Today’s Union Leader’s lead editorial takes Governor Empty Suit to task for flip-flopping on same-sex marriage. Among other things, it states, "The questions about Lynch’s action are numerous. The most basic is why he and his backers suddenly feel the need to grant this state sanction, one reserved for much of civilization to the union of men and women, to a small group whose sexual practices, whatever their cause or origin, are abhorrent and repugnant to a large segment of the population."
Does calling homosexual sex "abhorrent and repugnant" make the Union Leader homophobic? Of course it does because "homophobia" has come to mean anything less than gushing enthusiasm for homosexuality.
Of course, if calling homosexual sex "abhorrent and repugnant" is "homophobic," then the "I believe that what two people do in the privacy of their home is nobody’s business," the "I believe it is an issue of equal rights" and the "it’s not government’s business to say who may or may not marry" arguments do not suffice to prove that one is not homophobic. One can believe all of these things and still find homosexual sex "abhorrent and repugnant."
So anybody who calls the Union Leader "homophobic" should in the interest of consistency ask Governor Empty-Suit whether he finds homosexual sex "abhorrent and repugnant."
