They Blame Gay Marriage

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Well done.

The gay and lesbian community of Minnesota has issued a letter of apology to recently resigned Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch for ruining the institution of marriage and causing her to stray from her husband and engage in an “inappropriate relationship.”

“On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage,” reads the letter from John Medeiros. “We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry.”

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

49 Responses to “They Blame Gay Marriage”

  1. #1 |  Aresen | 

    I think that may qualify as “PWN of the Year”.

  2. #2 |  Aresen | 

    The only thing that could have made this story better is if the “inappropriate relationship” had been gay

  3. #3 |  CyniCAl | 

    The only thing that could have made this story better is if Radley supported Koch’s candidacy.

    ;-)

  4. #4 |  tarran | 

    That is %&*!ing awesome.

    Well played!

  5. #5 |  Lorenzo | 

    The article said her alleged paramour “lost several positions.” Then again, he may have acquired a couple in the process.

  6. #6 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Hey, my two best friends happen to be Cheap and Tawdry.

  7. #7 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    While I appreciate the humor, I have to wonder if such mockery won’t be a strategic error in the long run. It pleases people who already agree that Gay Marriage is a good thing (among whom I number myself, BTW), while irritating the people they need to convince. As I see it, Gays don’t want to be a special group whose rights are protected by the government (governments are fickle), they want to be an accepted part of society whose rights are protected by the weight of public opinion.

    It probably won’t be a big deal, even if I’m right, though.

    In any case, yes, good joke.

    Marriage hasn’t been undermined by homosexuals. It has been undermined by heterosexuals who can’t keep their promises, and by shifting laws that make it harder to get out of a cell phone contract than a marriage.

  8. #8 |  Jerith | 

    Passive aggressive apologist humor. Its as if the writer was Canadian.

  9. #9 |  omar | 

    I have to wonder if such mockery won’t be a strategic error in the long run.

    Maybe the gay community should take your advice on being more socially acceptable to mainstream America. You really seem to have the pulse of Americans public opinion concerning gay rights. I bet you have some practical suggestions to help with these “strategic errors.”

    Frankly, Gay Rights activists have a HUGE image problem, and need to start addressing it seriously, soon. The whack-jobs in the assless chaps, or pierced nipples, or B&D Nun’s Habits need to be told to stay home from Gay Pride events, unless Gays are willing to be saddled with a reputation for being tacky morons. The Politically Gay need to make SURE that the public is conscious that the Gay Rights movement has nothing to do with NAMBLA [...]
    – C. S. P. Schofield

    Oh.

  10. #10 |  Mattocracy | 

    Human nature, undermining the rules of religion since day one. Maybe I’m just a cynic, but monogamy is something humans are pretty fucking terrible at and always have been.

  11. #11 |  Mike T | 

    As a traditionalist Christian, I commend them for mocking the heck out of the mainstream right. I’m sick of heterosexuals who engage in serial monogamy placing the blame on such a numerically insignificant percentage of the population. It’s as moronic as blaming kids in the special ed room of your kid’s school for your kid’s craptastic education.

  12. #12 |  Joe | 

    Off topic, but did you see this outrage in D.C. Don’t you dare dance at the Jefferson Memorial or you will get body slammed by the police and spend the weekend in jail. http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=32824

  13. #13 |  CyniCAl | 

    Nothing makes me cringe like the phrase “assless chaps.”

    ALL chaps have no material in the buttockal region. “Assless chaps” is a redundancy, the same as saying “chaps.”

    Frankly, the correct distinction should be “assful chaps,” in cases where the wearer forgoes jeans or undergarments and proudly displays his or her buttocks to the world.

    Please, please people, if nothing else, do what you can to avoid using the phrase “assless chaps.” Please. I beg you. The English language will thank you for it.

  14. #14 |  Marty | 

    outstanding!

  15. #15 |  tim | 

    Passive aggressive apologist humor. Its as if the writer was Canadian.

    You’ve never been to Minnesota have you? We are the very definition of “passive aggressive”. The Canadian’s learned it from us.

  16. #16 |  Rob in CT | 

    Well played, nefarious gay agenda people!

