Embarassing yourself and your state and your countryPosted: October 2, 2011
I do love Michelangelo Signorile, perhaps most because he manages to be civil with people who would reduce me to a spluttering bundle of rage and/or have me breaking out the Ex-lax, and he therefore has the opportunity to slip in the knife so politely that I suspect many of his interviewees don’t realize how badly they have been cut until a long time afterwards.
I’ll let Michelangelo tell you the tale:
Today I interviewed North Carolina GOP state Sen. James Forrester (below is full audio, as well as a video clip), who sponsored a bill that put a measure on the ballot in that state for May that if passed would ban marriage for gays and lesbian in the state constitution. Forrester, who is also a doctor, had made outrageous, defamatory claims in a town hall weeks ago, saying that gay people die 20 years earlier than other people because of their supposed “lifestyle.”
This interview has to be heard to be believed: Forrester not only could not back up his claims with any evidence — after first trying to source the Centers for Disease Control, only to be debunked by me — but he actually acknowledged that he could be wrong. He eventually credited a Christian activist named Frank Turek (who is associated with Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage) as his source of this bogus public health information. Forrester had said in his town hall some of his patients were gay men who died early deaths, yet didn’t seem to know anything about public health, including that, on a global level, AIDS drastically affects heterosexuals more than gay men. Later, he couldn’t answer why he wasn’t proposing a divorce ban if his goal is to save marriage, and couldn’t explain why gays harm marriage. He accused me at that point of trying to “trip” him up, after I asked some basic questions, and even said he wasn’t going to answer any more questions — though he stayed on the line when I said it would be cowardly of him to leave.
“Well, I want to thank you for speaking to me. I’m sorry that you couldn’t answer the questions. I think it speaks to your own lack of education about this and your lack of answers, which is pretty appalling for a legislator, and I think the entire country is now seeing you embarrass yourself and embarrass the state of North Carolina. Thankyou for coming on today.”
These people are appalling.
They make up lies and evasions to support their bigotry, about the supposed sanctity of marriage and how the gays would put sticky fingerprints and diseases all over it (and probably store dildos in it), because deep in their lizard brains they are clever enough to know that just shouting “adam and steve, queers are evil with the buttsex and the gerbils” doesn’t cut it any more with that part of the population who have functioning grey matter above the level of their brain stem.
Fortunately, because they are stupid and because they come from a universe where stupid things are accepted as correct simply because they are said by a preacher or a doctor or a President-who-isn’t-black, they’re incapable of coming up with arguments that are even superficially convincing, or even making up some credible-sounding evidence, so as soon as they get exposed to an interviewer with any skill (like Signorile or, god help me, the women on the View), they simply repeat their new lines over and over, scuttle around for a while like bugs on an overturned log, and make a nice squishy noise when they get stomped on.
Then they scream that they were set up and that it’s unfair to question their faith.
Speaking of smug, chinless fatties in frocks, remember Archbishop Dolan of New York?
He’s the one who said that the movement towards gay marriage was Orwellian and like something from North Korea, who trumpeted his commitment to social justice while giving Congressman Paul Ryan a sensual massage with scented oils and semi-optional tongue bath:
Thus I commend your letter’s attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.
The Archbishop now has on his sad face. He’s sad because that nice President Obama, despite being a good Christian and not wanting to destroy the nuclear fammily, apparently thinks that anti-gay bigots are prejudiced or biased or even racist, or some such shit.
So saddened is the Archbishop that he’s written a letter to the President. (That link is to a pdf download).
The institution of marriage is built on this truth, which goes to the core of what the Catholic Bishops of the United States, and the millions of citizens who stand with us on this issue, want for all children and for the common good of society. That is why it is particularly upsetting, Mr. President, when your Administration, through the various court documents, pronouncements and policies identified in the attached analysis, attributes to those who support DOMA a motivation rooted in prejudice and bias. It is especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination, as your Administration insists on doing.
Mr. President, I respectfully urge you to push the reset button on your Administration‟s approach to DOMA. Our federal government should not be presuming ill intent or moral blindness on the part of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, millions of whom have gone to the polls to directly support DOMAs in their states and have thereby endorsed marriage as the union of man and woman. Nor should a policy disagreement over the meaning of marriage be treated by federal officials as a federal offense— but this will happen if the Justice Department‟s latest constitutional theory prevails in court. The Administration‟s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.
Dolan helpfully attaches a cheat sheet of threats to marriage which concludes with this:
In particular, the Administration’s efforts to change the law—in all three branches of the federal government—so that support for authentic marriage is treated as an instance of “sexual orientation discrimination,” will threaten to spawn a wide range of legal sanctions against individuals and institutions within the Catholic community, and in many others as well. Based on the experience of religious entities under some state and local governments already, we would expect that, if the Administration succeeds, we would face lawsuits for supposed “discrimination” in all the areas where the Church operates in service to the common good, and where civil rights laws apply—such as employment, housing, education, and adoption services, to name just a few.
Even if religious entities prevail in such cases, we will face an additional layer of government punishments, such as the cessation of long-standing and successful contracts for the provision of social services, and other forms of withdrawn government cooperation. Society will suffer when religious entities are compelled to remove themselves from the social service network due to their duty to maintain their institutional integrity and not compromise on basic moral principles.
Thus, the comprehensive efforts of the federal government—using its formidable moral, economic, and coercive power—to enforce its new legal definition of “marriage” against a resistant Church would, if not reversed, precipitate a systemic national conflict between Church and State, harming both institutions, as well as our Nation as a whole. [Emphasis added]
In other words, stop calling us bigots just because we act like bigots, because if you do that we’re going to have to stop looking after the poor and spend the money on defending our bigotry instead.
It’s nice to see that the Catholic Church hierarchy’s commitment to combating poverty and serving the needy is not as important as defending its right to pick on the queers, and that the right to pick on the queers is worth threatening both to go to war with the government and to damage their country.