They’re coming to make us all gay, ha ha
This is apparently not a parody. The public argument against gay marriage really has been reduced to this.
Posted by Rojas @ 1:33 am on April 9th 2009
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I went and looked at their website briefly. I didn’t find anywhere where they supported the claims made in the ad.
I did find a series of talking points along with suggested justifications and answers for possible questions a person might face. The logic behind those answers was somewhat less than convincing.
It’s pretty vile.
Comment by Talarohk — 4/9/2009 @ 10:55 am
Rojas, it seems as though I am often at odds with you, but on this issue we have always agreed. The sooner Republicans dispense with their ludicrous social agenda, the better.
Comment by tessellated — 4/9/2009 @ 11:16 am
In fairness, tess, though we’ve agreed on the ends, we haven’t always agreed as to the means. :)
It kind of tells you something that the first genuinely legislative recognition of gay marriage rights is followed by this, I think. With judicial remedies, there is always an excuse. However, there is nothing more pathetic and desperate than a group of people who have been out-persuaded, and are increasingly on the wrong side of public opinion. This is one of the great pleasures of democratic politics: the moment when the people, having proven smarter than the demagogues imagined, turn upon the populists.
This cannot be the future of the Republican party. I say “cannot” not in the sense of “should not be”, but in the sense of will not be, because this is no longer a viable political position. This ship is sinking, and sane Republicans WILL be taking to the lifeboats sooner rather than later. Much, much wiser for them if, in the future, they weren’t on record as supporting the existence of vast gay conspiracies.
Comment by Rojas — 4/9/2009 @ 1:21 pm
What’s going to be really fascinating is when the DOMA fight hits (either through judicial or legislative means). I hope to have a post up about that, but in short, an awful lot of “centrists” on this issue—from Barack Obama to Ron Paul—are going to see their easy out go up in smoke and are going to have to go on record as to whether or not gay marriage is enough of a threat to in and of itself override federalism. This is an issue that, in the next 5 or so years, there will no longer be convenient places to hide.
Comment by Brad — 4/9/2009 @ 1:30 pm
Ron Paul is already on record on the matter. He opposes gay marriage but cares more about federalism than about preventing it.
Comment by Rojas — 4/9/2009 @ 1:35 pm
I believe his position is “I think we should leave it up to the states”; sort of the same for his abortion answer.
And it’s a good answer (indeed, the right one), if we can assume he means it and would apply it rigorously. My assumption was always that it was more a non-answer than a hard indictment, one of those Ron Paul blind spots where an issue isn’t of particular interest to him one way or the other so he just kind of reverts to a lazy script. And, it’s not necessarily a hard indictment of DOMA—that question isn’t so much whether states have the right to define marriage differently but rather how the federal government chooses to deal with the disparity.
To put that another way, generally speaking the federal government will eventually have to take a stand on who is married and who is not, at least if the civil designations of marriages in states has any bearing whatsoever on federal law or policy. If a gay couple are legally married in Vermont and one of them gets in a car accident in Alabama, do they have the right to be by their side as they lay dying? Is that legitimately an area wherein Alabama law supercedes? Is equal protection even an area of law that can differ fundamentally and functionally from state to state (clearly, the racial issue is the very direct analogue)? I don’t know that I have an answer yet to those questions, but they’re questions that this road leads to, and somebody at some point on the federal level is going to have to take up that debate (either the Supreme Court or Congress or, most likely, both). I don’t know that I can yet predict how conservatives are going to fall on that, Ron Paul included.
Comment by Brad — 4/9/2009 @ 3:43 pm