    ;)

    Hilarious.

  17. #17 |  Dan | 

    Get the government out of the marriage business. I would like to see it as a private contractual thing or a purely religious thing with no governmental blessing whatsoever.

  18. #18 |  Doubleu | 

    The Kardashians taught me everything I need to know about traditional marriage.

  19. #19 |  Joe | 

    Well to be fair, all Kardashian marriages probably better fit under the umbrella of gay marriage.

  20. #20 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Omar,

    I know that you think it’s a waste of time for Gays to keep some of their snark and their weirder obsessions to themselves. That’s why I consider you to be rather thoughtless.

  21. #21 |  jdb79 | 

    And if one thing keeps us all up at night (well, in addition to worrying about the weird obsessions of gay people), it’s what someone with the handle of C. S. P. Schofield thinks of us.

  22. #22 |  Nancy Lebovitz | 

    Charles, I’m a habitually polite person myself, but I’m not sure that any social movement wins without some degree of snark, and possibly even some direct insults.

    This doesn’t prove that snark is necessary. It may just happen because people are involved with a cause. It does suggest that snark doesn’t do huge damage to a cause.

    Are you as concerned when conservative use insults?

  23. #23 |  Lefty | 

    assless chaps + nipple piercing = NAMBLA is the real problem.

  24. #24 |  Lefty | 

    Snark, at least in this example, points out the hypocrisy of the religious right better than a more reasoned approach.

  25. #25 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Nancy,

    The perception that Conservatives even approach the level of invective common on the Political Left is one I have problems with. Granted, they aren’t nearly as mild mannered and polite as they were in, say, 1970. But to show what I mean; consider the following;

    The “Bush is like Hitler” meme was all over the political Left during the eight years of the Bush administration. It was also absurd. Had Bush been like Hitler, those who pointed it out would have vanished. Yet the comparison kept being made, and when it was attacked, the Left defended it.

    Barak Obama is not more popular on the Right than Bush was on the Left. Yet, while some wildmen have compared him to Mao, Stalin, and other mass murdering Communist icons, these comparisons get attacked ….. by the Right.

    Rightwing politicians who come at all close to the level of bile common from the Left are shunned. Pat Buchanan, David Duke, and Pat Robertson come out with some remarkably hateful statements ….. which are then spread by the (by their own admission) mostly Leftwing media. The Right can be counted on to tell all three of these idiots to sit down and let the grownups talk.

    Yes, there are fringe groups and icons on the Right. The Fringe of the Left has been relentlessly mainstreamed, their excesses excused, their vileness defended. I don’t want the Right to stoop to the level of Buchanan (who seems to be receiving Radio Mars on his bridgework), but when I hear some Lefty whining about how mean Rush Limbaugh is, my reaction tends to be “Not so nice being the kickee, instead of the kicker, eh?”

  26. #26 |  edmund dantes | 

    LOL… wow. We have a new contender for snark of the year.

  27. #27 |  Ben | 

    #25 – Schofield, yeah the mainstream right REALLY did a good job policing their own and told everyone who was screaming to see Obama’s birth certificate to shut up and talk about adult things, didn’t they? Oh wait, no they didn’t. In fact, NONE of the then-declared candidates for the Republican nomination distanced themselves from the birther crap until the full cert was released. We’re talking about basically the entirety of the right media questioning whether the sitting president was even an American.

  28. #28 |  Cynical in New York | 

    #25

    I’ll give you Duke and Robertson but Buchanan is different. He is still considered mainstream as far as cons goes. If anything when illegal immigration was highlighted back in 2006, he went from a con hating W to being relevant again. He is regularly featured on conservative programs (in addition to being a regular on MSNBC) whenever immigration is the subject and if it’s not Pat himself it’s someone who mirrors his views. Buchanan is the conservative counterpart to Jackson and Sharpton.

  29. #29 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Ben,

    The mainstream right was saying “Oh, please!” about that idiocy from the start. I know this because (naturally enough) I was reading Conservative/Right publications. If you didn’t notice, perhaps you should be asking “why?”. Maybe because somebody wanted you to think that the Right was collectively wearing tinfoil hats?

