Skip to main content

...and then far-right conservatives reacted to the DOMA decision

Whenever a pro-gay rights decision is made, I love to hear the far-right's reactions. They're typically crazier than Looney Tunes characters eating Cocoa Puffs while tripping acid. That very trend continued today in light of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA. Here are some of my favorite such reactions, and my smart aleck commentary to each:

Michigan Representative Tim Walberg: "For the best interest of society itself ... we have defined a marriage between a man and woman in the interest of those children... Society itself is at risk."

Yes, because in light of this ruling, every state in the country is going to legalize same-sex marriage tomorrow - even Alabama, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Utah - and every person in this county, whether straight, gay, or bi, will marry someone of the same sex in the next 48 hours. Every person in every couple will remain 100% faithful to the other and there will not any kind of reproduction for the remainder of America's rather short-lived future. Even Channing Tatum and Ryan Gosling are going to wed one another and do the nasty.


Pat Robertson: "They say it's homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He's in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn't any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it."

Robertson should add on to this and say, "Some men and women can't have children, because the couple is infertile. God doesn't hate these straight couples; he is almighty. This is just the way he made it." Try another line of argument there, Pat...


Glenn Beck: "Who are you to say that, if I'm a devout Muslim, I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I'm an American citizen that I can't have multiple wives."

Rand Paul: "People take it to one extension further - does it have to be humans? I'm kinda with you - we should not just say, 'Oh, we're punting on it - marriage can be anything.'"

Ah, how I love the slippery slope. Yes, like in other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, after the DOMA ruling, the United States will soon legalize marriages to dogs, rocks, guns, buildings, and Chia Pets. Actually, after thinking about it, some of these same far-right conservatives may actually support marriages to guns and corporations. They've already gotten many years of foreplay out of the way with them and seem very committed. Now all they have to do is propose...


Fox News contributor Erick Erickson: "You're not really loving your neighbor when you're cool with him staying on the road to hell. I don't believe anyone who supports gay marriage and says polygamy is a bridge too far. It has far greater historic foundations... So when the left begins advocating polygamy, will they use the infinity sign instead of the equal sign?"

No, we'll use the cross sign, since polygamy was seen as a legitimate type of marriage in the Bible. Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Erickson...


Mike Huckabee: "Jesus wept." and "The Supreme Court declared itself bigger than God."

Yes, Jesus may very well have wept, when seeing Mr. Huckabee claim to speak for God. When it comes to the DOMA ruling, though, I'd love for Mr. Huckabee to point out where exactly in the Bible Jesus decries gay marriage. Oh, nevermind - I just found it. It's in the book of Bullsh*t, chapter 6, versus 9-11, when Jesus said: "I love all the little children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white - they are precious in my sight. I love all the children of the world - except for gays."

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/conservatives_react_to_doma_and_prop_8_the_best_of_the_worst/

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/26/2219561/the-five-craziest-conservative-reactions-to-the-doma-and-prop-8-rulings/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/conservative-house-republicans-are-furious-about-the-doma-ruling/277252/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"