Sunday, March 31, 2013
NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...
...about the gay marriage cases at the Supreme Court and all the hysteria they have engendered among the brethren. The ones where they try to play it cagey are even better than the ones where they aargh-blaargh sanctity of marriage etc, I think -- but you'll all have your own favorites, I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The most implacable foe of all is RedState kingpin Erick Erickson, who wrote in the starkly titled "'Gay Marriage' and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible" that "already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more."
ReplyDeleteShorter Erickson: How could you, capitalism? I thought we were friends.
"already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more."
ReplyDeleteThat's funny...they never had gay customers getting married before so it's not like they are now losing money from these customers they never had; unless the straight couples are no longer patronizing them because these particular tradespeople are advertising themselves as anti-gay.
[i]"An authoritarian anti-free
ReplyDeletespeech mindset has set in with many gay-marriage supporters...
Apparently, for many liberals, free-speech rights can be extended to
people who agree with them or their allies..."[/i]-- John Fund
Fund's "he's interfering with my Freedom of Speech" = "Ma, he's looking at me funny, if you know what I mean and I think you do!"
Erickson: "Christians in America have gotten soft...We've turned the nation into an idol to be worshiped... We've turned the American ideal of liberty into an idol we worship... The world is not on its way to Christ. The world hates Christ..."
ReplyDeleteSince when did The Boy Who Cried Goat Fucker turn into Oliver Cromwell in a fat suit?
Funny how a guy who has been fixated for years on mundane issues like tax rates and smashing unions is suddenly wrapping himself in an ill-fitting translation of the New Testament and raging about loving homos for Christ through a program of punitive state tactics.
This appears to be an age-old reflex with these reactionary con men: when you're losing to the forces of tolerance, go full Torquemada. However, I don't think he realizes just how transparent his spittle-flecked hate sermons really are.
Standing athwart the wedding registry shouting "Galt!"
ReplyDeleteWell then how are you loving your neighbor as yourself if you're cool
ReplyDeletewith him going to hell?... same sex sexual relations is a sin, as is
lying, greed, gluttony, etc.
Has Erik son of Erik joined Occupy Wall Street? How is being anti-greed compatible with being a Republican?
"The Hegelian Dialectic," said Dean, "is the tool that the corrupt in
ReplyDeletegovernment use in an attempt to manipulate the minds of the people to
accept their 'change'..."
Yes, and the Neolithic Revolution is a plan by radicals to overthrow society.
Now, why is the chorus to "Idiot Wind" circling 'round my skull?
Erickson: "same sex sexual relations is a sin, as is lying, greed, gluttony, etc" And we know how heroically right-wingers stand against greed and gluttony.
ReplyDeleteI presume the suffering is that they're being forced to degrade themselves by participating in all this sinfulness.
ReplyDeleteAny florist, baker, photographer, or other member of the Wedding-Industrial Complex who views same-sex marriage as an affront rather than as a moneymaking opportunity is just a shitty businessperson.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I love it when my neighbor tells me I'm going to hell. It makes every borrowed cup of sugar an adventure.
ReplyDeleteI admit I click on Ross Cardinal Douthat's columns.
ReplyDeleteMostly to see the drubbing he always takes in the comments.
Well, after the various wars all went sideways, the whackadoodle right has very few tried and true wedge issues on which to rely, namely, the gehs and abortion. The Repugs are really fearful that, if the gehs get their way, there's nothing left but the unborns, and that may not be enough to keep the evangelicals streaming to the polls in favor of the righty-tighty-whiteys at the national level.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about winning national elections, and after the implosions of the Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks and Allen Wests and Scary Sarah Palins, with no greater fearmongering to be had, they're probably thinking that they're fucked.
M'self, I'd really like them to be fearful for a change, but, I'm sure they'll come up with something new and truly horrible, like war with North Korea, or Iran, or Syria or all three, or any simpering, flag-waving routine they can think of to distract from the raw, stark reality that they have nothing left in their quiver. War on Christmas? Their corporate friends have always fucked `em on that one. Easter? They couldn't even tell the difference between Cesar Chavez and Hugo Chavez. How many people came to the conclusion they were bone-deep stoopid on that one?
We're down to alien lizard beings in disguise here. Only problem there is that conservatives fit the profile....