    I used to live in Washington D.C.. I could read three newspapers with three different (VERY different) slants. The Washington Post was (and still is) Leftwing orthodox. The Washington Times was meduim-to-far Right (but not quite fringe), and the City Paper was just plain off-the-wall. I was able to get more than one POV, and I miss it. The papers where I am now are moderate-left pap, except for the NYT, which is simply so badly written that I can’t honesty say I KNOW where it stands. People tell me it’s pretty far Left, but for all I really know it could be reactionary Right.

  30. #30 |  Ben | 

    #29 – Are you saying that all of the Republican candidates for President are not “mainstream right”? Because NONE of them explicitly disavowed that shit. And neither did ANYone over at Fox News. Which is supposed to be the Right’s channel to “balance” the rest of the MSM, right?

  31. #31 |  RoMan | 

    Am I the only one who sees the irony of the so-called Gay and Lesbian Community* mocking the very institution they have tried so fought so hard to be allowed to participate in – marriage?

    *I sincerely doubt the Gay and Lesbian Community at large support this type of petty “tit for tat”. I base this opinion solely on my 4 years living and working in the SF Bay area and the many Gay and Lesbian friends I made there.

  32. #32 |  Ben | 

    #31 – I don’t see this as mocking the institution of marriage at all. It’s mocking the utter hypocrisy of people who harp about the sanctity of “traditional” marriage while violating it’s vows, as well as mocking the idea that gay marriage is a bigger attack on the institution than the rampant infidelity that is the cause of so many divorces.

  33. #33 |  JOR | 

    “While I appreciate the humor, I have to wonder if such mockery won’t be a strategic error in the long run.”

    No. It might seem like a strategic error in the short run, maybe, possibly, but in the long run, this kind of thing is strategically valuable.

    If you want a good example of why and how, look at how floundering and irrelevant American atheism was for most of the 20th Century, and look at the strides it has made since the emergence of the “New” Atheists. While I think many of their arguments and attitudes are unfair, stupid, malign, or dishonest, I’d be the last person to complain about their lack of manners. They know what works for groups in their position and they’ve used it well.

  34. #34 |  Aresen | 

    It is not a strategic error, in fact, it is brilliant.

    Instead of screaming about her hypocrisy, they pointed it out in a way that was very memorable. The next time some politician starts talking about the “Sanctity of Marriage”, people will ask “OK, who are you seeing on the sly?” This will raise questions about EVERY ‘sanctity-monger’ not just the one who got caught.

  35. #35 |  CyniCAl | 

    Seems we’re done with this thread.

    OT, but one of our favorite subjects … it must be tough being “America’s Toughest Sheriff:”

    http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-sheriff-faces-setback-over-immigration-030206765.html

  36. #36 |  CyniCAl | 

    Man, I hate cops. I mean I fucking hate cops. But you all knew that. Why not go into the holiday with some awesome Will Grigg:

    http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w240.html

  37. #37 |  JSL | 

    #33,

    And yet, if anyone dishes out back at the atheists, they whine and cry about it as persecution.

    The hypocrisy on both sides of this debate and the gay marriage one have burned me out on these issues. I tire of the so-cons endless whinging about “evil” gay marriage yet the gay marriage folks seem to be all about getting government more and more in people’s lives (hate crime legislation for example).

    The snark has pushed me further away from tolerating atheists (i’m no fan of modern organized religion) to hating them. They’re as over zealous as the bible thumpers they hate on.

    That Grigg column is just infuriating btw. I don’t think I could hold back from violence if that happened to my family.

  38. #38 |  Ariel | 

    I have to admit I’m not for Gay Marriage, but I’m for Civil Union all day long and have been since Hawaii tried to pass a gay marriage act. It’s a definitional issue as marriage has always been male-female no matter the permutations (good luck refuting that without breaking your spine). The definition as proposed by the gay political arm of “two loving people” is BS. If you want to attack me on my sensitivity on definitions, so be it, but it has been the purview of every scoundrel since writing. Some of the scoundrels have been very bad people..

