issue. I'm sorry homophobes, you lose again.
While Jesus may have urged a rebirth, no evidence indicates that he was speaking to LGBT people or that the issue had anything to do with sexuality whatsoever. It's also unclear what the idea of rebirth has to do with homosexuality and how it contributes to the nature versus nurture debate, which surrounds it. The other protester, however, is coherent, sensical and truthful in his argument that Jesus did not, in fact, mention the gays, though his followers sure do seem to like to. While it was a close call, ultimately, the whole coherence/sense/truth thing made me vote for the marriage equality team.
While I'm sure "homo-sex" could conceivable pose a threat to national security, it is unclear why it would any more than "hetero-sex." This sign falls into the pattern we've seen so far among homophobes of being less rational, logical, and accurate in their sign-making and thinking in general. On the other hand, the other side makes a convincing argument, though it doesn't account for infidelity which allows people to engage in "different" sex. This was, no doubt, a humor device and is thus permissible, bringing the victory to those on the side of marriage equality.
Though the grammatical and spelling errors among homophobes certainly makes it possible that this protester is unfamiliar with the English language, I will assume his reference is a cinematic and cultural one, which I do appreciate. His use of ET language demonstrates that he was, indeed, moved by the piece of dialog, which was quite moving. Of course, in the film, ET uses the phrase in a declarative way, while this man seems to be using the imperative form. If that is the case, it is unclear why an ET reference would convince any said "homo" to leave his or her state, let alone the planet. If, on the off chance that the protester is using it in a declarative sense, he's incorrect, as "homos" are not, in fact, getting onto space ships and leaving the planet. While the pro marriage quality protester makes a generalization about the sexuality of fashion designers, it is, to some extent, backed up by reality. So, I have to go with the gay team on this.
On a visceral level, corduroy is certainly more repulsive than homosexuality. The marriage equality protester also gets points for being quick on his toes since, in all likelihood, he didn't know ahead of time that there would be a corduroy fan in attendance. Though there may be a higher rate of corduroy donning among the homophobic population and there is definitively a higher prevalence of corduroy use among the heterosexual population than the LGBT one. If the pro-marriage equality protester showed up with a pre-created corduroy-based sign, while he would not get points for being resourceful and quick, he would get points for being observant and knowledgeable enough to plan accordingly. Marriage Equality advocates win.
Since god did create all human beings in his image and signs are not human beings, it is certainly much more likely that, if god were to hate one of the two, he would hate signs. The marriage equality team gets this point too.
While the argument that homosexuality is a sin is commonly made, there is no evidence of this in the New Testament. Of course, homophobes are fond of citing Leviticus, from the Old Testament (you're welcome, Christians! Shalom.) And as long as those who cite Leviticus also consider tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester, and football to be sinful, and abstain from all of them, this analysis is a fair one. Since, however, most people do not, their argument is invalidated by hypocrisy and selective reading or cherry picking. In terms of the pro marriage equality protester, though I've never had it, I can see how "homo" sex could be sensational for those involved. And, of course, I assume that he knows that the spelling is sensation and is just working with the material he has at hand, which happens to be a sin sign. Another loss for the homophobes.
Again, there is no compelling evidence that god feels any differently towards heterosexuals and LGBT people. While I am not religious, I have indeed heard that Jesus has, so to speak, two daddies. One is named Joseph and the other named God, if I'm not mistaken. So, again, score for the marriage equality side.
I cannot see the homophobe's sign, but I assume it says something condemning men who love other men. The counter-protestor's claim, then, that he enjoys the sexual organs of other men, undermines the homophobe's homophobia. It also provokes a chuckle. Go team marriage equality.
It is not clear if there is any romantic relationship between these two men. However, the sign is undeniably hilarious and a true victory for those on the side of good.