Friday, March 15, 2013

HOW YOU KNOW YOU'RE WINNING.

Back in December, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal had an article headlined, "The Sure Thing? Reconsidering a prediction about same-sex marriage." Though a few years earlier he had predicted gay marriage would win the day when the Supreme Court got hold of it, Taranto said, "now we're not so sure." (As he also described a pro-gay-marriage decision not as one that would enfranchise millions of his fellow citizens, but as one that would "declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional," you know where his rooting interest lies.)

In a new column, Taranto returns to the subject and pulls what he probably considers a clever trick play:
The administration does not go so far as to urge the court to strike down all state bans on same-sex marriage. Instead it urges a novel solution that would have the effect of abolishing nonmarital civil unions, until now the compromise of choice between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.
You can hear the chortles in CPAC back rooms: Heh indeed, by pushing "gay" "marriage" Obama's killing civil unions! How do you like that, gay people? You should join us at CPAC -- er, on the downlow.

This schtick comes with rhetorical appurtenances. One: You're Denying Our Right to Self-Expression:
As a legal matter, the administration's position seems odd. The effect of banning same-sex marriage in civil-union states is purely expressive: The states are in effect declaring that homosexual relationships are inferior to marriages. That is a value judgment with which many people disagree, but why should the state not be free to express it--especially when the expression has no material effect?
Two: Obama is Applying the "Chicago Way" to His Fellow Travelers and They Will Fall In Line:
The likeliest answer is political: that the administration has concluded (or anticipates that the court, which is to say Justice Kennedy, will conclude) that imposing same-sex marriages nationwide would be disruptive in the way Roe v. Wade was--but the civil-union states are socially liberal enough that they would accept such a ruling.
Three: You're Only Hurting Yourself:
For supporters of same-sex marriage, however, there's a danger that adopting this legal compromise would shut down an avenue of political compromise.
These are not the kind of arguments you hear when you're losing. The struggle will continue, as it still does over the civil rights of black Americans. But the losing side will become increasingly legalistic, hair-splitting, and petty. That's how you know you're winning.

UPDATE. Speaking of which, here's Rick Moran reacting to the news that GOP macher Rob Portman, inspired by his gay son, has turned over on marriage equality:
As more and more Americans realize that they are related to, or work with, or live next to someone who is gay, it is inevitable that acceptance follows. This doesn't mean that opposing gay marriage is bigoted. People of good conscience can disagree (something the left refuses to acknowledge while trying to ram gay marriage down the throats of people by co-opting the legisalture and using the courts to gain their objective).
Translation: Yes, we're getting tolerant, but what about all these homosexuals trying to ram their big, hard gay marriage down my throat? Where's their tolerance?

I expect the brighter bulbs among the rightbloggers will keep quiet or roll more gently with it. Maybe we'll see a pro-equality, anti-drone Republican Party in 2016. Baby steps!

118 comments:

  1. DocAmazing12:39 AM

    Taranto is to be praised: he managed to say "'Cuz Jesus said so!" without specifically mentioning his religion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I seem to be poring over John Nolte's work the way Susan of Texas pores over McMegan (But not with nearly her style), he tweeted today "School choice is the civil rights issue of our time." Huhahuhwhuahahwho?

    ReplyDelete
  3. admiral.naismith2:18 AM

    I suppose what he means about a legal method closing off political methods has to do with the notion of "countermobilization". (i.e. http://prospect.org/article/countermobilization-myth) The problem is that these days, gay rights are a popular thing. There must have been a million polls over the past few years showing an ever-increasing amount of support for gay marriage. Abortion rights have never shown such a trend.


    TL;DR - Right-wing blowhard talks out of his ass. Film at 11.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If you can actually get your kids *to* the school of your choice, that is. What? The school you want for your kids is an impractically long commute away in the "good side of town", and you don't have a second car, and your boss will fire your ass if you're late? Aww, too bad."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I learned from Bill O'Reilly that Christianity isn't a religion. It's a philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But the losing side will become increasingly legalistic, hair-splitting, and petty. That's how you know you're winning.