I really, really want a fat-ass like Red-Ass Son of Red-Ass lecturing me on gluttony.
ReplyDeleteBring. It. On. Two-Chins.
I'll bet Douthat does the same thing, clad in a hair shirt and a beatific smile.
ReplyDeletePoor Erick Son of Erick! The "goat fucking child molesters" have won!
ReplyDeleteGay marriage and freedom of religion are not compatible? Once again, conservatives confuse "freedom" with privilege. The tolerant person says, "I can live as I want, and you can live as you want." The intolerant person says, "I can live as I want, and you must also live as I want." Erickson doesn't want "freedom," he wants to be able to control other people's lives. (This plan raises additional problems, in that he is a dim-witted asshole.)
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat has always been a whiny little shit, but I was both annoyed and amused by his column on gay marriage, since he's moved from concern trolling to try to prevent it to concern trolling anyone who enjoys his political defeat.
Similarly, are we supposed to believe that, with their Roe v. Wade divisiveness talk, Brian and Garrett Fahy support legal and safe abortion? It couldn't be them just concern trolling liberals to let conservatives win, could it?
I've also been amused by the various bargain-basement libertarians arguing that the government should get out of marriage altogether, because gummint bad!, ignoring such pesky issues as legal status, hospital visitation rights and medical decisions, child custody, inheritance, etc.. (Although at least one libertarian flat-out advocated it as a way to eliminate alimony, in a move that will shock no one. Just like that libertarian Koch-funded Mercatus "freedom" report that ignored women's rights and most employee rights. Gosh, what could the through-line be?)
Why would getting the government out of marriage get rid of alimony? It's pretty standard contract language to put in penalties for non-performance.
ReplyDeleteI would like to do things with this comment that will make Erick Erickson rant and rage and rave, and shake his fists, and bellow imprecations to his god, and yet with sad predictability also experience strange and frightening but oddly exciting feelings, in his pants.
ReplyDeleteTraditional marriage has always been between one man and several women, some of whom are underage. How dare you gheys oppress the rest of us by demanding equal rights?
ReplyDeleteMany people say we should have legal gay marriage, but not have religious gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe left will not honor the distinction. Look to Canada. Preachers
can be brought up for hate crimes charges merely for discussing passages
of the Bible that deal with same sex sexual relations.
Nice dodge, chucklefuck. Canada is not governed by the US Constitution. Until that is amended, no priest or rabbi or imam will ever be forced to marry a gay couple. And you know that. But the truth doesn't help you scaremonger, does it...
Not to mention, blatantly wearing cloth spun out of threads from two different materials and eating shellfish.
ReplyDeleteThat would be ok with me. If that goatfucker wasn't making so much money doing this shit.
ReplyDeleteWe've turned the nation into an idol to be worshiped
ReplyDeleteWait, what... is he accepting some personal responsibility for promoting the toxic form of idolatry known as 'patriotism', or is he using "We" in the technical sense of "all you other people"?...
We've turned the American ideal of liberty into an idol we worship
...Oh, I see. Now that people want to use their constitutional freedoms, EE realises that freedom is not such a good thing after all.
"Erickson got frothier as the week wore on. "Christians in America have gotten soft," he hollered in another post."
ReplyDeleteHey, whatever happened in Vegas between you and Santorum was supposed to stay in Vegas.
No, no, NO... when Al Gore sold Current TV to Al-Jazeera, THAT was greed...
ReplyDeleteIt's not patriotism that's the last refuge of scoundrels, after all. (See also the upcoming book on the War on Xmas by one S. Palin.)
ReplyDeleteThe "freedom vs privilege" dodge is the stupidest tactic I've seen in a while. It's so transparent that birds fly into it. I mean, I thought the "civility vs decency" dodge was dumb as rocks, but this is worse. When they beat this one for dumbness, it will be a true achievement.
ReplyDeleteGreat beat ! I would like to apprentice whilst you amend your site,
ReplyDeletehow can i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal.
I have been a little bit familiar of this your broadcast provided vibrant transparent concept
Also visit my homepage Useful Content
OK, Erick bin Erick, if your idea of christianity is to angrily shove jesus down gay people's throats? I'd rather go on hajj instead.
