Chuck Norris is angry the gays are angry.  He drops the Silent Rage and is in full Slaughter in San Francisco mode, recounting tales of one group of queer anarchists (who are pretty extreme,  but the actions those of thirty people are so very different from the nearly hundred thousand who marched globally on Saturday–I mean, is every Christian a health clinic bomber?).

But wait, it’s not just queer anarchists who draw Norris’ raaaage. Here’s what the Total Gym spokesman has to say about bloggers:

And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 — even those who gave as little as $46 — with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What’s wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there’s the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority.

He never lists a "second."  And he doesn’t cite his sources for the news reports he gives, either. But he does rally ’round that (heavy sarcasm) supporter of Constitutional rights, quoting Chuck Colson who commented on the protests:

This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.

Oh wait, wasn’t Colson, as  hachet man chief counsel to President Richard Nixon, the guy who put together Nixon’s Enemies list. one of the Watergate Seven, who received the maximum jail time for his attempts to obstruct justice by smearing Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon papers trial?  And he dares to ask "How dare they threaten and attack political opponents?" Whoa.

Both Chucks should  should maybe think for a moment about why there is so much anger in the gay community. Substitute the word "Christian" for "gay" in the propositions that passed in Arizona, California and Florida and see how it feels.

In Arizona, Mark R. Kerr, who writes for the Tucson Observer’s blog, raised some good reasons for gay anger, and suggests that any straight married couple who has experienced discrimination drop him a line:

To those poor, oppressed, threatened straight "married" couples that consist of a man and a woman, some questions:

As a “married” couple, have you been denied a bank loan to purchase a house, condominium, apartment, mobile home, R.V., trailer, etc., because of your relationship?

Is it problematic or impossible to get health, life, dental insurance for your spouse because of your “marriage?”

Can you not live under the same roof because of local, county, state and federal laws or due to the prejudice of a landlord, if you have to rent a place to call home?

Every year, on April 15, the nation’s taxpayers file their respective 1040’s, or requests for extensions. When that time comes, do you have to pay a higher tax rate because of your relationship and the subsequent deductions allowed to be taken under federal and state law given to your ability to file a joint tax return?

When that time comes, American citizens will retire and collect a pension, one part of which will be the Social Security benefits they’ve contributed to during their working career. Under the federal laws that the Social Security Administration, have you been denied benefits, such as for the surviving “spouse,” or have them drastically reduced because you fell in love and got hitched after a certain age, all because you are “married?”

A Power of Attorney is defined as a legal instrument that is used to delegate legal authority to another for which the person who signs (executes) a Power of Attorney is called the Principal. This document gives legal authority to another person (called an Agent or Attorney-in-Fact) to make property, financial and other legal decisions for the Principal. Is it almost impossible, to have a Power of Attorney drawn up and recognized because of your “marital status?”

Laws dealing with domestic violence, child support or visitation of children, citing three that are on the respective books, not apply to you or your “married” spouse?

Have you ever been denied discounted rates for governmental facilities, such as parks and recreation, or programs offered because of your relationship as “man and wife?”

According to a 2004 Governmental Accountability Office report, there is 1,138 laws, regulations, rights and benefits given under the respective laws (federal, state or otherwise). Are you denied these rights and benefits, too numerous to list. because of your “marriage?” Does your offspring not receive the full-entitlements stated under the laws because of your “marriage?”

On the topics of adoption or becoming a foster parent, due to your “married” relationship, is it almost impossible or can you not adopt a child or open your home to children residing in a state children’s programs?

Health inevitably plays a major part in one’s life. Have you not been told about the medical condition of your “married” spouse, not played a part in the medical decision making process or been denied hospital visitation rights to your “married” spouse for the reason of being “husband and wife?”

Death will eventually come into play to “bring down the curtain,” on one’s life. An important, legal document every individual must have drawn up, is a “last will in testament,” dealing with finances and possessions. With that, can you not get a “last will in testament” drawn up, or hasn’t been held up in court, because of your “marriage” as well as having your “spouse’s” family taken all the possessions obtained during the “wedlock,” even with a will drawn up, denying you everything due to the relationship of being “man and wife?”

If any of above written has been the case, please send me an E-mail at mrkerr@tucsonobserver.com, that lists your name, home (a snail mail address), a verifiable phone number (I will be calling to confirm), verifiable documentation showing that you are “married,” and the case, incident or otherwise of the discrimination because you are “husband and wife.”

[H/T Defamer, Mark Kerr]