The average Ivy League liberal takes the utmost pride in his or her ability to sniff out the racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, or any other type of -ism or phobia that could possibly be found in even the most innocent of events. “Social justice!” is their cry, and you are a white-privileged, gay-hating racist if you disagree with them. To achieve the equality of opinion they desire, they will show no hesitation in the attempt to silence yours. College conservatives cannot take this group of people seriously, and even some non-Ivy League liberals tend to roll their eyes at them. To be blunt: they suck.

Their degree of suckage was put on display recently, when Texas Governor Rick Perry visited the Ivy League institution known as Dartmouth College. He was there to speak to an audience of students about the midterm election, border security in Texas, energy initiatives, and foreign policy, among other subjects. You know, normal topics for a political discussion. However, motivated by her passion for freedom and truth, a young revolutionary (read: student) stood up and asked Rick Perry this very well thought out, articulate, and meaningful question:

In your campaigns you have received hard-money campaign contributions of $102 million, half of which came from 204 donors. Would you have anal sex for $102 million?

The eyes of her fellow Ivy League liberals turned red with rage, waiting to see how the bigot on stage would respond to her clearly intellectual and deserving question. Fortunately for the other members of the audience who would rather not have listened to a sitting governor’s opinion on sexual conduct, the questioner was booed out of the spotlight and the audience moved on from her childish interference.

This is how the student defended her question:

In my view, it would have been a disgrace to an institution of higher learning to engage only in superficial discussion that helps mask offensive and oppressive views behind decorum. The confines of “civil discourse” are defined by those in power to keep them in power. The reason this action was uncomfortable is also why it was necessary: it occurred outside the limits of what Perry and others who benefit from the dominant discourse deem appropriate… The questions were offensive because they confronted his actual policies. Why is our tone–as politically powerless undergrads–more offensive and shocking than his enacted homophobia as a man with incredible amounts of money and power? … My questions were disrespectful, but I reject the notion that I should respect a man who hold power simply because he holds it. It should matter what he does with that power, and what he does is oppress people he finds icky.

According to this young woman, speaking on real policy issues like those stated earlier is now “superficial discussion” when compared to asking about exchanging anal sex for money. Outstanding. Why would someone want to ask a sitting governor about his opinions on fighting ISIS, or how to respond to Russia’s ongoing suspicious behavior? Clearly, our still-unsecured border and the fact that a newly elected GOP controlled congress could account for large-scale changes in our government over the next two years are most definitely topics for “superficial discussion.” Whether or not the Texas governor has moral obligations to specific sexual acts should ALWAYS take precedent.

This student acknowledges that her question was inappropriate, but argues that it is only considered to be so because of the “confines of civil discourse” produced by the powerful. In her eyes, Rick Perry has established a standard of civility that disallows questions such as hers to be asked so that his bigoted and oppressive policies are not put into public question. This view is apparently shared by other activist students at Dartmouth, who distributed a list of even more horribly offensive questions. Sorry to break it to you, Dartmouth liberals, but these kinds of questions would be considered inappropriate no matter where they were asked and no matter whom was on the receiving end, period. Rick Perry’s rejection of gay marriage is not some arbitrary boundary that makes these questions vulgar and inappropriate. They are inherently vulgar and inappropriate. Any questions that includes phrases like, “Anal sex does not tear at the fabric of your butthole,” and, “Jesus liked to play with his own hairy hollow” are inherently vulgar and inappropriate. If a liberal politician with very progressive policies has been at Dartmouth and received any one of these questions, I do not think society would have instantaneously forgotten the basic rules of civility that most Americans were raised with simply because of his or her pro-gay policies.

Shouldn’t this group of students be much more preoccupied with what happens to homosexuals throughout the Middle East? Like the hanging of two “sodomites” in the ever-more-moderate Iran this past August? Where is the outrage over the fact that nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iraq still enforce the death penalty for homosexuality? Rick Perry’s Christian moral objection to gay marriage seems to cause these students more frustration that real crises. It’s a sad world.

Gay marriage is a policy that deserves debate. While our elected officials are just as entitled to act on their own morality as citizens are, the pro-gay argument of individual liberty is a valid one. However, the societal rebellion mindset that college-aged liberals have taken up is insulting to anyone who wishes to have a civil conversation on a political topic. The self-proclaimed “college feminists” on my campus aren’t taken seriously by anyone, and its no one’s fault but their own. At any political event they are seen as aggressive, annoying, and often shouting curses. I am not advocating for political apathy of submissiveness, of course. Simply asking the governor straightforwardly about his stance on gay marriage and if that stance has changed would have successfully put his policies into question without being undeniably rude. Civility must not be mistaken for docility.

As the nation realized over the last few years and expressed on election day, liberal views and policies have simply become void of substance. The more the nation debates, the more these far, FAR-left citizens become entrenched in their views and resort to things like wasting people’s time at an event with the governor of Texas by asking ridiculous questions.

But please, keep telling yourself that this type of activism is efficient. It’s working great for conservatives so far!