He wanted a new truck.

She wanted a fast little sports-like car so she could zip through traffic around town.

He would probably have settled on any beat up old truck, but everything she seemed to like was way out of their price range.

"Look," she said. "I want something that goes from 0 to 200 in 4 seconds or less. And my birthday is coming up. You could surprise me."

For her birthday, he bought her a brand new bathroom scale.

However, his accuracy has angered the locals, so they're calling for his head as a witch and pushing for a constitutional amendment to correct this oversight. A local radio host recently dedicated a big block of time (in the neighborhood of two weeks) to this recently because our state congressional leaders were going to let the amendment sit in a committee (oh snap, indeed) while they awaited the state Supreme Court's decision on this judge's ruling. So, I decided to write him so that he could clarify things for me.

From: "Brent Butler" <brent@brentbutler.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:02 PM
To: "Steve Deace" <stevedeace@whoradio.com>
Subject: Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Steve--

I'm a 25 year-old married father of two (one more on the way) that probably pays more attention to politics than the average 25 year-old. I only started listening to your show a couple weeks ago (unfortunately only from about 5 - 5:30 PM) and have found your input on the same-sex marriage debate to be quite intriguing. In my short time of forming my political opinions, I've found that my call-'em-as-I-see-'em policy has revealed a philosophy that can't be pigeon-holed as either "conservative" or "liberal."

For example, my first child was an unplanned pregnancy. While abortion would've been an easy way out, my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I agreed that we'd keep the baby. While it was very difficult at the time since we were quite young (still in high school, in fact), I now can't imagine life without my now 6 year-old son. I understand that abortions are sometimes the only way out of some unfortunate situations and therefore don't want to see them completely outlawed (rape and incest are the most-obvious examples). However, using abortion as a form of birth control is immoral and unacceptable. On this issue, I could very easily be considered a conservative.

However, on the same-sex marriage issue, I find that my views are pretty far to the left from what I feel is the popular opinion. Put simply, I'm fundamentally baffled as to how a couple of homosexuals getting married affects me in any way. I may not understand that lifestyle, but understand that no one could possibly choose to deal with the kind of social stigma that is attached to being a homosexual, and therefore have concluded that homosexuals could only be born that way. I see sexual preference being no different than someone's eye color: you're simply born the way you're born. You can try to hide the truth, but you're still what you are underneath. Furthermore, who am I to decide how someone else lives their lives? Or, to paraphrase Marla Spivack, how would giving the right to marry to gay people endanger anyone?

I've asked this very question to several conservatives and have yet to receive any kind of well-considered response. Generally, the "answer" consists of how they see homosexuality to be an abomination. The question isn't "what do you think of homosexuality," so this really isn't an answer. I'm frankly uncomfortable to push the issue with my conservative friends for fear of offending them, so I usually drop it after that.

After listening to your show, I've gotten the impression that you're quite a logically-thinking man that would be able to explain your position to me. I consider myself quite good at seeing both sides of an issue whether I agree or not, but this is one where I find myself genuinely stumped. Help me understand your stance, Steve. I'm not looking to change your opinion nor do I expect you to change mine. I'd simply like to know where you're coming from.

Sincerely,
Brent Butler
Adel, IA

Brent, you're asserting what I believe to be a faulty premise. You're asserting that human beings are basically good so why would they choose to be bad? Uh, no. I don't believe that human beings are good; that's not the biblical position. The biblical position is that we are absolutely, 100%, totally depraved. And our natural state is to do bad which is why we need to be saved. There is absolutely nothing good in me. Nothing. And the only reason I don't live the way I used to live is because I believe differently now than I did then. That's called grace. And without that grace, dude, Hell's hot and forever and I've got a front-row seat in the smoking section.

As much thought as I put into my e-mail to Steve Deace, there are a couple of things I wish I had phrased differently or had included at all. Instead of describing "using abortion as a form of birth control" as being "immoral and unacceptable," I think using terms like irresponsible would more-accurately reflect my true opinion; "unacceptable" is simply too harsh.

Using the argument that gay folks couldn't possibly choose to be that way was simply a mistake because that's not really how I think. I see homosexuality exactly as it is: a sexual preference. Some guys prefer blondes, others brunettes. Some women prefer a rugged-looking man, while others would rather see guys stay clean-shaven. Different strokes for different folks, right? How is having a preference for someone of the same gender any different? Playing devil's advocate here, one could argue that having a preference for someone of an entirely different age (i.e. pedophilia) isn't any different, either. I would argue that it is; children can't enter a consenting relationship.

The only argument that Steve makes that I somewhat agree with is that legalizing same-sex marriages would inevitably result in the infringement upon their free speech rights. I personally don't see some of the things he said in that being that far from hate speech, so that'd be a good thing. Put the simplest way I can, I don't see the gay rights movement being any different than the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Folks like Steve Deace are the much tamer, much less insane, far less deplorable version of what the KKK was in the 60s. As such, I hope that same-sex marriages are allowed if only to bring to light what folks like Steve Deace represent. The things he says are bigoted, prejudicial, and ooze of hatred. That, sir, is the evil.

I vow to never again tune in to his show and acknowledge that doing so in the first place was an error.