Rick Perry Loves the Sinner…You Know the Rest

Rick Perry made his pro-marriage anti-gay position clear, again, in a recent conversation with an Iowa voter.

Perry’s anti-gay marriage position is not new. Nor is the the fact that he goes beyond opposing gay marriage, specifically, and believes that homosexuality, generally, is a “sin” and that homosexuals are “sinners.” But the beneficent Governor Perry loves them anyway.

As long as they’ll shut up, stay in their closets, and continue being treated as second-class citizens.

Perry’s statement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman contradicts his stated position that gay marriage is a decision that should be left up to states. That’s no surprise; coherence is not Perry’s strong suit.

Also unsurprising is the old canard that the USA was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. As a good religious-right-winger pandering to other good religious-right-wingers, Perry can’t possibly acknowledge that the founding fathers stressed Enlightenment principles at least as much as (and probably more than) Judeo-Christian ones. Oh, no. Such honesty doesn’t fit into wingnut Christian Nation ideology. Furthermore, does anyone other than me find it infuriating to hear wingnuts cite “Judeo-Christian” values when what they really want to say is “Christian” – or better yet, “conservative Christian” or “fundogelical Christian” – values? The only times fundogelicals give lip service to solidarity with Judaism are

a) when they’re spouting their Christian Nation nonsense, and

b) when they’re working to realize their sick eschatological visions.

If I were Jewish, I’d want to hit someone – preferably a fundy – every time I heard anyone utter the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”

Honestly, when I look at the field of Republican presidential candidates in this race, I want to scream, cry, or vomit. Or maybe do all three in no particular order, or even simultaneously. I sincerely hope that Iowa caucus voters will reject Perry soundly on January 3 and send him back to Texas with his good old right-wing Judeo-Christian tail tucked securely between his legs.

– the chaplain

 

An Entertaining Proposition

Th lack of commentary and innuendo in this One News Now post is atypical for that publication. It seems the editors decided to leave those tasks to the comment writers, who are taking up the task with gusto.

I think it would be fun if some of us joined the “conversation” over there. Since it’s likely that many of our comments won’t see the light of day, cross-post your comments or screenshots here. I promise not to delete them. Of course, you can still play here even if you don’t play over there. All I ask is that you play with someone, somewhere and let us know how it turns out.

– the chaplain

 

Only on Faux News

I got this graphic via Huffington Post today. Can you spot the error? I’ll understand if you miss it, because it’s a mistake nearly any brain-dead person could have made.

Too bad Fox didn’t wait a few months before showing this graphic; it would have made a great April Fool’s prank.

– the chaplain

 

Onstage

Just want to share that I’ll be performing at one of Washington DC’s coolest jazz clubs tonight. If you’re in the DC area, come for dinner, drinks and good music.

If you want to get into the early show, you can still make reservations by phone or take your chances on getting a ticket at the door. You’ll probably be able to walk up to the door for the late show.

– the chaplain

 

Fidelity Matters

You may recall a post I wrote a few weeks ago about what turned out to be the short-lived Republican love affair with Herman Cain. When it became impossible to overlook the inconvenient fact that Herman serviced forced himself on nearly as many women as the legendary King Solomon, Cain dropped out of the presidential race and Republicans began casting desperate looks toward another- umm- candidate.

Enter Newt Gingrich. Yes, Newt has his own baggage fidelity-wise, but his is old, familiar, faded baggage – a circumstance that has enabled Republicans to throw more than a few casual glances his way. Actually, their eye contact has progressed beyond casual, blown right by flirtatious, and is now flat out lustful. (My understanding is that the longing is mutual.) I suppose if enough time passes, it’s easy for members of the Family Values/Defense of Marriage Party to dismiss the tacky timing of Gingrich’s various divorces, affairs and marriages. Perhaps “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” means something different in Republican-speak than it means to the plainspoken. Or maybe Newt’s behavior just doesn’t look very callous to Republicans since much of it happened a long time ago…

Meanwhile, many Republicans steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the candidacy of a man who has only been married once and, as far as anyone can determine, remained faithful to his one and only wife. It seems that adultery isn’t a big deal politically if one belongs to a mainstream Christian sect. In Republicanistan, belonging to the right religion – or, at the very least, being able to give lip-service to the right religion – trumps remaining eternally faithful to one’s spouse. This leads me to question Mitt Romney’s newest campaign strategy:

Poor Mittens. He’s still getting it wrong. The pathway to the White House isn’t paved on the stones of marital infidelity. No, sir. Everyone knows that the road to the White House – as far as Republi-Jesustanis are concerned – is paved on the stones of religious fidelity. Specifically, fidelity to Christianity. Preferably, Protestantism, but Catholicism will do in a pinch. My advice to Mitt Romney is simple: if you really want to be a Republican president, all you have to do is trade your goofy religion for their goofy religion.

And keep the wife.

– the chaplain