Skip to main content

The dumbfuckery is strong in this one.

I'm not sure how long it's been since Pat Buchanan has emerged from his bunker or ventured outside the wingnut blogosphere, but apparently he hasn't seen the polling lately showing that likely well over 50 percent of Americans support marriage equality. But even if those numbers are optimistic, what is beyond the realm of denial, even for a serial denier like Buchanan, is that a minority of Americans oppose it. That minority is, of course, shrinking--even as their shrieking and wailing is getting louder. And now we're seeing a vast majority of Americans (63 percent) who support federal recognition of same-sex marriages in marriage equality states.

But far be it from Pat Buchanan to let facts like these get in the way of making the case for a broad-based anti-civil rights movement in the mold of the Civil Rights Movement and the fight against Prohibition. Yes, these are the analogies he's making.

I told you the dumbfuckery is strong in this one.

Buchanan has taken to WorldNetDaily (of course--where else?) to call for this new movement of civil disobedience. You can read the whole thing on your own if you're that masochistic, but here are the especially absurd parts.

He starts off with something most of us can agree with:

Undeniably, the Christian view, though mislabeled “homophobia,” alienates millions. Many of America’s young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated, and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.
He's right about two things. First, he's right that America's youth, by and large, no longer give a shit and support marriage equality in much higher numbers than their elders. Second, he's right that what he calls "the Christian view" (ignoring the denominations that disagree with him, but then again I guess he wouldn't consider them Christian) is perhaps mislabeled as "homophobia." A more appropriate term might be...well, I've already used "dumbfuckery," so I guess that word has lost its power.

He then poses a question:

What happens if the gay rights movement, as it appears it may, succeeds politically on same-sex marriage, but many Christians refuse to recognize such unions and continue to declare that American society has become ungodly and immoral?
Gee, I don't know, Pat. Tell us. I'm assuming those so-called Christians will be relegated to the margins of society along with racists, misogynists, and Alex Jones listeners. But please, go on.

He then goes on to juxtapose the Civil Rights Movement and the movement for LGBT equality:

Gay rights advocates often compare their cause to the civil rights struggle of half a century ago. But there is a fundamental difference.

When Martin Luther King Jr. called on the nation to “live up to the meaning of its creed,” he heard an echo from a thousand pulpits. Treating black folks decently was consistent with what Christians had been taught. Dr. King was pushing against an open door.

Priests and pastors marched for civil rights. Others preached for civil rights. But if the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection.

Prelates could be declaring from pulpits everywhere that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God’s Country, and the new laws are immoral and need neither be respected nor obeyed.

So let me get this straight. Buchanan is basically threatening that, if we're successful at "imposing" marriage equality (although I'm not sure how we can "impose" something that up to 58 percent of Americans support), fundamentalist preachers are going to launch a movement of bed and breakfast owners and florists who will refuse service to gay couples. Because that has worked so freaking well for them so far. And this is supposed to make a difference? This is supposed to turn back the tide of LGBT equality? Refusing floral service? Or are anti-gay state clerks going to deny marriage licenses? Because that has worked out so well, too. Here's your movement, Pat.

Then he compares this hypothetical "movement" to Prohibition:

The issue is acceptance. We know of how America refused to accept Prohibition and, in good conscience, Americans broke the laws against the consumption of alcohol.
Help! My head is about to explode.

He goes on:

Imagine the situation in America today if priests and pastors were telling congregations they need not obey civil rights laws. They would be denounced as racists. Church tax exemptions would be in peril.

Something akin to this could be in the cards if the homosexual rights movement is victorious – a public rejection of the new laws by millions and a refusal by many to respect or obey them.

The culture war in America today may be seen as squabbles in a day-care center compared to what is coming. A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand.

Does your head hurt as much as mine?

I'll tell ya what, Pat. Marriage equality has been legal in some parts of the United States since 2004. So far, this "movement" of which you speak and hold over our heads as a threat has consisted of a few hateful bigots who have denied service to gays and lesbians. These people, far from turning back the clock on progress, have done nothing more than generate outrage in their communities and ring up legal bills. All while public support for equality has continued to rise at a rapid pace.

But we'll keep an eye out, Pat. Thanks for the warning.

Originally posted to Chrislove on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 01:40 PM PDT.

Also republished by Milk Men And Women, Angry Gays, LGBT Kos Community, Houston Area Kossacks, and Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site