SAY NO TO BIGOTRY IN VA
(I wonder if Kaine's laughing at Kilgore's salmon shirt!)
I've been following Virginia's Gubernatorial race with interest. And disgust. I think Tim Kaine has been pretty weak by catering his message too much around perceived broad appeal instead of just standing behind his convictions. On the other hand, Jerry Kilgore doesn't give a flying fuck what people think about his convictions which in turn exposes his blatant expressions of bigotry.
Don't believe me? Watch this clip from October 9th Gubernatorial debate and his response to Question 11 Gay Couples(note link provides video clip for this exchange & others and requires Real Time Player) and see for yourself. He flat out says he does not support Civil Unions or Gay Marriage and he's against gay parenting.
This just grinds me. How is it possible that in the 21st century I live in a state where it's acceptable to campaign on intolerance and prejudice? Is Virginia that far behind the times? Really, I just don't understand the prejudice. What is so vile and wrong about loving someone who happens to be of the same gender? That's right, loving which equates to happiness.
"Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" as stated in our Declaration of Independence applies to all Americans, not just the straight ones. So as I see it, Jerry Kilgore's bigotry defies this basic of unalienable rights, and as such he will not get my endorsement or my vote.
posted by Sar at 9:50 AM
43 Comments:
Sar, I couldn't see the video but don't need to. I'm opposed to Kilgore, an obvious child rapist, parenting but don't support laws to have him castrated. I think those decisions should be made by his family.
I'm a little curious about the illegal immigration debate too. Open borders and protected families would be a campaign slogan I'd get behind. Although I'm still not sure araider should be here.
It's interesting about power. 6 years ago, all conservatives talked about was getting government off the backs of the people (I agreed then and do now.) Suddenly the right wants us asking government for permission to marry?
Oh please... You folks seem to get enraged when someone brands you un-American when you spout off about your opposition to the war. Don't you think branding opponents of gay marriage/unions/parenting/whatever as bigots is just as rage-worthy?
because it IS bigotry to marginalize someone completely based on their sexual orientation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1. I generally agree with Doug, with the exception of the open border thing; we have enough people. In fact, we have too many.
2. If Virginia wolves like Kilgore (Trout?) disapprove of greasy butt-sex, they should get out of politics.
3. I think you spelled "bigotry" wrong.
Such grief over my spelling. Don't you remember this is a grammar & spelling-free zone? Jeesh!
My response comments will have to wait until later, as I'm off to be pampered!
Bullshit answer, mike. Bigotry implies intolerance, and I know that doesn't apply to me.
you're so full of it.
how is it not intolerant to try and keep gays from getting married?
and to top it off, there is NO legal or intellectual standing on which to place reason behind not allowing it.
churches can do whatever they want, but as long as the state in involved in marriage, they are violating the 14th amendment by not recognizing gay married people.
there is only one reason why the right doesn't want gays to get married: they hate gay people, and/or they can use this issue as a wedge with their "base" of religious freaks, rednecks and assorted morons to further their agenda.
Wow - I'm missing all the fireworks and on a Friday afternoon no less!
Doug - Deadpan Doug that's what we need to rename you. Illegal immigration is latest hot button issue and fodder for their mudslinging ads. You'd think we lived in Arizona or California!
(Hey Araider - you gonna let Doug get a way with that comment?! *wink*)
Nedhead - You and Doug are right to point out the discrepancies in conservatives changing their tune on government interference and certainly fiscal responsibility. Would that make then make them.......flip floppers?
TLM - Oh please indeed, TLM. Your contention just doesn't even make any logical sense. If you're trying to use the first amendment to justify, no actually negate bigotry (see I can actually spell it right sometimes) in this case specifically defaming and denying a fellow American their right to live happily by means of who they choose to love and marry, well that's just simply ridiculous.
However, I'll concede being enraged is absolutely an accurate correlation to being called un-American for "spouting off" about being sold down the river by a pack of lies told by our President to support his personal agenda the tune of 2000+ American casualties (not to mention Iraqis and coalition members).
Mike/TLM - Where/should one draw the line between bigotry and intolerance (oh yeah, she's spelling now!)?
Gabriel - Really, is it no wonder Kilgore is wearing a salmon shirt? Now don't you have a post to be working up? ;)
I agree with TLM, actually. Instead of bigots, let's call them anti-family liberals, instead, since they look for government to arbitrate behavior and would surpress adoption.
Gabriel, I love your 2nd point but still think the right opposes gay marriage and gay parenting because the orgy is their most sacred institution. If Kilgore liked adult women he'd be against straight marriage.
very simple, Sar:
intolerant
Not tolerant, especially:
1. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Well, what do you know, they are very close.