    Also, looking across the table and seeing James Taranto on the other side is usually a pretty good indicator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. fraser6:50 AM

    Well, when he talks about how gay marriage opponents were perfectly willing to compromise on civil unions ...

    ReplyDelete
  8. rickmassimo7:26 AM

    "That is a value judgment with which many people disagree, but why should
    the state not be free to express it--especially when the expression has
    no material effect?"


    Conservatism - the protector of the rights and powers of the state since - um, since I sat down to start writing this column!

    ReplyDelete
  9. redoubt7:52 AM

    School choice is the civil rights issue of our time

    Elizabeth Eckford, among others, would like a word.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BigHank537:53 AM

    Oddly enough, when you give Christianity to a racist or misogynist or homophobe, it just gets turned into something else to beat the blahs, sluts, and fags with. Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. redoubt7:55 AM

    First they log split
    Then they banana split
    Then they hairsplit
    Then you win

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doghouse Riley9:10 AM

    Instead it urges a novel solution that would have the effect of abolishing nonmarital civil unions, until now the compromise of choice between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.

    It's a fucking amicus brief which argues that the decision should extend beyond California to other states granting civil-union rights which are (compromise!) less than those of marriage. It's not a "novel solution" to the question of same-sex marriage; it's a response to the case before the Court. Presumably the administration did not consider the Prop 8 case to be the place to take a stand on national standards. Presumably if the Court decides that way those civil unions will immediately have the full status of marriages in the affected states.

    I realize that Mr. Taranto earns his living as a fat, middle-aged contortionist for the fetishist specialty market, but, really? That's like warning that the '64 Civil Rights Act would increase the waiting line at drinking fountains.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Halloween_Jack9:34 AM

    "C'mon, didn't you people like having your own drinking fountain?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Halloween_Jack9:40 AM

    Vermont's Legislature eventually legalized same-sex marriage, as did some other states that recognized civil unions first. If the court adopts the Obama administration's approach and mandates same-sex marriage in civil-union states, the remaining 33 states, most of which are socially conservative, would be left without that option. Supporters of same-sex marriage may find it harder to make their case if the logical compromise is off the table.

    States that ban civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. But, you know, if you people would settle down and not cause such a fuss, they might think about changing that, someday, maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  15. tigrismus9:52 AM

    He says this in an article in which he argues that "civil unions" and "marriages" should be called different things even though they are only trivially different? Sheesh, that kind of DEFINES petty.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Freshly Squeezed Cynic10:22 AM

    "the expression has no material effect"

    "Does not affect me personally" =/= "no material effect", bub.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BigHank5310:31 AM

    Taranto carefully elides the reason those states ditched civil unions and upgraded to marriage; it isn't "a difference without a material effect". Not even close. If your life insurance policy (which may very well be written in Utah, or another state that doesn't recognize gay marriage) specifies a married beneficiary, you can be sure they will at least hesitate (and at worst, refuse) to hand over the payout to the surviving partner in a "civil union". Likewise for pensions, estate taxes*, access to patients in the ICU, and so forth.


    *The other gay marriage case the SC will hear this year. Which way will Scalia go? Does he hate the "death tax" more than he hates lesbians? Stay tuned for the further adventures of America's favorite legal contortionist!

    ReplyDelete
  18. tinheart10:53 AM

    "But, you know, if you people would settle down and not cause such a fuss, they might think about changing that, someday, maybe."

    Next up: a motion from the RNC that bans on gay marriage should be lifted "with all deliberate speed".

    ReplyDelete
  19. zencomix11:08 AM

    " co-opting the legisalture and using the courts to gain their objective)."

    "Co-opting the legislature" is fancy talk for getting elected, and "using the courts" is fancy talk for explain yourself using logic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mr. Wonderful11:24 AM

    "People of good conscience can disagree (something the left refuses to
    acknowledge while trying to ram gay marriage down the throats of people
    by co-opting the legislature and using the courts to gain their
    objective)."


