First, they came for Bert and Ernie...

...and I said nothing because I was not a cohabitating Muppet.

Then they came for Tinky Winky, and I said nothing, because I was not an ambiguously gendered purse-carrying Teletubby.

Then they came for Sponge Bob and Patrick, and I said nothing, because I was not an asexual cartoon sea creature.

I'm just wondering who'll be the next target of the Righteous Conservative Crusade Against Genderless Imaginary Creatures.

Keith Olbermann had a good column on this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852828/

Excerpt:

A man named Dr. James Dobson, founder of a conservative Christian group called "Focus on the Family" addressed members of Congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating the president's election victory this week. He advised the group that SpongeBob had been included in a pro-homosexual video which was to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools to push a tolerance pledge by kids, including tolerance of differences of what Dr. Dobson called "sexual identity." Dr. Dobson said most of the favorite cartoons of America's kids were in on the plot, Barney and Jimmy Neutron included.

There is a video. It was broadcast in 2002 and has been revised for distribution to schools in March. It does promote tolerance of diversity, but contains no reference to sex, sexual lifestyle, sexual identity or Paris Hilton. The eight-page long teacher's guide that accompanies that DVD makes three passing references to same-sex parents. It contains generic advice about what teachers should do if kids ask them about atypical homes— like ones with adoptive parents, step-siblings, or grandparents. Teachers are advised to remind kids that everybody's family is different, but they're all based on love.

Dr. Dobson's press spokesman says he's not sure whether or not Dr. Dobson has seen the SpongeBob video, but he has been briefed on it. And an assistant says the group stands by its claim, and says, "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids. It's a classic bait and switch."

Mark Barondess, the lawyer for the "We Are Family Foundation" told "The New York Times" that any critics of the video "need medication." We here cannot argue with that.

These people aren't kidding, no matter how ludicrous they may seem to those of us who don't require rubber rooms. They honestly seem to think the only reason there are persons who are not heterosexual is some sort of insidious brainwashing, some hidden subliminal message the eeeevul lib-ruls sneak into children's textbooks and cartoons and movies. That rather begs the question of how this education was being carried out prior to mass media. Or is it their contention that homosexuality occurred less often back before Stonewall? Apparently, out of sight equals out of mind.

This seems pretty laughable on its face, until you look more closely at some of the specific statements:

"...Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity' within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line," a statement from Focus on the Family says.

Okay, now let's find out what tolerance pledge they're talking about. Apparently, they mean the one here: http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp, which, interestingly enough, is from http://www.tolerance.org/, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As the Orcinus blog http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ puts it:

In other words, Dobson appears to be attacking the SPLC by proxy. That should give people a little clearer picture of what we're really talking about here. Dobson isn't just condemning cartoon characters, he's attacking the basic concept of secular tolerance as a democratic cornerstone. That is, he's actively promoting the tolerance of intolerance. There's a simpler word for that: hate.

It must be the fault of Peanuts and Warner Brothers that gays came out of the closet. After all, Charles Schulz drew an overtly butch character in Peanuts (Peppermint Patty), and Warner Brothers, of course, had Bugs Bunny, who married Elmer Fudd on at least two occasions. (Elmer as the bride in Rabbit of Seville, and Bugs as the bride in What's Opera, Doc - not to mention many occasions when Bugs smooched Yosemite Sam, the Coy brothers in Hillbilly Hare, etc.)

I never could figure out the Tinky Winky outrage - the "evidence" for Tinky Winky's being a bit light in the loafers was that Tinky Winky was: a) lavender, b) had a triangle above its head, and c) carried a purse. Okay, well, those are silly enough, but the real question to me is, how on earth did anyone determine that Tinky Winky was a male in the first place? The Teletubbies have no genitalia, how can they have a gender?

And a little remedial biology for those buying into Sponge Bob outrage - sponges reproduce asexually. So do starfish (Sponge Bob's alleged "partner," Patrick, is a starfish).

I'm so glad all the substantive problems in the world - poverty, homelessness, war, famine, racism, environmental destruction, religious strife, totalitarianism - have been resolved so that we have all this time on our hands to worry about other people's sex lives, including those of imaginary creatures.