ReplyDeleteShorter John French: "Shotgun weddings are the only kind that count."
Robert Wargas has raised the word salad non sequitur to an art form. "A libertarian cause is being led by an anti-libertarian crowd", he wails, and all that's required for proof is to blurt "Frankfurt School!", although "Saul Alinsky!!" would have done just as well. And that whole "...If I lived under a fascist military junta and were scheduled for execution the following week, blah de blah..." is just precious. Why, it's almost as if he'll be disappointed if no anti marriage equality bakers or florists actually die.
ReplyDeleteAlways interesting how the champions of freedom are the ones who advocate most strongly against the most personal of freedoms.
ReplyDeleteBut the entire conservative movement's motto has always been "Get government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom!"
the brighter bulbs will come up with dog whistles and club codes to let the faithful know where they really stand, but can't say it out loud because everyone's so politically correct.
ReplyDeleteThis is perspicacious. They'll say some of their best friends are married gay people but use scare quotes for "married," "husband," and "wife" to describe them. They'll assume all gay marriage ceremonies take place at a Pier One or Pottery Barn, but should never be in a church because God, and they won't mind the wedding announcements in the paper as long as there are no pictures because think of the children. Libertarians will support the right of gays to get married but will stop at equal rights for service at the catering hall.
Waitaminnit, they do all this stuff now. At least we can look forward to the day when they tell us how enlightened they are to realize that there are "straight faggots" too.
While those who are pro-gay marriage registrys are standing up shouting "gelt/"
ReplyDeleteNo,the suffering is caused by sailing too close to that Scylla of sin, Avarice while attempting to avoid the Charybdis of same sex marriage. Its the agony of scrooge mcDuck when he sees a penny someone else is picking up.
ReplyDeleteThis seems so much like a line from Fafblog:
ReplyDelete"The Hegelian Dialectic, sez I to Giblets, is the tool" "And We", sez Giblets to I, "is the chair the tool reupholsters."
"Once you've gone Hyundai, you'll ne'er be a fun gay!"
ReplyDeleteLine of the millennium, Roy.
Many (if not all) states allow the garnishment of wages for the nonpayment of child support. The cold, dread hand of the State strikes again! That dimwits on the right can't tell the difference between child support and alimony should surprise nobody.
ReplyDeleteIt's so amusing to read Dean talking about Hegel as if he has the slightest fucking idea what it means, in a cruel sort of way; it's like giving a gorilla a scalpel.
ReplyDeleteI daresay, it is the first.
ReplyDeleteI love me some Devil's Dictionary
Here's the money quote IMO:
ReplyDeleteAs for legacy pledge Jonah Goldberg, he brushed the issue off with a distracting fart and a dash for the exits -- "I think the argument over whether or not to call civil unions 'marriage' has been all but lost, though there's a glimmer of hope the decision might eventually be left to the states (which I favor)" -- so we'll put him down as an "abstain," or some kind of stain anyway.
Not the Human Steyn, though.
"Consider, for example, the wedding band that won't play the hokey-pokey for gay people -- what about their rights?"
ReplyDeleteFOR gay people? Not to mention "with." Puts "pokey" in an ambiguous light, but that's cool. Live gigs are hard to come by. Oh never mind.
That's what's really weird about this "my freedom of faith!" hollerin'. You won't be forced. But others of your faith who DOESN'T have a problem with officiating gay marriages... what's wrong with that? That's a squabble you have with those within your own faith. Not with the government. Are they really gonna say that "No government interference in my religion" doesn't apply when they WANT the government to choose favorites? Well, yeah, of course they are. I can't wait for different enclaves of the same denomination turning on each other on this issue. And I don't have to. The oddest thing is not them not getting laws right. They can't even get their own beliefs right. Or even wrong.
ReplyDelete(This post is a goldmine.)
ReplyDelete"The same-sex marriage argument never would have gained cultural
traction without heterosexuals -- in word and deed -- redefining
marriage away from a child-centered lifelong commitment towards an
adult-centered at-will contract for mutual romantic benefit," (David French) wrote.
Smooth talker! "Darling...would you...could you...I mean to say, dash it, Olivia, but would you do me the honour (sic) of entering with me into a child-centered lifelong commitment towards an adult-centered at-will contract for mutual romantic benefit...?"
