Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
RUMSFELD'S DROOLS

Donald Rumsfeld Equates Marriage Equality With Polygamy

Going by what he thinks about gay rights, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mustn’t spend a lot of time hanging around fellow Bush alum Dick Cheney’s household.

At least that’s what became clear for an interview that Rumsfeld did with Larry King. (As an aside, the combined ages of the two looks a lot like Apple’s stock price.)

In the interview, the man who helped give us the longest war in U.S. history not only suggested marriage equality might lead to polygamy, but also said he didn’t really think of gay rights as a civil rights issue.

King asked Rumsfeld if his support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell extended to marriage equality. For once, the supremely confident Rumsfeld was unsure of what to say. “You know, I’m, I guess, of a generation that I don’t … I listened to some of the Supreme Court justices and one of them said, ‘Well what’s next after that? Is it two people, three people?’”

Message to Don: that wasn’t the thing to say.

To his credit, King tried to prod Rumsfeld in the right direction, by pointing out that he supported civil rights when he was in Congress sometime during the Pleistocene Epoch. But, no, Rumsfeld was not to be moved.

“I guess I just don’t equate the two,” Rumsfeld said. “It’s not a subject I’m knowledgeable about. I guess the Rumsfeld rule here is: I don’t know.”

Yes, the thing to do if you’re ignorant is to make a rule of it and then write a book that promotes it as leadership.

You can watch Rumsfeld’s ramblings here.

Photo credit: Department of Defense 

By:           John Gallagher
On:           May 22, 2013
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 16 Comments
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Polygamy is banned to everybody, straight or gay, hence, no inequality exists. Bans on marriage single out one segment of unpopular Americans, thus, inequality exists.

      May 22, 2013 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spike
      Spike

      When the haters resort to the polygamy argument, it’s clear to everyone that they have just lost the debate.

      May 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LaTeesha
      LaTeesha

      He’s an immoral war criminal. Who cares what he thinks?

      May 22, 2013 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      Actually polyamory relationships work for many people and there is nothing wrong with them. We shouldn’t join the Right in condemning those relationships like they condemn ours. Haven’t you learned anything? It’s like climbing up the ladder to equal rights while at the same time kicking those below us.

      May 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toph23
      toph23

      That’s funny, because I equate Donald Rumsfeld with a war criminals. Trouble for him is that only one of us is right.

      May 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Homophile
      Homophile

      @LaTeesha:

      Agreed. He along with Bush, Cheney, and Rice, should be on trial for crimes against humanity, not on the talk show circuit.

      May 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dez
      Dez

      @viveutvivas:
      The problem is, you can’t really compare gay relationships to polygamous/polyamorous ones because CLEARLY polygamy and polyamory is a CHOICE. I refuse to compare them for much more than the fact that they’re both socially looked down upon; other than that, they’re not similar! Being gay, or bi, or trans are not choices; there is absolutely no choice in who we are attracted to. People confuse choice in action/behavior and choice in desire- choice in desire does not exist. Choice is taking 5 wives sadly exists. I don’t think we have any responsibility as gay people to defend polygamy or polyamory whatever you want to call it.
      Idiot old people like Donald Rumsfeld even admit they aren’t knowledgable so clearly they’re opinion is ill-informed. I can’t believe we even have to defend our gay rights as civil rights and put up a fight with these assholes just so we can marry ONE person that we love.

      May 22, 2013 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Triple S
      Triple S

      @LaTeesha, @Homophile: No they’re not. Hitler was a war criminal. Stalin was a war criminal. Mao was a war criminal. They beginnings of the wars in America are up for debate, but no. They are not war criminals just because you didn’t like the war.

      May 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ron Jackson
      Ron Jackson

      @Triple S: Wrong. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao where never convicted of any “war crimes” as far as I can tell. They were dead after the wars. On the other hand Bush and his gang were:

      The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record.

      Now, I don’t know what your definition War Criminal is, but this unofficial body in Malasia indited the above as “war Criminals”.

      I would venture to add that imo the Bush administration should be put on trial for war crimes by a more official body. IMO

      May 22, 2013 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charli Girl
      Charli Girl

      Is he still alive? Where ya been boy?

      May 22, 2013 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @Homophile: Agreed, can I please add our illustrious Tony Blair to that list of people who should be hung for crimes against our respective countries.

      They are responsible for 100,000x the deaths of our countryfolk than all the islamic terror attacks in history put together, in the past decade.

      May 22, 2013 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Homophile
      Homophile

      @2eo:

      Ah yes how could I forget Mr Dodgy Dossier himself?

      Add rendition and torture to the list.

      May 22, 2013 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaboCara
      CaboCara

      I did not hear him say that HE was worried, it sounded more like a quote from a Supreme Court Justice. ( I am not a fan of his, just saying it the way it comes out of his mouth)

      As a resident of So. UT for almost 20 years it was very obvious to me that the law turned a blind eye to the FLDS where girls (some as young as 12) were being married off to older men. It was always sad to me to see a young FLDS girl with a baby in her arms and wonder if it was her sibling or her child.

      My husband worked at the local paper for 16 years as the local news editor (including the years of the Jeffs trials). With all the research he did during that time he found many instances of the “lack of law” in this area and the corruption going on. He wrote ‘plygs’ a fact-based journalistic novel of the FLDS.

      They speak of the “slippery slope” … there should be none. What the people of the FLDS and the UAB practice as their “lifestyle” is SO far from it. People want to look at polygamy along with the LGBT and it is a totally different world. The LGBT just want to marry ONE person and have a life the way other monogamous couples live. The Polygamous world is based on religion. They hide behind it, they survive on the words of a prophet that has ended himself and several others in jail. What good can come of a “religion” that 12, 13, 14 yr old girls are “married” to the “highest bidder” (tithing and favors) within a “church”?

      Polygamy that is taught through religion is NOT a choice. They live it or they are forever damned. They live it or they will not see their children in the afterlife. They live it or they will be cast out with nothing… no home, no food, no family, no children, no friends… NOTHING…

      Tell me where this is a choice! Tell me how this should be legal! Explain how this is so slippery… those that speak of this slope have NO idea what true polygamy practiced by the FLDS and the AUB and other groups are doing to these women and children… there is no slope… there is a mountain and our politicians are terrified to climb it!

      May 22, 2013 at 7:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      @Dez, I don’t agree with your distinction between homosexuality and polyamory as a basis for human rights. People’s rights shouldn’t be based on whether their inclinations are a choice. If you go that way, then people could just as easily argue that gays have the choice to be celibate. The whole constitution is based on the idea that people should have choices. A bisexual actually has a choice, but he should still have the right to marry a same-sex partner. Women should have the choice to carry a fetus to term or not.

      If we go your way and just give rights to people based on inclinations they cannot choose to have, then maybe we should give rights to pedophiles to act out their fantasies. So no, absence of choice is a terrible basis for any argument as to who should have which rights.

      May 22, 2013 at 7:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hf2hvit
      hf2hvit

      I equate Donald Rumsfeld with crimes against humanity and mass murder.

      May 22, 2013 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      This guy isn’t in jail?

      May 22, 2013 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.