    You have to hand it to these crybabies: they've mastered the jiu jitsu of turning whiny special pleading into claims of simple fairness. When THEY push for a law (or the repeal of one), it's "honoring the Founders by observing the procedures of democratic law-making." When we do it, it's "co-opting the legislature."


    Pus, "people of good conscience"? Spare me. Pol Pot slept like a baby.

    ReplyDelete
  21. XeckyGilchrist11:24 AM

    Maybe we'll see a pro-equality, anti-drone Republican Party in 2016.


    We might see one that's sincerely so by 2378! Liberal-bludgeoning is all they care about right now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. gowian11:34 AM

    Hey,
    Rob Portman's son: Now pull your dad aside and tearfully tell him that
    you're unemployed and concerned about the proliferation of guns in our
    society. And that you smoke pot.

    ReplyDelete
  23. tigrismus11:37 AM

    As more and more Americans realize that they are related to, or work with, or live next to someone who is gay, it is inevitable that acceptance follows. This doesn't mean that opposing gay marriage is bigoted.

    Also prejudging doesn't mean you're prejudiced.

    ReplyDelete
  24. They're anti-Democratic-drone and pro-Republican-equality right now!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jay B.11:49 AM

    "Ram it down our throats?" Oh, shove it up your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  26. DocAmazing11:52 AM

    When will they just split?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dennis12:00 PM

    The shorter of 'Thats how you know you're winning' is 'We're not winning yet'.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yeah, seriously. "We don't necessarily have a problem with gay marriage per se, just any of the ways in which it could be made legal."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Guestington P. Gorcestershire12:33 PM

    Yes, every two years I go to my local polling place and boldly attempt to co-opt myself a legislature.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A marvellous woman called in to Tom Ashbrook's show (On Point) on NPR and she basically said, very bluntly (paraphrasing):

    What the fuck does it say about our society that these assholes need for this stuff to affect one of their family members or friends before they care? Is it really the case that we will have to wait for each one of these jerks to have a personal epiphany on everything from poverty to aids to homelessness to gay marriage? What is wrong with these assholes?

    My favorite part aside from the entire remark was when she said she hoped someday maybe Portman would meet a poor person, or a person out of a job.

    My least favorite part of the segment was when they quoted Portman, whose shit eating grin could actually be heard on the radio, suggesting that his move was more prescient rebranding than mere self interest. HE urged his fellow Republicans to seize the moral highground afforded by gay-marriage-for-our-relatives and make lemonade by insisting that it was all part of the Republican party's historically affirmative, pro family stance which sets them off from the liberals who presumably only supported equal marriage because they knew it would destroy straight marriage and was a nice break from all the cannibalism and fetus strangling they do otherwise.

    There's an old saying "There's no prude like a reformed whore." Another is "He who fucks nuns will later join the church." But can't he do it with a little more...humility?

    ReplyDelete
  31. KatWillow12:43 PM

    "Co-opting the legislature...and courts" not to be confused with the Kocks buying the entire government of Wisconsin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. They seem to think that private schools are magic, when the secret to their marginal gains over public schools is that they can kick out whoever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  33. mortimer1:12 PM

    Exactly. It's a shame that some other Republican senator's kid isn't being screwed by their health insurance company, losing a house due to foreclosure fraud, having their pension stolen by an equity vulture, and out of a job because of the sequester. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  34. heh...indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. redoubt1:16 PM

    seize the moral highground afforded by gay-marriage-for-our-relatives and make lemonade by insisting that it was all part of the Republican party's historically affirmative, pro family stance
    Is he kidding? They'll never win another election doing that, and he knows it. By 2014--hell, by Sunday--he'll deny he ever said it, and demand an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  36. tigrismus1:17 PM

    Yeah, I heard that too, and the frustratingly clueless response from the guests that hey, that's how it happens because Clinton and Obama changed their minds, too. WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  37. aimai1:18 PM

    Yes! I about began shouting at the radio at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Derelict1:40 PM

    Hmmmm.......I vaguely seem to recall someone named Rove pushing state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and civil unions.


