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
Kagehi Kohn
December 30, 2011 at 3:29 pm
My commentary on this election cycle is that they don’t like who the guy running the circus is, so they are all vying for the right to drive the clown car, during intermission (a 4 year intermission, during which we will get nothing but water sprayed in our faces, people stumbling over each other, and really bad magic tricks, involving someone pulling 800 scarves out of our pocket, followed by our wallets). Sadly, these particular clowns don’t just dislike the current guy running the big top, they actually think their, and only their, performance should be under it.
the chaplain
December 30, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Unfortunately, this political circus has serious consequences for a hell of a lot of people. The guy driving the clown car has his hands on nukes and the hands-on-nukes wannabes are far too eager to zip their money securely in their pockets while ripping the seams – and the cash – out of mine. As for the intermission, we’ve already had nearly two years of it. Can we survive another four?
Moe
December 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm
So Chappy, I’m guessing you’re not liking Perry too much?
What’s really annoying is that he’s running dead last in these polls and yet the money still pours in. I guess the Christian fundies are a bit wealthier than I’d thought!
the chaplain
December 30, 2011 at 3:51 pm
None of the Republican candidates light my fire, but I think Perry is among the more dangerous of them. Then again, it’s hard to say that any one of them is more dangerous than the others – they’re all either certifiably insane or shiftier than the San Andreas fault.
Paul Sunstone
December 30, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Chaplain: Good catch pointing out the contradiction between Perry’s support for both a constitutional amendment and state’s rights!
Given what we all know about Republican homophobes, it might only be a matter of time before a meth addicted male prostitute comes forward to publicly describe the “deep, penetrating massages” Perry is pleased to receive from him on a regular basis. Much stranger things have happened to Republican homophobes than that.
I’m right with you regarding Wingnuts and “Judeo-Christian values”. It’s worth taking a shower after hearing Perry — or any of the other Wingnuts — use the term.
Besides, although I’m no scholar, I only know of two or perhaps three genuinely Judeo-Christian values that might have had a real impact on the West. Much of what passes for Judeo-Christian values are Greek, Roman, or European Enlightenment values. And the Wingnuts tend to reject or distort all of those values in favor of their underlying authoritarianism. Hence, a Wingnut believes lying is OK when s/he does it, and bad only if his or her enemies do it. That’s neither a Judeo-Christian, nor a Greek, nor a Roman, nor an Enlightenment value. It’s an authoritarian value.
I wish I knew more about the history of values. It might be interesting to compare their real history with the lies told about them by the Wingnuts.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 8:37 am
This is why I can’t listen to Republicans very much, especially in the winter. All that showering makes my skin too dry.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 10:35 am
My “Gaydar” doesn’t sense that in him, though I wouldn’t rule it out. I suspect he just a dumb Texan mouthing sentiments learned at the dinner table. When I first saw Ted Haggard in something with a little depth (when Richard Dawkins interviewed him for a movie on religion a few years ago) my gaydar said “Whoa. That man is in serious denial.”
Lithp
December 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I don’t really like the term “Judeo-Christian” either. It excludes Islam & when most non-Fundies use the term, they’re trying to describe all 3. Other than that, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 10:46 am
I think the term Judeo-Christian is just a dog whistle for “Biblical”, with the OT being Judeo and the NT being the Christian part. Anytime they use the term, think “theocracy”.
really says
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I agree the term is a dog whistle. It’s annoying as hell.
Ahab
December 30, 2011 at 5:45 pm
“The only times fundogelicals give lip service to solidarity with Judaism are …”
Don’t forget whenever Christian fundamentalists are waxing poetic about Israel, or trying to cast Israel and its Jews into some grand End Times vision.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 8:23 am
Ahab:
I meant to include the poetic wax and End Time vision in my phrase, “sick eschatological visions.” The poetic waxing is definitely connected to the eschatology.
tommykey
December 30, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Perry also came out in support of banning abortion even when the pregnancy is a result of rape. I guess that means if a rapist was able to somehow sneak in and impregnate Perry’s daughter (assuming he has one) on a yearly basis for 20 years in a row, Perry would force his daughter to carry all 20 pregnancies to term.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 8:32 am
tommykey:
He would if he were consistent in his thinking. We’ve already seen that’s not the case. Besides that, the way Republican-think works these days is that broad societal rules apply to everyone except Republicans. He’d probably find some reason to excuse abortions in her cases.
Correction: broad societal rules apply to everyone except Republican elites. I’m sure Perry considers himself to be in this exalted category.
Lorena
December 30, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I have to wonder when the United States will join the First World. First World countries have, a long time ago, stopped making abortion and gays election issues.
Moe
December 30, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Not likely to happen Lorena, when we seem to be racing to join the Third World.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 8:29 am
Lorena & Moe:
Abortion and gays will be American election issues as long as there are enough gullible voters who believe they are more critical issues than gross economic inequality, adequate health care for all, tax reform, etc. It seems Americans want to retain the benefits of the First World – lots of consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, etc. – and adopt the “benefits” (in some minds, certainly not mine) of the Third World – authoritarianism, gross economic inequities, and, in some cases, theocracy.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 10:52 am
Economically and militarily we are First World. Intellectually and culturally we are Third World. One of the reasons is because we are a melting pot of cultures that have to each fight to retain their cultural identity in a diverse environment. One of the ways they do that is by irrationally holding on to the beliefs and prejudices of their ancestors, when in fact their home cultures, not feeling the pressure or need to do so, have let go of those things in an intellectually developing world.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 11:05 am
Jesus, I’m HTML tag challenged this morning.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Not sure I got it right, but I tried to help. If you want, I can change it back.
Tommykey
January 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm
It’s the What’s The Matter With Kansas syndrome.
