Thursday, March 12, 2009

Michael Steele......Dumbass



Repugnant double-talker Michael Steele is talking to GQ magazine.
Let's listen in:

On being gay:

"Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.' It’s like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.'”

Hmmmmm, so far so good. Then he moves on to that hot button issue of same-sex marriage:

"Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue..."

Gay marriage, he says, is a state issue:

"Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about."

Now let's take it apart.

Michael Steele is "....supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them...."

He's supportive of a lot of his gay friends in some of their core beliefs.
Which can also mean he is not supportive of some of his gay friends in their other core beliefs.

That's discrimination, dumbass.

He believes gay people should have some of the rights and privileges of marriage, but don't call it marriage, because of the whole sanctity issue of one-man-one-woman.
He says that isn't anti-gay.

Oh, but it is, Mikey, it is anti-gay. It's discrimination,

When you deny rights to which all people are entitled, to a group of people simply based on their sexual orientation, that is discrimination.

And when you say it's a state issue, well, Mikey, you ignorant Repugnant dumbass, what about federal marriage benefits, social security benefits, survivorship benefits?
If gay marriage isn't a federally recognized institution then gay couples are not entitled to the same federal benefits as straight couples.

And that's discrimination.

So, Mikey,, you can spin and double-talk and side-step all you want, but you're wrong.

And you're an idiot.
And you're anti-gay.
And stop spewing that sanctity of marriage bullshit. If all you Repugnants were so hot on the sanctity of marriage, you would have outlawed divorce years ago.

2 comments:

  1. They dont want to muck around with the constitution? Excuse me but wasnt it just a few short years ago they wanted to ban gay marriage? DOMA?

    fuckers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed. Those interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage should work toward limiting divorce.

    It is wrong to leave the civil rights of millions of people up to individual states to decide by a simple majority. Did we put African American equal rights up for a vote? No. Equality for African Americans was welcomed by progressive, northern states and forced upon bigotted, southern states, but years later we all agree that it was the right thing to do.

    The majority will always vote against giving rights (ie: power) to the minority. That's why it should NOT be left up to a vote within the states.

    ReplyDelete

Say anything, but keep it civil .......