Has there been large-scale government cencorship of anti-gay-marriage people? Or has there just been a greater governmental acceptance of gay people? There's a hell of a glaring difference, which is lost on the sub-morons of the far right.
ReplyDeleteInfertilty verboten!
ReplyDeleteThey can't handle not being allowed to tell nonbelievers what to do. Why do you think they'll be more accepting of intra-faith disputes?
ReplyDeleteNo, even emulating Mark would be too ambitious for Jonah. Which is sad all around.
ReplyDeleteI don't! My point with "I don't have to", was to point out that it's already taking place, and has for some time.
ReplyDeleteThe sexual revolution is now a tall tree with far-flung branches. The fruit over here, abortion, may be a long walk from the fruit over there, same-sex marriage, but the clearly toxic nature of the former affirms for me my wariness of the latter.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Frankovitch - fetus eater? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
This is in fact the reductio non absurdum of what they've been fighting for since the late Sixties and arguably since the Wilson administration: their wish for kings.
ReplyDeleteI also huff enough glue to recall the LGBT advocacy of the Wilson administration.
Ha, hah..And how the hell does equality for gay people equal a wish for a monarchy? It's so deranged I can't even follow it. And I'M DERANGED!
ReplyDeleteI read comments here before the article and it's a testament to Roy's powers that i didn't realize this was his line and not something a wingnut actually said.
ReplyDeleteWell, a lot people enjoy having the right to that fruit and a lot of people (some of them the same) would also like the other fruit. And all it would cost you, is... nothing. French? You're a tool of your own inadequate making.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Goldberg finger Wilson as a liberal fascist icon in one of his books? I don't know how he squared that with Wilson's well-documented racism, patriarchal tendencies and affection for Sedition Acts, but then I can't study Goldberg, I have too few brain cells to spare.
ReplyDeleteHe did, in fact, and the connecting thread is that liberals are The Worst.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how he squared that with Wilson's well-documented racism
ReplyDeleteOooh, I know (and I didn't even read the book)!
- liberals are bad
- racism is bad
- therefore, liberals are racists
- *fart*
That line deserves to be ensconced in the Smithsonian.
ReplyDeleteI think being able to stay upwind of Goldberg is a sign of having a good supply of brainc cells.
ReplyDelete"Since when did The Boy Who Cried Goat Fucker turn into Oliver Cromwell in a fat suit?"
ReplyDeleteOK. That made me laugh out loud.
Seems to have happened in the early 1800s, when someone let that dirty hippie Jane Austen get hold of a quill pen:
ReplyDelete``Believe me, my dear Miss Elizabeth, that your modesty, so far from doing you any disservice, rather adds to your other perfections. You would have been less amiable in my eyes had there not been this little unwillingness; but allow me to assure you that I have your respected mother's permission for this address. You can hardly doubt the purport of my discourse, however your natural delicacy may lead you to dissemble; my attentions have been too marked to be mistaken. Almost as soon as I entered the house I singled you out as the companion of my future life. But before I am run away with by my feelings on this subject, perhaps it will be advisable for me to state my reasons for marrying -- and moreover for coming into Hertfordshire with the design of selecting a wife, as I certainly did.''
The idea of Mr. Collins, with all his solemn composure, being run away with by his feelings, made Elizabeth so near laughing that she could not use the short pause he allowed in any attempt to stop him farther, and
he continued:
``My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every
clergyman in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish. Secondly, that I am convinced it will add very greatly to my happiness; and thirdly -- which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular advice and recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of calling patroness. Twice has she condescended to give me her opinion (unasked too!) on this subject; and it was but the very Saturday night before I left Hunsford -- between our pools at quadrille, while Mrs. Jenkinson was arranging Miss de Bourgh's foot-stool, that she said, "Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry. -- Chuse properly, chuse a gentlewoman
for my sake; and for your own, let her be an active, useful sort of person, not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way. This is my advice. Find such a woman as soon as you can, bring her to Hunsford, and I will visit her." Allow me, by the way, to observe, my fair cousin, that I do not reckon the notice and kindness of Lady Catherine de Bourgh as among the least of the advantages in my power to offer. You will find her manners beyond any thing I can describe; and your wit and vivacity I think must be acceptable to her, especially when tempered with the silence and respect which her rank will inevitably excite. Thus much for my general intention in favour of matrimony; it remains to be told why my views were directed to Longbourn instead of my own
neighbourhood, where I assure you there are many amiable young women. But the fact is, that being, as I am, to inherit this estate after the death of your honoured father (who, however, may live many years longer), I could not satisfy myself without resolving to chuse a wife from among his daughters, that the loss to them might be as little as possible, when the melancholy event takes place -- which, however, as I have already said, may not be for several years. This has been my motive, my fair cousin, and I flatter myself it will not sink me in your esteem. And now nothing remains for me but to assure you in the most animated language of the violence of my affection. To fortune I am perfectly indifferent, and shall make no demand of that nature on your father, since I am well aware that it could not be complied with; and that one thousand pounds in the 4 per cents, which will not be yours till after your
mother's decease, is all that you may ever be entitled to. On that head,
therefore, I shall be uniformly silent; and you may assure yourself that no
ungenerous reproach shall ever pass my lips when we are married.''