    But I guess those were actually statements of tolerance and good wishes to gay couples.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Dark Avenger1:55 PM

    No, it's "we're closer to winning, that's how you know you're winning."

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's too bad that Senator Portman's son lacks any legal rights in Ohio pertaining to any same-sex relationship ... thanks to the constitution-amending pushed by Rob's fellow vicious bigoted GOP shitstains (but I repeat myself). I'm sure he'll be seriously on the bandwagon for a new Ohio referendum at approximately never o'clock next Fuck-all.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mrs Tilton2:02 PM

    Excellent capsule; thanks, zuzu.


    Let me assure those of you not afflicted with the cognitive/affective disorder commonly known as "thinking like a lawyer" that the technical bumf zuzu discusses is really important stuff. For any given category X,
    getting X recognized as a suspect class is huge. Essentially, it means that you win unless the government can come up with a REALLY good story. If on the other hand you are stuck at rational-basis review, that almost always mean you lose. Remember in Bananas, when the dictator rules that all must wear underwear, and that they must wear it on the outside so the government could check? That would probably pass rational-basis review. (But by the same token, if a court rules that (i) X is not a suspect class, so only rational-basis review applies, but (ii) the governmental act disadvantageous to X fails even that test, the court is basically saying: "Stupid f*cking government, no biscuit".)

    Though I couldn’t make it this year, I am usually in New York at the end of January for the New York State bar annual meeting. My work-related stuff is over by Thursday afternoon, but I generally attend the LGBT and the Law Committee presentation on the Friday. The first time I did so, it was all about strategy and planning of challenges to DOMA etc. Last year it was about the thorny tax and other issues that can arise in connection with divorce. To me, Roy, that is a clear signal that we're winning (though lots of these issues, it must be said, are DOMA-driven). And when LGBT-related legal issues have become as horrifically, immutably, mind-numbingly boring as everything else, we'll know that we've won.[FN1]

    [FN1] It’s unlikely I need to do so in this forum, but I should make clear that by "we", I mean not only LGBT people specifically, but what Roy likes to call "normal people". I attend these meetings because, to me, equality for LGBT people is the preeminent civil rights issue in the USA today. Personally, I am straight. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. tigrismus2:10 PM

    Duh, I missed that ROY said that. I blame Obama and his nefarious plot to steal an hour of daylight from American citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bloop_Bloopington2:14 PM

    Roy:


    "I expect the brighter bulbs among the rightbloggers will keep quiet or roll more gently with it."
    Yup. But the threads underneath are utterly classic.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Roy T.2:16 PM

    As one of those who would like to be able to get gay married, I must say my. . . umm. . .arm is getting a little tired doing all this throat shoving. Does anybody make some sort of device I can use that will shove things like agendas down throats, but avoids hazards like spittle and sharp teeth?

    ReplyDelete
  45. zencomix2:17 PM

    Here's a PDF of a summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision legalizing same sex marriage in Iowa. You can get PDFs of the whole thing here, and it is a highly recommended read. It is a step by step dismantling of every wingnut weasel word justification for banning gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Daniel, you gotta stop with the John Nolte stuff. You'll go blind.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dennis2:26 PM

    No, that would be a longer.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm pretty sure that's feature not bug for the Noltes of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  49. " This doesn't mean that opposing gay marriage is bigoted."


    Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does.


    You can hem and you can haw. You talk pretty. You can dress up your bigotry in clothes from Rodeo Drive...but your bigotry is still bigotry, and I'm allowed to call you a bigot if I wanna.

    ReplyDelete
  50. brandonrg2:42 PM

    Reactionaries have always been protectors of the rights and powers of the state--just the right state, the one that enforces the social structures they desire.

    ReplyDelete
  51. smut clyde2:55 PM

    At least it's an ethos!

    ReplyDelete
  52. smut clyde3:02 PM

    The effect of banning same-sex marriage in civil-union states is purely
    expressive: The states are in effect declaring that homosexual
    relationships are inferior to marriages. That is a value judgment with
    which many people disagree, but why should the state not be free to
    express it


    Banning inter-racial marriage -- not bigotry, but a purely expressive value judgment that miscegenation is an abomination. Why should the state not be free to express it?