Cyc
December 30, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I sometimes wonder if the fact that crazies such as Rick Perry are able to get such large amounts of funding is the prime reason that there are so many of them. Has the lure of publicity and riches become so great that any charlatan willing to do the crazy dance will step up and spout whatever their financial supporters want?
This is not to say that many of these people don’t honestly believe the kind of idiocy that they espouse, but that there is plenty of room for financial parasites to leech off the seemingly endless depths of the religious ‘right’s’ money bags.
Though, to be honest, I think it is more likely that the charlatans are in the majority. That through their latching on to their source of income have left the window open to the religious cranks. In turn, these cranks receive more funding despite being utterly devoid of any political understanding, which causes the charlatans to become even more corrupt as they realize they can do whatever they want and still retain their funding as well as votes.
If this is so, is there any way, other then the slow changes that occur as younger individuals move to replace the older or going straight for the financial throat and targeting the idiocies of the financial supporters themselves?
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 8:36 am
It’s difficult to target the financial supporters when the people they support write the laws that enable the support to continue unabated.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 10:56 am
Well, look at Sarah Palin, who clearly has neither the ability nor the intention of being President, but continues to make noises in that direction, because that’s the way the gravy train she’s riding is heading.
She must feel like she won the lottery.
John Evo
December 31, 2011 at 9:39 am
*TANGENT ALERT*
If we are really fighting over the WORD “marriage”, then I’d be willing to concede it to Christians and other haters. Just give gay and lesbian couples EVERY right enjoyed by straight married couples and we’re good. None of this “civil union” nonsense which does NOT come with all of the rights of marriage. Call it a “domestic partnership” if it will stop the bickering, but provide the rights that come with marriage.
Happy New Year, Chappy!
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 10:07 am
John Evo:
The fight is certainly not merely about the word “marriage.” It’s about all the benefits that come with “marriage.” The word is simply the short-hand way to reference all the bennies. If governments suddenly began defining “civil unions” precisely the way they define “marriage,” you and I know damn well the fundies would still be up in arms.
Like you, I don’t give a damn what it’s called, but I do care that the status and bennies be equivalent. We could define “marriage” as a status that includes sanction by both clerics and government, and call an equivalent status that requires only government sanction “civil union” or whatever else one wants to call it. American fundies would never accept that, because the bottom line is that they don’t want homosexuals to have any positive legal status (although they’d probably be thrilled to have gays labeled as outlaws). Fundies don’t want homosexuals to acquire any status of positive sanction by either American society at large or American government.
And Happy New Year to you, too.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 11:03 am
I don’t know. I’m betwixt and between. I still think the word marriage should be applied equally. It’s not just a matter of semantics. If gays get all the benefits without the word, they’ve still been relegated to that “other” status, where I’m married, but my next door neighbor is only “civilly unioned”.
I thought we had gotten beyond “separate but equal” back in the 60s. We’re talking about changing the mindset of bigotry, aren’t we?
Besides, there are thousands of laws at the federal level alone that reference marriage. They’d all have to be changed. Wouldn’t it be simpler, more expedient to simply allow them to marry? It’s just a piece of paper and short ritual, after all, affecting only the participants.
Spanish Inquisitor
December 31, 2011 at 11:14 am
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Good point. That bothers me too. The inadequacy of “civil union” as currently applied probably supports your point. As long as we call them two different things, bigots can (try to) make something meaningful – in their own warped minds – of the distinction.
Tommykey
January 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Like you, I don’t give a damn what it’s called, but I do care that the status and bennies be equivalent.
The other day HBO was showing some old episodes of Bill Maher’s Real Time and in one of them, Maher asked Barney Frank if he would accept civil unions instead of same-sex marriage as long as civil unions carried the same benefits, and his reply was along the lines of “Sure, I don’t care what you call it.”
PhillyChief
January 3, 2012 at 8:05 am
I’ve gotten into this discussion with gays before. I think they’re so desperate for certain rights the rest of us take for granted, that they’re willing to settle for civil unions. We have the further luxury, as outsiders, to look objectively at the situation and see how if they settle, they’ll always be subjected to the ‘separate but equal’ stigma and it’ll set back they’re full equality by decades.
In states where they have civil unions instead of marriage for all, straights should get civil unions instead of marriage licenses.
The Blog Fodder
December 31, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Marriage is a civil institution. Not religious. You can have all the church or otherwise ceremonies you want but you are not legally married unless the government says so. So why all the fuss about what religion says or doesn’t say about who can or cannot be married. and from what I read, be thankful you don’t live in Israel.
the chaplain
December 31, 2011 at 1:36 pm
In my experience, fundogelical teachings about marriage emphasize the religious elements that they impose on the concept of marriage and ignore its legal aspects. To the indoctrinated, the blessing of god is more important than the imprimatur of the government.
Spanish Inquisitor
January 1, 2012 at 9:47 am
That’s so true. And that tends to highlight the hypocrisy of their opposition to gay marriage.
if it’s all about the blessing of god, then why do they have absolutely no problem with people who are married by justices of the peace, judges, ship captains and other civil servants? I have never heard any fundeotard ever rail against the evils of those marriages.
John Evo
December 31, 2011 at 10:59 pm
You guys are right. My comment was badly thought out.
desertscope
January 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Is it just me, or does that Rick Perry picture remind you of Ted Haggard immediately before he was found to have been snorting meth off a male prostitute’s ass?
Moe
January 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Ahhh, memories, sweet memories. I heard he’s cured, by the way.
the chaplain
January 2, 2012 at 8:06 am
Why do you think I chose that photo?
PhillyChief
January 3, 2012 at 7:58 am
Love the idiot, hate the idiocy.