The problem lies again with the marginalization of those with whom you ARE intolerant of, no?
I suggest that TLM get on google and do a search for "separate but equal"
unless he wants to be slapped around some more.
Doug - In my opinion, there's a fine line between being a bigot and intolerant, and often the spillover makes the synonomous. Kilgore is guilty of both. Why? Because he has no basis for opposing Gay Marriage, Civil Unions and Gay adoption. Really. He's not saying it's based on his religious beliefs. He's just flat out opposes them. So therefore he's intolerant of their sexual orientation and by openly campaigning to suppress their rights, he's therefore a bigot. Oh, btw, your comment directed to Gabriel had me lol.
Mike - now, now, there'll be no slapping around my favorite, and often very red, crustecean. Just to keep things stirred up because I love me some good political ranting, let me play devil's advocate and give you an intentionally charged question. You said:
"there is only one reason why the right doesn't want gays to get married: they hate gay people, and/or they can use this issue as a wedge with their "base" of religious freaks, rednecks and assorted morons to further their agenda."
That seems to be a mass generalization and an all encompasing assessment of conservatives. Does that not then constitute intolerance or bigotry or both?
Hey mike- I guess it could be intolerant preventing *anybody* from doing *anything*. Just cause I disagree with the premise of two guys getting married and starting a family (as opposed to a mom and a dad) is hardly a reason to spew your usual crap at me. "Separate but equal" doesn't even apply to this situation... I'd like to think some of the more selfish folks in here would put a kid's best interest first. And, besides, who the fuck are you to tell me what I think is right anyway? It's an opinion... We all have 'em.
It's sad that being a "religious freak" is such an offense to you liberals. I'm not one, and that's probably a good thing.
doug- Anti-family? Nice one. There's a group out there that wants the government off the backs of the people in all cases, but they're not conservatives. Don't use the current spending-happy crop of selfish Repubs in the White House and Congress as an example of them.
sar- Nobody has the right to marry... I have just as much right to steal your car.
And if a gay guy wants to live happily, that's ok with me.
sar- (Damn, you posted another comment before me! :))
I strongly disagree with your last comments, too. Religion and morals are not the same thing. I haven't been in a church for eons (mostly out of fear that God would strike my heathen ass down with a lightning bolt or something!) and that doesn't affect my view on marriage.
HAHA, nice rant.
Per your post, we are talking about "opponents of gay marriage/unions/parenting/"
If you oppose it, and you are trying to fight them to keep them from getting married, it moves to bigotry and marginalization.
You can be "intolerant" of whoever you want.
And "separate but equal" most certainly does apply here.
That's why these cases are being fought in court.
"Religious freaks" are not offensive to me until they try to remove or restrict the rights of others.
Or when they try to get their rediculous doctrine into my public schools.
Your semantics about the "right" to marry are silly as well.
The issue goes back to separate but equal. And the legal fight is thus: does the state have the right to NOT allow a gay couple to be married in the eyes of the law?
It's no different than court fights about cases where a black and white couple could not marry.
And the aruments are all the same as well.
doug- I don't follow VA politics all that closely.. Should I take from your comments that Jerry Kilgore is a convicted child molester then? I've heard from close friends that Kilgore is an incompetent fool, but that molesting thing is a new one.
"Is Virginia that far behind the times?"
Now that I live in Philly and am able to compare the two... the answer is yes.
mike- Them? Who's Them? I'm gay (or as you'd likely say, a big Republican-hated fag), and I'd like to think I'm very tolerant of others, despite what you think. And I'm curious to know what you'd think of the opinions of a HUGE majority of blacks in this country (a group that knows bigotry all too well) when it comes to gay marriage.
And they aren't your public schools, mike.
TLM, I'm not commenting reality based, today, remember I'm a conservative. That said, I've seen Kilgore on TV and I'd let Gabriel babysit before I'd let Kilgore. I'm curious who is the group that wants government off the backs of the people if not conservatives? I think that was Reagan's line.
TLM - are you gay? Obviously you know I'm tolerant and supportive of gay rights so it wouldn't change my opinion of you if you are. Though I have to say I'd find it odd that you're coming down on me for defending gay rights.
I really don't care what blacks think of gay marriage, so long as they do not participate in the marginalization of gays.
I get your straw man argument, blacks are traditionally very socially conservative on a lot of issues like that.
Big deal.
That doesn't change the issue.