You missed the all important words "the real". However else for him to truly whitewash his precious conservatism.
ReplyDeleteNever mind the ridiculous assertion that more people getting married will cause economic harm to people whose business is weddings. I'm still trying to get my head around the title - Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible. Wh-wh-whut the fuck is he talking about? I know this is what the fundies truly believe, that unless you live and believe the way they think you should, they are being oppressed, but usually they won't say it out loud, unless they're in the pulpit of their own church - much less write it down for all the world to see. I'd like to see some examples of how Mr. Shithead Sonofshithead is being restricted from believing and practicing whatever religion he likes because the gays are getting married. Or even just one example.
ReplyDeleteWhat they're really complaining about when they whine about "free speech" is that people not in the government disagree with them. In public! And tell them that their ideas are bigoted and shitty. Which is exactly the same as government censorship.
ReplyDeleteBut of course they can still tell people what to do. They just can't force them to do what they want to do. And they're whiny as hell about people calling them bigoted for having bigoted beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to contemplate the schisms though. One of the more telling religious developments of recent decades was the shift of the baptists from pro choice to pro life. I think they had to set aside their hatred of the dread papists so they could make new friends in hate and backwards social control. I expect we'll see more of this going forward, with a sort of hate-based interfaith fundie outreach.
It's going to be rad. I'm fixing drinks.
Yeah, I know. They see any disagreement as a sign of black helicopters descending. I could see them being worried if shit was taken AWAY from them. But no, they're bitching about rights being given to other people. Their pettiness is astonishing.
ReplyDeleteThe right is full of Mr. Collinses.
ReplyDeleteI hear the word, "liberty," most frequently these days from gun nuts and Tenthers. Is Erickson unintentionally berating people packing pistols? Or, with the gun nutz, is the gun the idol and liberty just the plinth on which the gun sits?
ReplyDeleteThis admixture of religious freak-out and Bircher spittle-launching is really confusing. Is this a new thing with Erickson? I don't remember his being this sanctimonious in the past. Maybe he's finally burst an essential blood vessel.
Fruits and fruit of the womb? Ah well, at least our tree isn't all nuts.
ReplyDeleteIf they weren't so militantly in denial about climate change, they could rally 'round the newly open Arctic shipping routes, and the Russian/Chinese threats to the US thereby made possible.
ReplyDeleteI want to swoop that line up onto my dashing white Equus, sing it a Sonata, and ride off to Veracruz, by way of Santa Fe and Tucson.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think the conservative definition of tolerance is "I tell you how to live and you should be too afraid to say boo about it."
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Jonah and his pals fall back on "state's rights" as the last refuge of bigotry. It's past time for these guys to step up and tell us if they want to be citizens of the United States of America, or move to South Carolina and fire on Fort Sumter... again.
ReplyDeleteI think he's less concerned about fruit and more worried about intrusive roots, if you know what I mean and I think that you do.
ReplyDeleteMr. Collins should have listened to The Coasters:
ReplyDelete"If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife..."
Yeah, that's a logical bridge too far... if one ignores the projection. Some of our more, umm, right-leaning citizens really like their strong daddy figures and go ga-ga over every bit of news about the British royalty, and at the same time wish to deny that their ideological roots can be traced to the Revolutionary War Crown Loyalists.
