Sermon By Brother Harry Hardwick 

They used to limit their association to deviant acts in out-of-the-way restrooms, highway rest stops and the places in Catholic churches so synonymous with rectal intercourse they are simply called “rectories.”  Then, in 1969, a few Nancys pointed their flames at police cars near Stonewall Sodomy Bar in New York City, and even the nelliest of queens suddenly felt empowered.  They went on a hissy-fit rampage, trying to convince the whole world it is A-OK to stuff your throbbing appendage into every hungry orifice but the right one.  They infiltrated schools, the military, the cast of “Welcome Back Kotter” and used our once-Godly Boy Scouts as a training ground to make sure there would always be a fresh batch of wanton homos on the horizon.  But we never expected them to take over the judiciary.  Granted, they managed to thrust one of their kind onto the nation’s highest Court in 1990, when Daddy Bush, in an all-too-frequent lapse of judgment, nominated David Souter despite the fact that Souter was a 50-year-old never-married bachelor who loved classical music, was voted “most sophisticated” (pansy-like) in high school and attended Harvard and Oxford, the meccas of sodomy between young, freshly-scrubbed students and old, lecherous professors wearing cardigans and a come hither look of depravity.  Most True Christian conservatives (pardon the redundancy) soon learned that Souter wouldn’t vote against flag burning unless the flag had six psychedelic colors and was wrapped around a man wearing a dress who didn’t happen to be Catholic clergy.

But with just one fairy and eight normal people, we thought we could count on the highest court in the land to put conservative ideology above highfaluting so-called rights and other Constitutional concerns.  After all, in Bush v. Gore, the Court appointed Bush, Jr. as President based on the Court’s conclusion that allowing Florida to run its own affairs would violate the rights of Florida voters, even though, Constitutionally, Bush, Jr., a Texas resident, had no standing to assert the rights of Florida voters.  But the Court cared so deeply for our Republican cause and the Bush campaign that it didn’t allow some two-bit technicality, probably drummed up just to keep more coloreds roaming the streets and peeing on our sidewalks, to allow that double-edged Constitution or the rules of procedure to spoil everything.  The completely result-oriented decision gave us confidence the Court would consistently put principle aside when politics were at stake. 

Our jubilation over the High Court’s amorous embrace of our conservative desire to beat repulsive liberals into a metaphoric pile of bleeding, twisted offal, regrettably, was short-lived.  Indeed, it is fair to say the honeymoon lasted about as long as one of those Drew Barrymore marriages.  Now, the High-on-Crack Court tells us that even political extremists are vulnerable to homo harassment.

In Lawrence v. Texas,  two of the five normally old school ideologues jumped ship and joined the Court’s moderates to create a 6-3 decision striking down a Texas law that said various sex acts are perfectly acceptable when committed by normal people but criminal when committed by queers.[1] Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the Satanic majority opinion, offices near Souter and undoubtedly succumbed to the deviant’s pernicious influence.  Sandra Day O’Connor has always been a rabble-rouser, intent on asserting her independence and isolation from her colleagues.  With this decision, she solidifies herself as the Diana Ross of this set of Supremes. 

Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy stated that homosexuals should have the same right to engage in intimate sexual conduct in their private homes as regular people do.  So long as the intimacy involves consenting adults, the government should not interfere with it.  Kennedy pretends the Court reached this conclusion based on the principles of liberty and personal dignity embodied in the Bill of Rights.  But our chief ally (even though he is a Hell-bound idol-worshiper), Justice Antonin Scalia, saw through the façade.  As he emphasized in his dissent, the majority of the Court simply caved in to the “homosexual agenda” that pervades our society and the legal profession.  Scalia wrote that the Court’s decision would inevitably result in greater protection for homosexuals in the future and may one day even lead to judicial recognition of same sex unions.  One would be hard-pressed to contemplate a more disastrous result. 

History supports Scalia’s reasoning.  Each time the Court has found a privacy right in personal behavior, the end result has been a society tolerant of that conduct.  It has therefore always been left to industrious Christians to torment and mock those who try to exercise this new-fangled right, as has been the case with Roe v. Wade.  In the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, the Court struck down a state law prohibiting married couples from purchasing contraceptive devices on the ground the law violated married folks’ privacy rights.  As a result of the decision, over time, more and more couples began using birth control (much to the annoyance of the homo-to-beat-all-homos in Vatican City).  The result is that whereas in the ‘60’s, husbands and wives copulated rarely, knowing that any such incident could result in yet another mouth to feed, today, married couples have sex at will, sometimes two, three or even four times a year.  Couples feel perfectly comfortable engaging in sexual intimacy on a regular basis, sometimes even in the middle of the week.  Sex is now for recreation, not just procreation.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Court struck down a state law prohibiting interracial marriage on the ground it violated the privacy rights of couples.  As a result of that decision, mixed marriages, and sometimes even mixed dating, gained acceptance in those hedonistic “anything goes” areas of the country that voted for Al Gore.  Today, coloreds intermingle with normal people like there is no difference among us, moving into our neighborhoods, taking jobs next to us in the workplace and sending their kids to the same schools our kids attend.  Thanks to the Supreme Court, most people who aren’t in law enforcement don’t even care about or emphasize the differences between Negroids and Caucasians any more.  We have become as color blind as a Cameron Diaz designer.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  Landover isn’t any more prejudiced than Justice Scalia.  Just as Scalia wrote: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals,” so, too, our church has nothing against coloreds, so long as they recognize their place and stop petitioning our High Court for rights that clearly belong solely to the majority.

As Scalia laments, with Lawrence v. Texas, hatred of homos will dissipate.  And the Court will undoubtedly compel even greater respect for fairies’ so-called “liberty” in the future. What’s next?  Will society forbid employers from throwing workers out into the streets based solely on whom they love at the end of the day?  Will homos be allowed to serve alongside real men in the Armed Forces in defense of Mr. Bush’s reelection?  And, God forbid, will the government one day recognize long-term same sex unions and provide those couples with some of the benefits the rest of us get?  What Loving did to segregation, Lawrence will undoubtedly do to hatred of homos.  We may one day live in a society that concerns itself with neither color differences nor sexuality distinctions, ignoring people’s private lives altogether in our evaluation of them.

Yes, the End Times are surely upon us!