Alex Blaze

On display for the public in all of its ugliness

Filed By Alex Blaze | September 06, 2007 7:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Ann Coulter, gay Republicans, William Rusher

I was just reading a column by William Rusher, of course on Larry Craig, and here's what he had to say in defense of the Senator:

No doubt about it, the inconsistency is toothsome. But does it really follow that Craig, and all the other supporters of family values (and there must be many) who share his weakness, or have some other weakness, are hypocrites? Isn't it possible that Craig truly regards the institution of marriage as valuable, even indispensable to society, and considers his own lapses into homosexual conduct as an unfortunate disorder -- or even (if he is religious) as a sin?

And this from Ann Coulter, trying to prove that Republicans, not queers, are an oppressed minority:

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."[...]

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

So from the both of them, the best thing they can say about Larry Craig is that, even if he's gay, at least he's repressing himself. At least he has the decency not to want to live and love to his full potential. At least he knows his place.

Maybe this is something that's just beyond me. I've heard from Republican queers (the neocon/theocon type, au Gay Patriot, not the libertarian type, like the LCR) before over and over again that their Republican friends care less about them being gay than their gay friends care about them being Republican.

But they can only accept a gay person who doesn't really want to do anything more than have sex with her Opposite Sex partner, or at least keeps that part of her or his life under wraps.

It's an institution that wishes that they'd just stop existing, by any means necessary. Why would anyone want to be a part of that?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Ann Coulter on Townhall.com?

I think she's outlived her usefullness.

She was useful? When did that happen?