ReplyDeleteLet's put it this way: a bunch of lefty judges didn't install Al Gore in the White House in 2000....
Yeah, the "wish for kings" insult is kind of forced coming from people who wish for dictators.
ReplyDeleteOh, Fafblog, where are you? A sad commentariate turns their eyes to you.
ReplyDeleteThe sexual revolution is now a tall tree with far-flung branches
ReplyDeleteIt's not a Fascist Octopus? I am disappoint.
Tall tree with far-flung branches filled with fascist octopusses, because it has enough toxic fruit even for your sick fantasies.
ReplyDeleteWell, he believes that it is a religious imperative to have a jackboot on the throat of anyone who believes differently than he does, especially if it's a darkie, a slut, a homo, or a moocher. Does that count?
ReplyDeleteEh, vicious theocratic wankery has provided ample scoundrel shelter since long before the modern nation-state.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to be rad.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more rad, in the fun sense, if they could do it somewhere else.
I'm fixing drinks.
In related news, a new church is apparently being built in Guyana on an old church site briefly used by Jim Jones.
In Goldberg's defense, three years ago he was already making Megan McArdle's argument that gay bohemians gettin' all married and turning into the homosexual bourgeoisie, or "HoBos" (I swear I am not making that up), is actually an own goal for definitionally hedonistic liberals.
ReplyDelete... Okay, that's not really much of a defense. But still, he was usually going "Meh" about gay rights even back in the heady days right after Goodridge when all the NRO megaminds like Ramesh Ponnuru were thunderously denouncing states' rights when it produced pro-equality outcomes. Occasionally, intellectual laziness is a virtue.
Plus divorce and remarriage and not stoning their disobedient kids to death. Or maybe their kids are just very good kids.
ReplyDelete"Recall that prominent Republicans, such as Dick Cheney and Laura Bush,
ReplyDeleteendorsed gay marriage long before Obama and the Clintons did," Neumayr
said.
John Kerry just called; he wanted to confirm that now it's okay to point that out.
This reminds me of a story I read a couple of years ago, where someone protesting outside an abortion clinic ended up having an abortion in the very same clinic. And afterwards started protesting again. Because her incidence was isolated and she was saved and pure. Only there wasn't really anything isolated about it, and it had happened before. Does anyone know what I'm refering to? I'd like to find that article again.
ReplyDelete"Didn't Goldberg finger Wilson"
ReplyDeleteThere's some slashfic that's just TOO abominable.
Not for him it isn't, the filthy frog sympathizer.
ReplyDeleteIf Bradlee Dean finds the Hegelian Dialectic frightening, he should give thanks to his Lord that he has been spared Kantian Nihilism.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how some people use the word "underage."
ReplyDelete"They'll assume all gay marriage ceremonies take place at a Pier One or
ReplyDeletePottery Barn, but should never be in a church because God..."
Well, civil marriage doesn't need a church. What is being talked about here has nothing to do with church weddings. Some denominations will perform same-sex church weddings, but they won't have to.
My response to being told I'm going to Hell (though most believers won't say so outright, preferring innuendo) is a cheery "I'll see you there!"
ReplyDelete"Recall that prominent Republicans, such as Dick Cheney and Laura Bush, endorsed gay marriage long before Obama and the Clintons didafter they and/or their spouses had left office," Neumayr said.
ReplyDeleteFTFH.
Sounds like someone who deliberately stops his clock so that he knows he'll be right twice a day.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that's why Rush has given up on this cause. Then again I can't remember him having any shame in the past.
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical RW argument. Fine, name one from each category so we can check their story. Rmemeber all the business people Romney trotted out to protest 'you didn't build that' who had taken gov't loans or contracts?
ReplyDeleteI don't quite get how this works. I mean first of all if they have a religious scruple about selling their services to a same-sex couple, then they've made a choice, right? And apparently to satisfy their feelings on this all that would be needed for the flower deal or the cake deal to go through would be for Adam and Steve to go find some women to marry and then they're good to go, no hard feelings? On the one they expect their scruples to be honored, without any cost to him, and with no limit to what he can exact from other people to satisfy it. Really, moral cretinism on this scale is a danger to society.
ReplyDeleteI love you kia, platonically.