    ReplyDelete
  53. tigrismus3:09 PM

    I'm allowed to call you a bigot if I wanna.

    It's a value judgment with which many people agree, and you should be free to express it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. aimai3:42 PM

    The comment thread under Moran's piece is a sight to behold. First of all: comments practically foam at the mouth. Second of all they jump right to a kind of hysterical sciency anti science in which they mix up stuff they were told with a generic conservative fear of being muzzled by a larger, uncaring, conspiracy of liberal oppression.


    Third of all: they all agree that Portman's Complaint, I mean Portman's Problem, is a "failure to lead" not evidence of love or learning. Leading has a specific meaning for them, a biblical one, and it is almost more damning that Portman comes out in favor of his son coming out than if he had done it for a stranger.


    Because both Portman and his son are seen as doing violence to a prior, ur, biblical relationship of father to son in which the father must lead and command and the son? Well, he should suffer. The son is reversing the natural order of things by telling the father how its going to be. The father is "submitting" to the will of the son and that's almost as unnatural as sodomy.


    They also all jump to the comparison: homosexuality = pedophilia. They think that not only because they think they have a scientific justification for the link (look it up, libtards!) If Portman is ok with one thing he must be ok with the other. Absolutely none of them will be distracted by the lone poster who points out that pedophilia is a crime because it involves non consenting adults. A crime's a crime, isn't it? They gedank the experiment that Portman's son comes out as Muslim and demands four wives, and his daughter comes out as somethin' something' weird and demands three husbands, and then his wife starts eyeing the goat. This proves that Portman's sin is complaisance and failure to hold the line against the sick, depraved, and random pleasures of all the subordinates in his household.


    Portman won't have won any friends in the Republican party for this--but I can't even applaud his "courage" because he tried to put it over on them in the most mealy mouthed way. If he thought he could run with the tigers and then come out as a closet goat he needed his head examined.

    ReplyDelete
  55. It's a value judgment with which many people agree, and you should be free to express it.

    Unless the target of the epithet is a conservative Christian, in which case it violates the First Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  56. they all agree that Portman's Complaint


    I eagerly await the day when the slippery slope caused by Massachusetts' destruction of the Biblical definition of marriage allows me to be united in matrimony with this snippet.

    ReplyDelete
  57. More like "pathos," amirite? Anyone? Epicurus?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Yeah, in that sense school "choice" actually is one of the civil rights issues of our time ... as in "How do we resegregate the schools legally?"

    ReplyDelete
  59. El Manquecito4:03 PM

    Me three.

    Anyone that interprets any move of Portman's as anything but shameless cynical careerist positioning hasn't been paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well, you can't demand that they bend over, because that is the standard liberal complaint about whatever they don't like: they're being expected to bend over and take it from the Reichtards. The Right doesn't want to have liberalism rammed down their throats, Liberals don't want to have conservatism shoved up their asses. There's a certain pleasant symmetry there.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Possibly on occasion, in grimmer moments. Such as after being confronted with yet another dysfunctional, rusted-out urban public drinking fountain, due to decades of governments subsidizing well-off whites obtaining bottled water out in the suburbs.

    ReplyDelete
  62. aimai4:15 PM

    Actually, on reflection, this entire incident reminds me of John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." Its an excellent bookhttp://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0143038869 and one of the reasons it comes to mind is that after his fall from grace Dean discovered what everyone else in the world had always known about Nixon and his associates: they lie about everything. He finds his wife smeared as an ex prostitute and he is simply stunned--he knows the people spreading this rumor know its false, and some of them are even former friends. This starts his move from, well, John Dean into being an actual Mensch.


