Oh, Randi Rhodes, your hypocrisy makes me smile

[elfs]

I listen to talk radio in real short bursts, maybe ten minutes at a time, while running errands. I rarely drive long distances in my car, and when I do I just flip through the dials looking for fun.

Rhodes seems to be sexually well-plugged in. Even if it's not her kink, she's made jokes about how "[if] you google for 'necrophilia' and 'bestiality' you get more hits on Republican speeches than you do Japanese porn." When she was temporarily relocated to a studio in New York, she said, "The engineers said they wanted me to be happy, to be comfortable. I don't know what it is with this chair. It has arms and gadgets and things. I don't think I've ever seen a chair like this outside of Xtube! All it needs is a strap-on in the middle!"

So, last night, she made me mad when she blasted Carrie Prejean for sexting to her boyfriend. She said, "You know, if you film yourself masturbating to send to your boyfriend to show how much you miss him, and you're enjoying it a little too much, you're sending the wrong message. You should send him a movie of you sitting on your couch, looking bored and eating ice cream!" She went to bemoan Prejean's sexual naivete and harped on her incompetence.

I agree that Prejean is a hypocrite in the first degree, Miss "God Loves Me Because I Hate Gays" who engages in underage sexting (which may ironically, may require her to register as a sex offender) and borrows money for breast augmentation surgery (from the Miss America pageant, no less!) only to miss her payments. But Rhodes cannot simultaneously be that deeply knowledgeable about and even sympathetic toward consenting sexual deviancy (I use that word with no malice whatsoever) and blast other people for doing what young people do.

Comments

It's not hate.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

...Miss "God Loves Me Because I Hate Gays"

It's amazing that even among intelligent, reasoning adults, when someone states that they think marriage should be between a man and a woman, it so frequently gets characterized as their "hating" gays.

At what point did she ever indicate that she either hated gays, or even disapproved of their union? She only stated (parroting her religious teachings) that her definition of marriage didn't include same-sex unions.

...I guess it's easier to label that as "hate" than to be able to see her point of view and understand it, even if you don't agree with it.

Re: It's not hate.

[qtplatypus.livejournal.com]

What other reasoned argument could there be for say forbiding dead gay partners from sharing a furnural plot?

Re: It's not hate.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It's not hate. It's merely disgust. That's why whenever anti-gay activists talk about it, they always say "homosexual." They talk about "husbands and wives in marriage," but it's "homosexuals" when they talk about civil unions. They just don't want to think about the ickiness of it. Except when they want you to think about how icky it is.

Re: It's not hate.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

[sarcasm]Prejean doesn't want gay partners to share a funeral plot? Gee, I must have missed that. [/sarcasm]

...or were you just inserting a non-sequitor argument in an attempt to distract from my point?

I'm GREATLY in favor of couples who are in love, whatever orientation, race, religion, they have, to be able to be partners in a civil union under the law, with no difference to how the law views one type of union over another. Everyone deserves the right to be happy.

I do not believe that introducing legislation to redefine marriage is the correct route to this goal (and in fact, I believe it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution).

My view is that all partnerships, including marriages, be defined legislatively under a common term. The term "Marriage" is not that term, because it is already defined by many religions, and therefore could not be defined by legisltation without violating our constitution.

Does that mean that I hate gays and lesbians? No, it most certainly does not.

Re: It's not hate.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

My view is that all partnerships, including marriages, be defined legislatively under a common term. The term "Marriage" is not that term, because it is already defined by many religions, and therefore could not be defined by legisltation without violating our constitution.

Except that it already IS defined by legislation. There are laws that say who may or may not be married. Some religions permit a man to have multiple wives, but US law forbids that. Some religions accept same-sex marriages, but most US states and federal law forbid that.

Marriage is a legal institution, with legally-defined rights and consequences, therefore, the 1st amendment forbids religious views from playing a role in how it is defined.

Re: It's not hate.

[(Anonymous)]

If she was saying "I won't marry a woman, because that's against my beliefs", you'd have a point.

Instead, she's saying "You two women shouldn't be able to get married in a *civil* ceremony because *I* don't approve of you getting married."

Is that "hate"? Maybe, maybe not... but it's certainly an effort to keep a subset of the citizenry as second-class citizens based on one's personal religious beliefs, in a country where the government is secular, and pledged to be neutral in mattes of religion.

Whatever label you want to put on that, "admirable" certainly isn't one of them.

Re: It's not hate.

[(Anonymous)]

If she had said that she didn't think black people should be allowed to marry in this country, would you be saying the same thing? Would you be claiming that it wasn't racism, but merely that her definition of marriage didn't include people of African descent?

Number 127

Re: It's not hate.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

I really despise the application of the "Black" civil rights analogy to the Same-sex partnership scenario... Using that analogy, blacks would be lobbying to be called whites so that they get the same rights.

Same sex partners shouldn't be trying to redefine the term "Marriage". They should instead be trying to ge the same rights as married couples, as they have already succeeded in doing in California.

Take THAT fight to the federal level, and you will win -- equality would be granted.

Re: It's not hate.

[cadetstar.livejournal.com]

I would love to see the term marriage thrown out of all governmental establishment. But like that has a snowball's chance of happening.

And separate but equal has already been decided.

-Michael

Re: It's not hate.

[(Anonymous)]

True equality can't be achieved until either gays have access to the "marriage" label and all the social legitimacy it carries with it, or the government gets out of the marriage business entirely. Having the government recognize a distinction between civil unions and marriage while denying the latter to a group of its citizens based strictly on religious mania is intolerable. The middle ground of civil unions and whatnot, even if it were to be extended to the federal level, is just "separate but equal" all over again.

I'm sorry you don't like the racial analogy, but I fail to see why it doesn't apply. I also don't understand the bizarre statement about blacks wanting to be called whites; gays don't want to be called straight, they just want access to the same fundamental rights that straights have.

Number 127