I’m sitting here watching State of the Union with Candy Crowley on CNN. She’s interviewing two spokespersons for the intolerant Christian right wing: 1) Gary Bauer, the god-fearing, right wing, Viet Nam draft dodging politician, who was committing adultery with a 26 year old while preaching family morality, and taking money from Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and 2) Tony Perkins, President of hate mongering American Family Research Council, denier of President Obama’s citizenship (“birther”), and bag man for convicted felon Jack Abramoff. Needless to say, they were having a high-speed-come-apart over the President’s support for gay marriage. And, spewing the same vitriolic hatred that, as a young man, I heard, during the civil rights movement – forcing employers (against their will) to provide equal benefits to employees, forcing private places of accommodation to accept gays against their will, and generally requiring people to provide equal rights to someone not like them. In other words, denying good Xtians their rights to be intolerant, homophobic, bigots.
In listening to this, I had a major “WTF?!” moment! A clip was played of an interview with Romney on FAUX NEWS from last Thursday (Neil Cavuto). Romney, who is opposed to gay marriage, basically said he was fine with gays adopting and raising children. You hate gays, it’s an abomination for them to marry, but they can raise children?! When asked about this, Bauer said this was a State by State issue, and not a major deal. Huh?! According to Bauer, the real issue was whether children were being raised in a two parent home, but if it were a gay couple (which apparently was OK) you couldn't call it marriage. When Perkins (not to be confused with Norman Bates – notwithstanding the resemblance) was given an opportunity to comment, he basically said nothing, other than some general support for Romney.
Apparently, I’m missing something here. According to the peddlers of this bile, it’s OK for gays to live together, raise children together, and even have a family together (but I guess you’re forbidden to actually call it a family). But in the name of all that is holy, sacred, and as they swear on the American Flag decaled copy of their Bible, you simply, absolutely and utterly CANNOT call it a marriage. Is it just me, or is this some ignorant, illogical, internally inconsistent hypocrisy?
So gays can be empowered to take part in ONE kind of civil contract - that of adopting children - but NOT in ANOTHER kind of civil contract, being of course, marriage? How much more cherry-picking are these christian hypocrites willing to go through before someone finally calls them on it?
I don't watch much TV, but from what I read, Tony Perkins is the darling of TV reporters who want to look "balanced" by giving a "conservative" point of view. Tony Perkins is not just conservative, he's a hate monger. They really should try to find a conservative who is doing something other than trying to scare up money from homophobes riled up into thinking there's a gay boogieman under the bed. It looks like there is an entire industry out there of people who are scapegoating LGBT people, with no evidence and not even reliable, well founded biblical support (some verses, but only if taken in isolation from many other prohibitions that are completely ignored). They are just opportunists, liars, hate mongers, manipulators. Actually, I think they are mostly against LGBT parenthood too, like Maggie Gallagher of NOM - working against gay parenting is almost the reason for NOMs existence - but Romney needs to move in the direction of moderation to gain votes. He needs to give on something, and to say otherwise on parenting would imply breaking up existing families. That's my totally wild assed guess.
I agree that both Perkins and Bauer are bigoted scumbags of the worst order. What I'm sitting here scratching my head over is why it's OK to raise children in a family, but the parents of that very family can't be married. It would seem to me that if you're going to have blind hatred for a particular group of people, at a minimum be consistent. I mean, at least you know where the KKK stands. It's not as though the Klan is OK with a black man marrying a white woman, but only fire up the crosses when the couple moves into the neighborhood. One of the many purposes of getting married (and arguably, one of the primary ones) is to raise children. Raising children is OK with these clowns. But, putting your loved one on the health insurance policy, or pension death benefit is cause for the collapse of the Republic, and advent of End Times, and eternal damnation? Once again - WTF?!
Good question. Maybe the network thinks it will garner more viewers if they parade the clowns?
Ifare to be believed, this too shall pass away. Traditional separate sphere marriage "with women taking care of the home and men financially supporting them" is increasingly incompatible with economic reality, to be replaced by "hedonic marriage" where two people "regard marriage as a forum for shared experiences and passions".
For heterosexuals who have embraced the modern notion of marriage, the idea of same-sex marriage seems natural. These couples aren’t any different from them. They love and support each other, raise kids together and are committed to each other. They share values, desires and interests. Not allowing them to marry is as arbitrary as not allowing couples of different races, ethnicities or religions to marry.
So consider these contradictions a symptom of positive transition.