    I wonder what will happen to Rob Portman, who is an asshole's asshole, when he discovers that stepping one inch outside the magic circle of hatred and denial, even for the most selfish and venal of reasons, is the same to the other insiders as leaping a mile out. He thinks he can stay a "conservative in good standing" after reneging on the hate the gayz thing? He's going to find that they hate apostates more than they hate the gays themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Halloween_Jack4:57 PM

    He might consider the example of Illinois GOP chairman Pat Brady. (It now seems that the other state GOP leaders are walking back their threats to oust Brady.)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Well, I think that's unfair, mds. I don't think they just want to keep the blahs and Mexicans out, I also think they want to keep out the poor, the abused and the special needs kids.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Derelict5:08 PM

    Well, they do seem to consume themselves in feeding frenzies on a fairly regular basis, don't they? And all of this as the participants at CPAC go crazy today trying to convince themselves that they're not racists.

    ReplyDelete
  66. David DeRosa5:41 PM

    The CPAC blogging award is in! And the winner is . . . Julie Borowski, and isn’t she precious.
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/bachmann_blogging_is_a_miracle/
    When it came time to present the award, Bachmann called up recipient Julie Borowski, who video blogs under the pen name “Token Libertarian Girl.” In her brief remarks accepting the honor, Borowski said she started the blog when she was 22 and living with her parents. “See, you kids need to get a job and move out!” Bachmann joked, expanding on her message of self-responsibility
    http://julieborowski.wordpress.com/
    About Julie Borowski
    Hi, I’m Julie Borowski. I’m 24. I’m a Policy Analyst. I love dogs. I make YouTube videos about libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jay B.5:41 PM

    Your secret heterosexuality is safe with us, Mrs T.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Jay B.5:44 PM

    Dick Cheney was never ostracized by these vipers. And he's pretty liberal on his gay daughter's rights, just no one else's.

    ReplyDelete
  69. AGoodQuestion5:45 PM

    FWIW, the Portman statement that Rick Moron quotes strikes me as warm, sincere, and articulate. I'm not entirely sure he'd have said it if he were in spitting distance of the presidential nomination, but good on him that he did so as things stand.

    ReplyDelete
  70. AGoodQuestion5:47 PM

    And Roy predicts that this guy - among others - will get pettier. *shudder*

    ReplyDelete
  71. Jay B.5:48 PM

    Jesus, it's like a tic with you. I'd love to see a few cites of that liberal clarion call about bending over.

    ReplyDelete
  72. AGoodQuestion5:50 PM

    It ain't stealing an election if you've got the receipt.

    ReplyDelete
  73. AGoodQuestion5:58 PM

    And not in a particularly fun way.

    ReplyDelete
  74. AGoodQuestion6:06 PM

    Yes, look for a subtle or not-so-subtle increase in the length of his nose.

    ReplyDelete
  75. AGoodQuestion6:21 PM

    In her brief remarks accepting the honor, Borowski said she started the blog when she was 22 and living with her parents. “See, you kids need to get a job and move out!” Bachmann joked, expanding on her message of self-responsibility.


    In joking about a libertarian blogger being a hypocrite, Bachman is the rightest she's ever been, purely by accident.

    ReplyDelete
  76. whetstone6:28 PM

    "co-opting the legisalture"


    They have such cute euphemisms for voting.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dennis6:44 PM

    No offense, but winners don't go around saying 'this is how you know you're winning.'

    ReplyDelete
  78. TGuerrant6:53 PM

    They ARE free to express it, they just aren't free to express it and not be viewed as shit for it. It's so weird. They all seem to want to be popular for doing disgusting things.

    ReplyDelete
  79. TGuerrant6:58 PM

    Actually, I think to them hypocrisy is the supreme measure of power. If I can command you not to have sex outside of marriage while I rape your children, am I not the one with the power? Cheney loves him some Vietnam and feels no twinge over getting five draft deferments so he can line his pockets with war profiteering while dumb John Kerry goes gets on the boat. Psychos.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The Dark Avenger7:12 PM

    Just like losers don't troll on the Internets.

    ReplyDelete
  81. aimai7:22 PM

    But they do Oscar, they do.

