Tweet
… and their stupid tactics to use gays as political punching bags.
A few stories of stupid people acting stupidly in their zeal to demagogue gays have popped up on my radar. I thought we could have a competition for the stupidest manifestation of homo-bigotry. What say we vote?
Candidates after the fold.
#1: Make Obama Enforce Defend DOMA Bill!
First up we have Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, an anti-gay zealot from MO-4, who serves her homo-hate up with a healthy side-helping of Obama bashing. She has introduced a concurrent resolution condemning the Justice Department's DOMA decision and demanding that it defend DOMA. From her statement:
“President Obama’s decision to order his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA is not a surprise but it is disappointing,” Hartzler said. “Once we start going down the road of selectively enforcing our laws we are headed for chaos. President Obama took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and he is breaking his word to the American people.”
Three clear points of stupidity that Rep. Hartzler could have cleared up with a simple Google search. One, the President is still “enforcing” the law, he's just declining to defend it. Two, we've already been down the road of Presidents declining to defend laws. It's rare, but it has happened, and the republic survived. Three, the legislative branch doesn't get to demand the DOJ do anything, so good luck with that demand. It's called Separation of Powers, they might have covered that in your American Government class.
#2: Gays Can't Decide On Gay Rights! That's Madness!
Next up we have the notorious homophobe Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 sponsors and author of the Prop 8 ballot initiative and failed candidate for the CA Assembly. Prop 8 Trial Judge Vaughn Walker recently shattered the door on his glass closet discussing his 10-year relationship with a man. That makes his verdict invalid says the Prop 8 support crowd. Monday, they filed a motion to vacate his verdict, saying:
Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced), it is clear that his “impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned” from the outset. He therefore had, at a minimum, a waivable conflict and was obligated either to recuse himself or to provide “full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification,” so that the parties could consider and decide, before the case proceeded further, whether to request his recusal. His failure to do either was a clear violation of Section 455(a), whose “goal … is to avoid even the appearance of partiality.”
So much stupidity here. It's lousy with stupidity. I like that they added this puts Walker in the same position as the plaintiffs.
The same plaintiffs the Prop 8 supporters argued were in no way harmed by Prop 8. OK, so if that's true, how could Walker be biased? There's no benefit to him either way, if you presented an authentic case in court.
#3: DADT Isn't Done! It's Time To Double Down!
Now, we have a oldie but a goodie. Former Minnesota Governor and Republican Candidate for the Presidency Tim Pawlenty has been running around the country promising to re-instate the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” Policy, he says:
“I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.”
This is a claim he first made the second week of January, but has repeated several occasions. Should someone tell him maybe he might not want to be so public about that position? Considering nearly 80% of the country has for a long time supported repealing the policy, he might consider rethinking making that a plank of his Presidential campaign platform. Even previously reluctant Service Chiefs say all is going just swimmingly on the implementation process, it just doesn't look like a 2012 winner for the Governor. A lot more of the country is standing with Lt Dan Choi than Pawlenty on this issue.
Now, I posted this over at Daily Kos and it got a rather warm reception and a lot of suggestions for others potential candidates. This got me thinking, maybe we could make this a regular feature? We can't always depend on them to be mind-numbingly stupid (just usually, but sometimes they are downright crafty and machivellian), but we can count on them to be relentless. Maybe a monthly vote, “The Pam's House Blend Popular Choice Award for High Achievements in Homo-bigotry?”
I personally think Dan Savage is right, there are no longer two-sides to this debate. Merciless mocking can help transition the public's view.
13 Comments
As a Minnesotan -I can honestly say that Pawlenty’s catering to the far right has only ramped up since he started thinking about running for Prez.
He was the head of the legislative session (b4 he was gov) that set up the state for big shortfalls, which were exacerbated by the near economic collapse.
Also on #1 Above,the President didn’t swear to uphold the laws of the country. He swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution. TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS. That Missouri Representative must be representative of the retards that voted her into office.
Regarding #3Old policy in place, West Point rejects lesbian
How lovely that the bigots would deny the priviledge of serving her country to a top-ranking cadet.
On #2 Above,the case they are making is that “we want to hold onto our legalized bigotry and our vehement heterosupremacy in order to exclude you filthy faggots” so we will make up shit again.
Saying the judge had something to gain actually makes the case for us because that means that we have been at a legal disadvantage historically, due to anti-gay animus and that we, IN FACT, are discriminated against by the government and that our 1st, 9th and 14th Amendment rights have been violated BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Stupidest Homophobe? VICTORIA JACKSON, has been actress.
You should title this “Recent Political Homophobe Stupidity” or something similar.I’m sure almost everyone here must have encountered colossal homophobic stupidity on a personal level at times, and some of it makes even Michele Bachmann seem reasonable by comparison.
My own prime example, for instance, involves my fundamentalist Aunt Irene. She used to regularly launch into diatribes about how family planning and birth control are actually a gay plot to take over the world. If straight people stop having children, you see, there won’t be anyone left but gay people. I could never even start to guess how I might penetrate a mind(?) like that, so when she started, I’d just shut up and smile benignly. Which only served to convince her what she was saying was true. (And I could tell lots more stories about her delusional little world, like her claim that Karl Marx was the first man in history to have a beard. But you get the idea.)
Compared to my dear Aunt Irene, Pawlenty and the rest are downright sensible. Well, almost.
#2 (literally and figuratively) This goes right to heart of discrimination. Every case where a heterosexual judge is ruling on preventing rights for Gays, Lesbians, and Transexuals, every White judge ruling on a racial bias case, every WASP judge ruling on an American Immigrant case should therefore be ruled illegal by this logic. But of course if a Judge is a White Male Hetersexual WASP then their rulings are not even questioned based on who they are, though they are most likely to be the most biased.
IronicallyIf Walker’s supposed bias comes from the fact that he had something to gain from the ruling, that would imply straight people would have nothing to gain or lose if one was deciding the case, thus proving that Prop 8 has no valid reason for existing other than pure discrimination.
Excellent point!
#2 He uses the lame argument that a gay judge can not adjucate a trial about marriage rights when any other judge would most likely be married and would have to recuse themsleves as well since they would be considered to have a vested interest in the outcome.
See also: Sonia SotomayorThat was the questionable logic behind the conservative howling at Sotomayor’s appointment to the SCotUS; any suggestion that a person might have a perspective which could lead to conclusions different from those that would be reached by a heterosexual white male in the same context would be automatic grounds for disqualification. In other words, for conservatives a necessary qualification to rule on anything is a demonstrated history of thinking exactly like a heterosexual white male.
EUNUCHS We are gonna need a lot of eunuchs to render impartial decisions on domestic abuse, child custody, divorce, etc, etc. I suggest Pugno lose HIS nuts first!
I would like to nominate;Any one and every one calling for the impeachment of the 4 remaining Judges of the Iowa Supreme court.
How ever I voted for #2. If Judge Walker and his guy have a 10 year relationship and didn’t get married while they could maybe they just aren’t the marrying kind. So he would have no personal stake in the outcome.
If that ‘his guy’ is offensive please tell me, and make suggestions.
Charles