ReplyDeleteOh, that makes sense. I'll just sit here in the corner then and stop saying boo.
ReplyDeleteI know Glenn Beck has pimped the idea of Wilson as a fascist tyrant, on the logic the progressivism was just early Nazism under a different name or something. Extra dumbness points in that it was Teddy Roosevelt who kicked off the Progressive era. C'mon Glenn, you love attacking RINOs.
ReplyDeleteWE CAN HAZ CHEEZEBURGERS!! WITH BACON NAO RITE?
ReplyDeleteI had this conversation years ago with my Sister in law who belongs to a congregationalist church here in New England, it was before we had legal gay marriage in MA. I said "No one is coming to your church asking to be married" and she said, bitterly, "Oh yes they are" and, in fact, people were. Because before there was gay marriage there were out gay couples attending her church, which was....tolerant and inclusive without being particularly vocal about it. More like "lets not mention it any more than we mention bob's divorce or molly's gluttony and alcoholism." So what she feared was that as soon as Gay Marriage was legalized those two nice lesbian women would ask, be it never so politely, the homophobic minister to marry them and all hell would break loose and everyone would have to choose up sides.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that really frightened her was being forced to take a public stand on one side or the other (she was anti, of course, the sweet bigoted thing) and discovering that other people who she respected and admired were on the other side of the debate.
Its in the nature of authoritarian followers that they experience tremendous and sincere angst and anxiety when they don't automatically know which authorities to defer to and when they have to make a personal choice that might leave them open to accusations of "choosing" or preferring one course of action or set of relationships over another. They prefer to do what the herd does or what tradition dictates because if you don't like it you can still feel good about doing it since its traditional and approved by the authorities. But when you make a choice for yourself "those nice lesbians should be able to get married" and someone else says "that's never been done before" you feel naked and exposed and at risk of being judged. And you far prefer to be the one doing the judging.
Hey, you broke traditional marriage you bought traditional marriage. Definitely Pottery Barn.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like my peaches, don't shake the fuckin' tree.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comment aimai.
ReplyDeleteI realize that and I sympathize, up to a point. That point is somewhere between puberty and high school graduation. Children? Yes, they do have to submit to authority, at least on important things, because they don't know how to survive on their own. But if you're a grown-ass man or woman living on your own, it's time to make your own decisions in life and respect that other people are going to do the same.
WHERE'S MY HANDBASKET???
ReplyDeletei think they must be soooo confident,that we liberals dont read the bible, or else they could not keep saying, as dr carson did in his notpology, tht they re just being BIBLICAL abt marriage.....just so sure nobodys gonna call them on it (well the so cqalled liberal media, in the person of the baltimor e sun times, didn't so maybe they have a point....)
ReplyDeleteand doth poken fun atte them on ye boke of ye face!!
ReplyDeleteendangered northwest octopusses taking JERBS from poor lumberjacks ((who arent ok)...!!
ReplyDeletehttp://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Jonah Goldberg: sprawled athwart history, mumbling "wait, I have to walk my dog."
ReplyDeleteThey will, at that time, after science has failed them and their self-defined reason has left them, seek out a miracle whether they understand it as such or not
ReplyDeleteI usually try turning it on and off again first.
Don't forget the concubines.
ReplyDeleteLet's agree to meet in the can!
ReplyDeleteHow many did he kiss?
ReplyDeleteOh, they'd really prefer kings. More traditional, really.
ReplyDeleteBut the auto parts store guy in Roadhouse said, "Don't ever marry an ugly woman, son, they'll take the heart right out of you."
ReplyDeleteWhat's a god-fearing heterosexual in search of a child-centered lifelong commitment to do?
Well, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, "liberty is when I call you a child-molesting goat-fucker, tyranny is when you call me a wingnut."
ReplyDeleteThey're suffering so badly under this liberal fascist state, when the hell are they finally going to make good on their threat to go Galt, or retreat to the catacombs, or wall themselves in the Citadel?
I dunno. My sick fantasies require a lot of toxic fruit.
ReplyDeleteSo many people, so little ricin.
Let me take this opportunity to condemn the cruel practice of blinding squirrels in the hope of increasing their nut-acquisition rate.
ReplyDeleteOh concubines. I thought it was porcupines.