    ReplyDelete
  82. aimai7:23 PM

    Actually its Rush Limbaugh who most uses the locution "bend over" its all part of his generally fondness for prison rape jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  83. aimai7:27 PM

    I agree with this. Its harsh but accurate. They don't at all object to people with power or money accessign special priviliges and, in fact, its a tenet of right wing authoritarian beliefs that we all would if we could. This is something they argue all the time: liberals would be as racist as conservatives are if they actually had to live and work with blacks, or if they had to send their kids to school with blacks. Therefore anti racist laws or institutional adjustments are themselves a kind of lie or fraud on the conservatives who oppose them because they don't really affect "liberals" (the quote marks there are to indicate the fact that a great many conservatives don't believe liberals really exist or have principles, they think its just an opportunistic way for one tribe to make another tribe feel bad about shit thats totall normal.

    ReplyDelete
  84. ButchPansy7:52 PM

    This.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mr. Wonderful8:40 PM

    Okay, so I'll take D'Artagnan. Let's call the whole thing off.

    ReplyDelete
  86. whetstone8:47 PM

    The Brady thing has been a wonderful side/shitshow here. It's made explaining why the Illinois GOP is incompetent so much easier.

    I can't wait for Bruce Rauner to run. Imagine Michael Bloomberg running for governor in southern Illinois. He's a backer of the Chicago mayor! So many heads to watch explode, so much popcorn to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm not entirely sure he'd have said it if he were in spitting distance of the presidential nomination

    He certainly assiduously avoided saying it when he was considered within spitting distance of the vice-presidential nomination, as his son came out to him in February 2011. So yeah, medals all around.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Fiddlin' Bill9:51 PM

    Why is it that it took a blood connection to convince Portman of the obvious justice to allowing marriage to apply to any two people, regardless of sex. And why did it take his son saying that he was gay not by choice by by nature to convince Portman, when this was the position of mainstream psychology and nearly everyone not grinding an axe for the past two or three decades. And finally, how is it that Mr. Portman got elected to the Senate?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Finally a film that tells the TRUTH about reading Breitbart columnists!"

    ReplyDelete
  90. glennisw10:28 PM

    something the left refuses to acknowledge while trying to ram gay marriage down the throats of people


    My goodness I had no idea the left was trying to force people to gay-marry against their wishes!

    ReplyDelete
  91. glennisw10:30 PM

    Well, I'm sure those private schools will take all applicants, right?

    ReplyDelete
  92. ColBatGuano10:51 PM

    It's okay to demand your rights, just so long as you don't use either of the two methods of political recourse available.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yglesias, who manages to be right sometimes, points out
    the limits of
    the empathy shown by guys like Portman: Influential people like senators
    have gay kids, but they rarely have poor ones.

    ReplyDelete
  94. AngryWarthogBreath11:41 PM

    "People of good conscience can disagree about whether you and everyone like you are hideous abominations against the good and right order of humankind that I should never have to see around me! Right? That's what good conscience means, right?"

    ReplyDelete
  95. commie atheist1:33 AM

    (Jonah) Goldberg, who supports state control over marriage policy, pointed out one problem for Republicans who support gay marriage.

    “You’re gonna have to show me how you’re gonna replace those 30 million social conservatives and evangelicals that are gonna leave the party” if Republicans back gay marriage,” Goldberg warned.




    So, so close to self-awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  96. DocAmazing2:24 AM

    "DP" in this case does not stand for Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
  97. DocAmazing2:31 AM

    The Obama administration, in its briefs, is running


    Streaking is a novel courtroom strategy. I'm optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  98. DocAmazing2:37 AM

    "I love my dead gay son!"

    ReplyDelete
  99. there's a story about george will moaning on and on and on through the eighties about the nanny state and seatbelts, but he experienced a come to jesus moment after some pour soul bashed his head against his windshield in a car accident in front of will's home.

    i know corey robinson has made the case that despite being rooted in revanchism and fantasy, conservatism is an intellectual cause; but as far as that goes, it's a pretty stupid one.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Reminds me of a similar situation with the now-dead pundit Christopher Hitchens, about the torture method called water-boarding. It seems Hitch originally supported the practice. Later, he decided to undergo a SERE water-boarding session by trained instructors and wrote an article discussing what he found out: "Believe Me, It's Torture - Vanity Fair".