    I’ll go with that renounded homophobe Elton John.

  39. #39 |  Ariel | 

    OK, so some of you will key on my bad writing. Thus this correction: “my sensitivity on definitions, so be it, but it (the change of definitions) has been the purview of every scoundrel since writing.”

    Oh, and the “renounded” should have been “renound”, just in case the grammar nazis come out.

    Marriage has had a set, while inclusive of different sets, definition of male-female union. Same sex union is a category difference, a difference that can be legally acknowledged but under a categorical difference.

  40. #40 |  Ariel | 

    #37,
    I’m an atheist but I share your pain. That wasn’t a snark.

  41. #41 |  Kristen | 

    @#39

    “Renound”….errr kind of close-ish, but no cigar.

  42. #42 |  JOR | 

    Until very recently, marriage wasn’t so much ‘male-female’ as it was ‘owner-property’. The reason men didn’t ‘marry’ male lovers was because, 1)homosexuality was often taboo, 2) even when it wasn’t, one’s male lovers were likely to be free men, and 3) even your male slaves couldn’t bear your offspring, and in any case a slave was a different kind of property than a wife (the male offspring of a free man’s wife generally being free themselves). The idea of being a faithful mate for sentimental reasons is a modern invention. In the past, men, to the extent that they were expected to be faithful to their wives at all, were only expected so because any other women they would fuck would be someone else’s property (either that of their husbands or fathers, depending on whether they were married), and the reason wives were expected to be faithful to their husbands was because, well, they were their husbands’ property.

    Since the whole modern notion of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with traditional marriage, appeals to tradition to keep it (or just the label “marriage” rather than the actual substance of the contract and lifestyle) straight-only are just silly. Well, even sillier than appeals to tradition always necessarily are, anyway.

  43. #43 |  Raoul Duke | 

    I want to commend the vast majority of the denizens of this blog for your relentless hostility and poor taste. I had seen the linked article elsewhere and noted it as nothing more than a typical liberal cheapshot. Your disdain for tradition is inspiring! Inspiring those in the middle to move to the right and inspiring those on the right to fight harder for the soul of our country. Keep up the good work! I know you will because you can’t help it.

  44. #44 |  JOR | 

    . . . then they fight you, and then you win.

  45. #45 |  JOR | 

    #39, Well, as I said, I don’t much like them either (though I dislike them for substantive reasons; the snark in and of itself isn’t an issue, though I realize that snark is often a cover for the very substantive vices that the “new” atheists tend to indulge in, which is perhaps one of the reasons people tend to be instinctively repulsed by snark, except when it’s someone they agree with already) but the thing is, they’ve come a lot farther than they would have had they been polite. Sure, they’ve alienated a few people, like you and me, but as we have seen, that hasn’t been much of an obstacle. And it’s not like their counterparts on the religious side were ever any better than they are now, in the very slightest – their nastiness and dishonesty can’t be excused as a mere reaction to the “new” atheists. The atheists, for all their problems, didn’t start it.

  46. #46 |  BamBam | 

    @39, it’s spelled renowned :)

  47. #47 |  Nancy Lebovitz | 

    Charles, I think it’s hard to compare how nasty insults your side gets are compared to the insults the other side gets.

    Also, it’s good to hear that some fraction of the right thought focusing on Obama’s birth certificate was silly, but they didn’t have any ability to slow down the birthers. If you’re evaluating insults, you have to look at what’s actually said, not whether there are ineffective efforts to stop it.

  48. #48 |  derfel cadarn | 

    #27 Ben the birth certificate is phony so is the playskool pResident. The rules set down by our Constitution are an adult topic. When discussing whether or not the fraud in the White House is elegible to hold office it is very important. Consider the fact that we probably have more accurate information on Jesus’s birth then we do on the man presently residing in the White House,then just maybe your limited intellect might to able to see the issue.

  49. #49 |  Stray | 

    One of the funniest laughs I had in 2011 was the person who stuck a sandwich-board sign in front of their shop which read, “If you don’t like gay marriage then blame straight people. They’re the ones who keep having gay babies!”

Leave a Reply