ReplyDeleteThe intolerant person says, "I can live as I want, and you must also live as I want."
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that for every opportunistic asshole ready to manipulate the masses for personal profit and power, there are thousands of sheeple with no internal ethical skeleton who NEED to have a rigid authoritarian system to keep them upright. The grifters who have historically taken advantage of this (priests, politicians, warlords, CEOs, etc) would really be up the proverbial creek, if not for the scores of lost souls who are desperate for order in their confused lives.
David Brooks just went full McArdle in today's Times:
ReplyDeleteThe proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.
But then he's always been a Megan fanboi.
Michael Olsen: Yes, I've heard of that. It's a fascinating sociological study. Or maybe it's just one more example of bottomless right wing hypocrisy.
ReplyDelete"The Agony of Scrooge McDuck"
ReplyDeleteBy Mark Burnett and Roma Downey
ReplyDeleteThey believe - amazingly, they truly do believe - that gays will storm the parsonages of evangelical Christians, demanding that some bible-thumping hate-sermonly pastor be forced to perform a marriage ceremony in a congregation filled with appalled disapproving souls. I see this fear articulated everywhere - the idiocy is appalling.
ReplyDeleteAs if anyone would want to have their day of joy celebrating their love shared with total strangers who hate them. There is utterly no circumstance I can imagine where this fearful scenario would come to pass, yet I see the gullible wingnuts write this in column after column, blog post after blog post.
It's like that old saying, the abortions and the gay marriages don't fall far from the tree.
ReplyDeleteredefining marriage away from a child-centered lifelong commitment
ReplyDeleteMarriage was never a child-centered lifelong commitment. Marriage was and has always been about determining who gets to inherit the family's property.
WE CAN HAZ CHEEZEBURGERS!!
ReplyDeleteWell, if you were going strictly by the Torah, and not the Talmud, all you'd technically have to avoid is a steamed burger made from a goat cooked in its mother's milk. The whole "Ergo, don't mix meat and dairy" bit had a few logical steps omitted until Maimonides came along and reverse-engineered some plausible reasons. So one could still be in compliance with ...
WITH BACON NAO RITE?
... Never mind.
Well, see, if the pastor nevertheless refuses, they can be arrested for "hate speech" or "political incorrectness" or something similarly pig-ignorant. That's what gets their sanctified tighty whiteys in such a twist: that the Evil Secular Anti-Christian Government is going to force acceptance of gay sex on Real True Believers of Jesus at gunpoint. Never mind that this would finally be the sort of oppression that they've been phony-baloney shrieking about for decades from their position of unimaginable privilege. Never mind "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake" from the Sermon on the Mount, the entire text of which is a dead letter in modern American fundamentalism. Hell, these are people who squawk about how they're persecuted by being held to their end of their tax bargain with the IRS. If only Saint Paul or the author of Revelation had put something in there about being persecuted with your goddamn stupid piehole shut.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how some people use the word "porcupines."
ReplyDeleteToo classy, though. Maybe a dictator who wears really tacky fake ermine?
ReplyDeleteI'm below average height, but I learned only last week that David Brooks is still noticeably shorter than I am. Which is apropos of nothing in particular, other than that I was oddly pleased that his physical stature is so closely aligned with his moral and intellectual stature.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I eagerly await his riff on Jonah Goldberg's previous description of McMegan's latest shopworn "idea." (Seriously, if you're basically ripping of Jonah Goldberg's old ideas, complete with use of "bourgeois," you're really at the bottom of the remainder bin.) A David Brooks classic, updated for the new generation: HoBos in Paradise.
Oh, David Brooks thinks that marriage is like the psych study in which kids are given a marshmellow/cookie and told they can have two if they hold off eating the first one until the researcher comes back. He now thinks that Marriage isn't all that great of a reward, its a "narrowing down of polymorphously perverse free love" and an "obligation" and gays who can hold off fucking everyone and everything in sight are our new delayed gratification overlords. Move over teen het sluts! Brooks has discovered yet another reason that ultimately rich white guys are proven to be more virtuous than all other types of people: they can wait for marriage, even if its same sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteI rely on Dalton, the Zen bouncer, as a source of inspiration when confronting life's dilemmas and questions.
ReplyDelete