    This is all fine as far as it goes, but you have to ask, why was it necessary for Hitchens to personally undergo this procedure? Why did he not simply read the ample literature describing the effects of this practice? Why did he not examine the historical record which showed waterboarding, under various names, being done by such groups as the Spanish Inquisition, or the Khmer Rouge? There is a weird narcissism in the idea that we, or someone close to us, has to personally experience something for us to care about it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 104 comments and no one has observed that "When they are Whining, you are Winning?"

    ReplyDelete
  102. LittlePig11:46 AM

    That's because Dick Cheney will shoot you in the face then make your face apologize for getting in the way.

    ReplyDelete
  103. LittlePig12:07 PM

    Because he knew *his* testicles weren't small moons, but actually star stations.



    How sheltered a life must one have led to think they could tough out drowning.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I can respectfully disagree with Rick Moran that he should be allowed to eat food. Strangely, I cannot prevent him from eating the food.

    ReplyDelete
  105. We've been talking about this for days but I do think its important to remember that Portman's knoweldge of the world, and especially of psychology and non normative sexuality are as subject to the social construction of knowledge/reality as anyone else's. The guy has spent his entire life (presumably) hanging out with people for whom bronze age religion filtered through centuries of piss poor analysis serves for an authoritative source. In being confronted with his own son, a person who he loves and who he personally reared, coming out as gay he is in the same position as a person who is hit by a two by four and thus discovers matter and energy transfer. Take even the limited issue "gay not by choice but by nature." That's such a loaded concept in modern American Christianity--aren't we all sinful by nature? Don't we all have a duty to avoid committing sins which, by their nature, we believe to be pleasurable? These people have been circling this logical drain for a very long time without being able to honorably and lovingly resolve the conundrum.

    ReplyDelete
  106. DocAmazing12:58 PM

    If that were the case, we'd always be winning.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Are we winning?

    We've got a pro-bankster, pro-drone Democratic Party right now.

    And of course!, Obama is still trying to cut Social Security.

    Sweet, sweet victory!
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  108. aimai3:12 PM

    Yes, we are winning. 40 million more people will have health insurance. Don't Ask/Don't tell was reppealed. Soon DOMA will be reppealed. But if you don't like the way things are going why the fuck don't you get off your ass and go work for some candidates you do like and see how far they get working their way up the ladder into political relevance? Say what you want about the Obama administrations many failures at least they get up every day and fucking do something instead of just standing on the sidelines and bitching.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Halloween_Jack4:26 PM

    Portman's Complaint


    I want to do to this part of the comment what I did to the piece of liver.

    ReplyDelete
  110. coming out as gay he is in the same position as a person who is hit by a
    two by four and thus discovers matter and energy transfer.



    take me now, you saucy minx.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous12:10 AM

    A huge dick in my pussy,the warm wet tounge up my personal
    arse and cum and pussy juice all over me.
    Fuck, ozzy

    My web blog - hcg injections

    ReplyDelete
  112. MyPetGloat7:58 AM

    Conservatives are always talking about having something rammed down their throat. I sometimes wonder if they want something rammed down their throat. You know, besides the extra large corn dog they enjoy at the annual county fair.

    ReplyDelete
  113. tinheart4:03 PM

    That's the first time I've ever heard that euphemism.

    ReplyDelete
  114. drkrick12:30 PM

    Split entirely? It takes a long time. People are still arguing for Charles I and Richard III. Getting it to the point where they're a harmless minority of eccentrics is much quicker.

    ReplyDelete
  115. drkrick12:48 PM

    Or that he was perfectly on board with Reagan's Secretary of Education saying all kinds of stupid things until she said something stupid about Down's Syndrome kids because (wait for it) he had a son with Down's Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Geo X3:53 PM

    Little-known fact: one sign of impending victory is when you get angry and scream profanities at anyone who suggests that said "victory" might be problematic. Really projects a sense of confidence.

    ReplyDelete