Sorry, People, You Cannot Sue Homosexuality

The leader of one Tea Party group is calling for a "class action lawsuit" against homosexuality. Ummmm, right.

Rick Scarborough

This man wants to sue homosexuality.  Not "homosexual agenda" groups, homosexuality.  Oooooookay.  (Image Source:  Bill Neidlhardt)

One of America's most infamous stereotypes is our ability to sue anything and everything under the sun, and possibly the Sun itself if we discovered it was a living being.  Sometimes, our litigious nature and stupidity with it goes a bit too far.  Consider yesterday's conference call by Tea Party Unity, a "clearinghouse" for Tea Party groups so that they can have some sense of cohesion (and what a great job they're doing).  Chatting with a leading anti-gay activist, Tea Party Unity leader Rick Scarborough called for a class action lawsuit against homosexuality.  Not gay rights groups, not gay activists, not the government for supporting gay rights measures.  Homosexuality itself.

During the conference call, Rick Scarborough chatted with Peter LaBarbera, leader of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.  At one point, Scarborough passed along the idea that they should file a class action lawsuit against homosexuality.  Scarborough attempts to compare homosexuality to smoking in the process:

"Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that. Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?"

Of course, LaBarbera agreed to what Scarborough was saying.

Let us not talk about the clear homophobia demonstrated here, we will leave that to someone else.  Instead, let us talk about the stupidity of this statement.  First, why are they comparing cigarettes, an actual product that is bought and sold, with homosexuality, an abstract concept?  I think I get the disease comparison, but, I do not understand how the two are the same type of thing that allows for this type of comparison.

Secondly, and more importantly, how do you sue an abstract concept?  No, seriously, how do you do that?  Regardless of the implication possibly being that homosexuality is a choice — and honestly, whatever to that — homosexuality is intangible, lacks an actual form other than as a human understanding.  There is no manufacturer of homosexuality, there is nobody selling homosexuality.  So, who would actually be the plaintiff?  Every professed, out of the closet homosexual?  Good luck finding them all. 

Suing homosexuality is like suing libertarianism, suing love, suing a child's dream, suing racism, even suing guilt.  There are no words to describe the sheer stupidity of doing such a thing, and at a certain point, it is not about a person's political preferences or beliefs, but rather their intelligence, that has to be utterly and appallingly questioned.  The problem is not Tea Party Unity — whose actual relevance to the Tea Party movement as a whole is not very clear — but how a person can be so idiotic as to suggest suing an abstract.  If anything like that had to be sued, it should be sued.  But if we were to successfully sue (and possibly outlaw) stupidity, the world would burn.