Opposing gay unions not "anti-gay" - Australian PM

What is it about semi-closet-homophobes that makes them unable to understand that discrimination against gays is, by definition, anti-gay? Australian prime minister John Howard is threatening to use federal legislation to block the ACT's proposed civil union legislation (that's civil union, not marriage).

Anti-gay types always want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to square their views of themselves as enlightened and tolerant individuals in pluralistic societies, with the fact that they're actually not, and finding themselves unable to do so, recite meaningless platitudes about how their targeted anti-gay legislation is not, in fact, anti-gay. It almost makes me respect Jerry Falwell and Larry Spencer and their ilk, because unlike closet bigots like Howard, they're at least honest about it, with open and outright hostility expressing what they really think.

Think about it: Howard can't even use the Stephen Harper excuse that he's for gay unions, he just doesn't want to call them marriage - he's specifically opposing civil unions in this case! At least Harper's position - while having been thoroughly deconstructed, debunked, discredited, and in this country defeated - makes sense at first glance. It's only after careful examination that one finds it flawed. Howard's position makes no sense and is utterly discriminatory on its face. And he has the audacity to say that it's not.