WAIT A MINUTE! TLM, did I not just read on your blog that you "have a major crush on Rhona Mitra"?! S'plain yourself! Are you just fucking around with us?
sar- How can someone not love Rhona?
doug- All I know about Kilgore is that he can't even do the job he's got now. And heh... It was Reagan's line, and it was just that... a line. A great man, but still a politician. :)
I was a bit young at the time he was in office, but I do remember him being a big advocate of "morality-based" legislation. Do you think the 80's version of Reagan would've vetoed an anti- "partial-birth abortion" bill, if given the opportunity?
Doug - Wait--if the turkey is in the stroller, what did I put in the...um...I have to go.
)+(
Ha-ha, Gabriel. I stand by my previous statement.
Actually, TLM, as Governor, Reagan signed the most liberal abortion-rights law in the country at the time. Reagan was a politician but he knew enough to preach morality and govern secularly. Even the Meese commission didn't produce any legislation I can recall.
I still think there's a place for small-government conservatism. Just not in the Republican party so far as I can tell. And for the record, I think it is discriminatory, intrusive and wrong for the government to not recognize gay marriage equally with straight. And I am a religious Christian conservative.
I usually don't comment, but this time I feel I must. My belief is that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. Does that mean I hate gay people? Absolutely not!! And if someday one of my children grows up to be gay, I still won't agree with the gay marriage thing. But I will still love my child with all my heart. Does that make me a "bigot" or "intolerant"? I don't think so. By the way, what exactly is the definition of "religious freak"? I'm afraid I might fall into that category since I try to attend mass every week.
Thank you, TLM, for all of your comments. I've enjoyed reading them!
Sar, although I don't always agree with you, I can feel your pain of living in a state of "opposite" color (a red gal from a really blue state--Massachusetts)!
Doug- Yeah, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said 80's Reagan. President Reagan was quite active behind-the-scenes in pushing for limitations on abortion rights.
I'm not about to grant him Republican sainthood for being opposed to restrictive laws... If he had a Republican House, like George W. does now, I'm sure his hand would've cramped up from signing so many bills.
bulldog- My condolences on your great loss against UF last weekend.
ah, Bulldog, love the sinner but not the sin, right?
churches have the right to not recognize the union of two gay people, can you tell me the legal standing the state has to continue to do the same?
Whoa! Lotta talkin' here.
Back to the post in question: Jerry Kilgore is a jerk. On many issues. I applaud your decision not to vote for him.
TLM - a few responses...
1.) If nobody has the right to marry, then by default everybody should be either prohibited from or entitled to marry, no?
2.) I never mentioned religion and morals together. Am I then to understand that you contest gay marriage not because it's outlined in your religion, but rather because it's a moral issue for you? Again I ask, what's morally wrong with 2 people of the same gender loving each other? And taking it a step further and making a commitment? And raising a family? I just don't get it. Please enlighten me.
3.) Yes, Rhona is sexy. But you didn't answer my question.
4.) That's as much as I can remember to address with you this round. :)
Gabriel - turkey...stroller...bwwwaaa!!
Bulldog - My pal, I'm so glad you spoke up (how often do I encourage you to!). But, as we often do with politics & religion, I must agree to disagree with you on this one. I respect your beliefs and admire your dedication to your faith. But I believe it's a narrow interpretation of the subjective bible that substantiates the anti-gay marriage stance. There a numerous examples in Leviticus of ridiculous claims that have since been rejected as such (eating shrimp, slavery, etc.). Yet the anti-gay sentiment remains acceptable and this strikes me as perpetuating intolerance. Especially when the same bible explicitly instructs all to love thy neighbor as themseslves. Shouldn't we all want to receive and thus give unconditional love?
TLP - Thanks. I had a feeling we'd see eye-to-eye on this one. :)
I understand that people may not like the idea of gays getting married but what I want to know is why.
where is the problem?
(and don't throw this religion thing at me because religion should not dictate law.)
if you don't like something than don't do it.
if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex...don't.
how does it affect your life?
how does it make your life worse?
and if it is a religious reason then let god deal with it.
and don't get me started on the sanctity of marriage...the divorce rate is so high that 'traditional' marriages should work on making their marriages work rather than telling others what they can and can not do.
also related...I found this interesting:
The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.
But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group.
George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.
The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people."
The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Hey JJ! I somehow missed your comment in all the exchanges, my bad. :( We share the same perspective except you now have the luxury of looking in from the outside.
