Andy’s idiocies are coming so fast and so consistent I may have to make up a new category for him. At any rate, check out this whopper:
Jonah Goldberg notes that Martin Luther King Jr III (unlike his mother, Coretta) hasn’t endorsed equality in civil marriage. Jonah cracks: “I guess he’s a bigot.” What King actually said was: “I think we need to find a way to honor partnerships, but I don’t think that marriage needs to be redefined.” I don’t know anyone who would describe that position – which is John Kerry’s – as a bigot.
Umm. You would, jackass, as you have consistently called Bush a bigot since he voiced tepid support for the FMA. Let’s work through things here so we understand what happened.
Bush has always been on record stating that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. No problem- the majority of the country agrees with that, and it has been codified into law through DOMA during the Clinton years. Bush is also not against civil unions, which would confer legal rights to homosexuals. However, this would be decided by the state.
So what happened? The great gay over-reach of 2004. Gavin Newsom happened. The Massachussetts Supreme Court happened. Bush’s position on gay marriage did not change ONE IOTA. What changed were that activist homosexuals attempted to use the courts and extra-legal measures, to do what:
Bush then showed tepid support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, depsite your rhetoric, would not have banned civil unions, but would have banned gay marriage, preserving marriage for HOW IT WAS BEFORE THE NEWSOM/MASS ASSAULT.
Bush reacted, and maintained the position he has always had, and you over-reacted and called him a bigot. And that is the way that it was.
BTW- I say this as someone who really is rather progressively oriented on this issue. I vacillate between not being able to understand why homosexuals have to have the word marriage when what is important are the legal rights and not giving two hoots in hell how marriage is defined. If you guys would quit trying to change things overnight, and quit villifying everyone who doesn’t have a pink tirangle on his Prius, you might have a little more luck.
For some reason, the hard core gay activists are under the belief that in your face tactics are the way to acceptance. This is utterly absurd, as the path to acceptance is whenpeople learn their best friend is gay, their neighbor whom they have been friends with is gay, their uncle or aunt is gay. And you know what? Most people are at that level of acceptance- even in those whacky red states.
It always astonishes (and saddens) me that people who are desparately trying to convince a doubtful audience to accept their argument make it a point to insult that audience.
I hear “These are my points and if you don’t agree with me you’re a bigot,” and then I hear the speaker’s surprise that the audience told him to take a flying leap.
Interesting phenomenon, eh?
I was under the impression that Bush had voiced support for the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban any form of recognition of gay unions (which is when Andy completely lost it), then retracted that support later (which is when Andy decided that Bush was opportunistically bigoted).
I don’t think that Bush is a bigot, but I do think he’s a member of a Republican elite which has to throw its constituency of bigots a bone to get elected.
all of you are fuckin retarded anyone who puts up with all the political bullshit and then wastes there time yelling at other people about lies that they cant prove i hope you all FUCKIN DIE!!!!!
Let’s review some history. Back when, most gays were not entirely hopeful that ENDA might pass. Then, three couples way off in Hawai’i filed for marriage licenses and some serial polygamists in Congress went completely off the rails with DOMA. The battle was joined. Gays didn’t start this fight. (Gays didn’t start the fight at the Stonewall Bar. Still, the cops got whupped by a bunch of drag queens.) No, you can thank some poster boys for the trophy wife movement on the Hill for this. They jumped the gun.
Wait, you say? Wait for what? Until FMA gets passed? Until I’m dead and people I don’t even know get first pilfer through my property? Until I get old and sick (and I am already old) and I die alone in my bed because the hospital won’t let my partner in the room? Or wait like the heteros have to wait when they hurtle through the Elvis drive-thru wedding chapel on a drunk Las Vegas night?
Nobody is in your face, if you’re for equal protections under the law. Nobody is actually in your face even if you’re not. Certainly not in your face like being woken up to somebody pounding on your door on a Saturday morning to ask, “Have you been saved!?”
As for the word marriage. Marriage is the word in law. Marriage comes with at least 1049 federal privileges. That’s not how many there are. 1049 is the number the GAO got to before an embarassed Congress told them to stop counting.
I don’t vilify (one ell, John) anyone. Okay, not true. I’m a West Virginia redneck. I call bullshit! on hypoctites and liars with considerable relish. And a shot of good sippin’ whiskey with a side of branch water.
As for Bush, a White House spokesman couldn’t hardly wait to contradict the President’s remarks on the push for the FMA. Who’s is charge, John?
Now “Go take a flyin’ leap!”
[Man, nothing like getting to do a demonstration.]
I’ll point out that I, and thus likely at least a few people, do not change my/our views based on the choices and statuses of my/our loved ones.
If a good friend of mine is wrong, or is something or is making a choice that I believe is wrong that never makes me automatically question whether or not I am right.
So… if a friend of loved one was a homosexual and he just “came out” to me, as it were, I would still love him or her just the same but it wouldn’t alter my view of his or her choice one iota.
Why should it? My view on right and wrong does not now and never has hinged on the choices and lives of my friends. We live and die on the strength of our convictions. I’m not swayed by any casual confrontation. My convictions won’t be shattered by the mere fact that someone I know also has convictions and his might be contrary to mine.
I think you’re wrong: most of the drafts of the FMA would have banned or crippled civil unions too, and many of the state bans that passed did indeed do just that, as written. This is because social conservatives know darn well that if they allow full civil unions, everyone, EVEN people that oppose civil unions, will quickly end up calling them marriages anyway.
Too bad, Chris, reasonable people are willing to change their minds when presented with new evidence.
But what I call a hypothesis you probably call Faith.