The fight is underway in New Hampshire to repeal the marriage equality law. You may remember that I posted how the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted to repeal the law back in October.

Well, according to ThinkProgress, conservatives who favor the repeal of the law have begun their advertising campaign in ernest. A website has been set up that displays banners depicting homosexuals as “trashing” traditional values.

As you can see from the banner I’ve shared, stereotypes of gay men as hedonistic, scantily clad, dress wearing degenerates are juxtaposed next to a picture-perfect heterosexual family.

I won’t deny the evidence in those pictures. There are some gay men who are indeed hedonistic, who enjoy showing lots of skin, and who dress in drag, but does that make all gay men trashy?

Let’s take a look at a different juxtaposition of pictures, and you tell me.

A picture perfect gay male couple with 2 children

Heterosexual couple promoting "traditional" values?

Scantily clad (AKA naked) future heterosexual moms

Traditional grandma and grandpa with granddaughter ready for church?

As these pictures no doubt prove, gay men aren’t the only segment of society capable of hedonism, exhibitionism, or skirting “traditional” family values. The proof is in the pudding, New Hampshire conservatives (and elsewhere). As a human race, we are all capable of letting our hair down and having fun, but that doesn’t negate our basic civil rights to live our lives with the partner of our choosing.

So, those who think gays are trashy, get off your soapbox and take a look at what heterosexuals are capable of. We aren’t perfect, and neither are you.

The Ninth US District Court of Appeals is currently hearing arguments by Proposition 8 proponents in California. They claim that retired US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who helped strike down California’s Proposition 8, should have recused himself since he is a homosexual.

ThinkProgress reports that “Proponents of the measure [seek] to convince the rather skeptical three-judge panel that Walker was ‘in the same kind of relationship as the plaintiffs’ and was unfit to rule on the question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry because he himself may one day wish to wed his partner.”

Apparently, the three judges hearing the case are not buying the argument. One judge, R. Randy Smith, asked Charles Cooper, counsel for the proponents of Prop 8, whether or not “a married judge could ever be allowed to hear a case about divorce?”

Political analyst Ian Millhiser had this to say about the argument being used by the legal counsel in favor of Prop 8:

“if a court were to accept the anti-gay group’s arguments, it would also follow that no judge who is presently in a committed opposite-sex relationship would be allowed to hear this case either. The name of the organization defending Prop 8 is ‘Protect Marriage,’ a name that derives from their bizarre belief that same-sex marriages are destructive to opposite-sex marriages. But if this were true, than straight judges would have a personal stake in ensuring that their own marriages are not undermined by a decision striking down Prop 8 — and thus would also be required to recuse.”

This would mean than only single judges who had no interest in marriage whatsoever would be allowed to hear this case. Obviously, this line of thinking is absurd and hopefully shows that these judges will hand down a decision in favor of Judge Walker’s previous ruling.