Strider - I was so hoping you'd jump in. You raise an excellent point through your querries. I'm waiting and hoping to hear more answers.
hi, strider- To put it simply, governments endorse marriage because it creates a stable environment for having children. And some folks think a man/woman couple is preferred there. That objection has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, whatever that is.
sar- Yes, sar. Just ask my mother. :)
so then I have to refer back to the divorce thing...if we are talking about a "stable environment for having children" then obviously the way marriage is set up now it isn't working at a passing grade...it's failing.
upwards of 40% of marriages end in divorce and a large percentage of those people have children. so if that is the "reason" for keeping gays from marrying than that is a silly argument...especially when gays ARE allowed to adopt.
once again it goes back to people having faulty arguments of why it's not ok for gays to be married.
the truth is that there is no reason other than "I don't like it".
I realize most of you are probably going to scream "separation of church and state", but I'd like to substitute the words "prayer in public schools" in Strider's comment:
"I understand that some people may not like the idea of prayer in the public schools, but what I want to know is why.
where is the problem?
if you don't like something than don't do it.
if you don't want to pray in public schools, then don't.
how does it affect your life?
how does it make your life worse?"
I don't need statistics and facts to back up what I believe in, although, I'm sure I could find just as many to support my side of the issue. It's just what I believe in, and I'm not trying to force that down anyone's throat.
Uh, better make that "the truth according to strider", that is.
Hmm... Now where is that Democratic Party of tolerance I hear so much about? Nope... Not here, obviously!
the truth according to strider...that's cool.
all I am asking is for another reason beyond "I don't like it" or "my religion doesn't like it." when you show me something that is concrete enough for it not to be a truth I will edit my post but until then my "truth" stands.
to defunct my "truth" you gave me...a pot shot at the democratic party, an off topic debate about prayer in school, a weak argument about promoting better families for children but no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
in regards to prayer in school: it's very simple...if you want prayer in school go to a private school that has prayer in school.
public school is not church.
also...I do not believe that a gay person is trying to force getting married down anyone's throat...they just want to be able to be happy and if getting married makes them happy then so be it.
TLM - You answered my question and like I said, my opinion of you hasn't changed. You're still my favorite often misguided and very red crustecean who drives me batty but wins points back for watching some good tv. :)
strider- You're right -- that was a cheap shot against your party.
Also, I'm guessing you're speaking to Bulldog and myself collectively, since I didn't really debate prayer here (though I was tempted to bring it up earlier, to demonstrate the hypocrisy of marginalizing folks who want to say a tiny little prayer in school.) Nice to see Bulldog run with that idea, especially since he/she(?) is a religious creature!)
Gays getting married/unionized (?)/whatever doesn't bother me at all. I just don't support it. And I certainly resent getting shit for saying so. I don't support the death penalty or abortion rights (for example) in most cases, but I certainly understand where their supporters are coming from.
Speaking of weak arguments, if getting married makes them happy then so be it doesn't cut it. People nowadays seem to be quite happy with illegitimacy, adultery, and other not-so-ideal situations in raising a family. (And no, I'm not saying that gay marriage is equal to those!)
sar- Did you know blue lobsters are extremely rare (about 1 in 5,000,000)?
TLM - So what are you saying? Are you coming out as........a democrat?!
Marriage is not an institution for people who want to raise kids. If it was, people who are sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry. And neither should people who choose to not have children. Marriage is a legal union recognized by the state - period. And unless there is a legal reason that a state should not recognize one, then let the marriage happen. End of story.
I don't personally like a lot of things. I don't think rapists should be allowed to marry. I don't think child molesters should be allowed to marry. But guess what? The state doesn't have the same concerns I do, so those marriages happen every day. And I don't say shit about it, because it's not my decision.
I've got to tell you - this debate has been happening for a long, long time and I've never once, during the entire life of it, heard a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't based on:
1.) it's nasty
2.) it's immoral
3.) I don't like it
4.) dudes are gonna marry just to save cash
5.) or it's gonna cost me more tax money
I won't even begin to remotely consider the other side of the debate until I start hearing some valid reasoning! How hard is it to be pragmatic here? We're discussing a legal and civic issue. How about a single point based on something besides an opinion?
maine- No! It's not just a legal union recognized by the state, period! What's the purpose of state recognized marriage then? Just because the government thinks the concept of marriage is a really neato idea?
Tax breaks for couples for merely changing their names and being monogamous?
Maine - Bravo! Your opening paragraph was exceptional. Did you get your call from Dubya today urging you vote for his friend intolerant bigot, Kilgore? I gotta tell you, hearing Dubya on my answering machine was pretty damn ridiculous. Again, how freggin dumb do they think Virginians are to use Dubya as their 11th hour election hero?!
TLM - you know, you never answered my blue question. Must I always ask everything of you twice?
Post a Comment
<< Home