Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  idiot logic

Smiling Bigot Mike Huckabee Worries Gay Marriage Will Destroy Kids’ Minds

It’s no secret that Mike Huckabee, who’s being floated as a 2012 GOP presidential candidate, isn’t a friend to the gays. He supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But please, allow him to explain why he’s comfortable discriminating against gays.

“It’s not that I’m against gay marriage, it’s that I’m for traditional marriage,” says Huckabee in an interview with Katie Couric, in the typical “I’m not a bigot” explanation. “Rather than start a new form a marriage, I’d like to see us do a better job with the form that we’ve had all these years.”

Enter the polygamy scare tactic: “If enough people believe that we should have – I’ll just use the illustration of polygamy – then we should accommodate that. Otherwise, are we being just as bigoted and intolerant and lacking compassion because we don’t promote and accept and put a sanction on polygamy? I don’t think so.”

By:           editor editor
On:           Nov 25, 2009
Tagged: , ,

  • 43 Comments
    • Scottie
      Scottie

      The ignornace of some of these religious fools is beyond the pale. Their line of reasoning makes no sense at all…they just grasp for straws and hope other idiots drink the kool aid.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      What it really comes down to is that they continue repeating the same talking points.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Julian Morrison
      Julian Morrison

      Actually, he’s right, gay marriage should lead to poly marriage. The “two people” thing is as senseless as the “two sexes” thing. Two, why? The answer is just traditionalism.

      It irritates me when marriage advocates throw polyamorous people under the bus to wave off critics. There doesn’t need to be any rule beyond “human adults, plural” on the members of a marriage.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Oh,I don’t think most of them are ignorant at all. They are shrewd – they are saying what they think appeals to the likely voters.

      They want to get elected and have all the money/power and perks that go along with high office.

      When the populace changes their views, so will the politicians.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      So what he’s really saying is:

      “Straight people have fucked up marriage so bad that we couldn’t possibly let the gays have a go of it.”

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      Here we go again, complaining about bigots instead of working out our next moves.
      We should be pushing for domestic partnership, which the public support. After a few wins, they would get used to the idea, and marraige rights would roll in like Rosanne on a gurney lubed and naked. Likewise, the repeal of dadt should be a priority, which the public also support. After they’ve seen us serve openly with honor, they’ll be more inclined to grant us other rights. Strategy, people. Please stop listening to the victim complex crowd. Pretty please.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      Sounds like “begging” WillBFair.

      Please, can I sit in the back of the “marriage” bus, please.

      Don’t suggest “settling” is practical. If you (ask for) and settle for less, then, you are less. We can’t be “lesser,” if we are equal.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      How hard is it to tell people to accept the fact that they have no business making decisions for homosexuals. The only thing we needed was a vote from gay people to know if gay marriage was necessary or not. Comparing it to polygamy is like comparing smoking to gambling – Oh wait, both are fully taxed by the government and accepted. Those are things anyone can enjoy, even abuse, if you’re of the age to do so. I think it’s the age to do so in terms of letting those who have outdated and abusive beliefs to give back and not be so lazy as to ignore a vital part of society. And to be honest, my marriage has zero to do with anyone else’s, so why do they make it seem like it does?

      Nov 25, 2009 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trey
      Trey

      I am so tired of this polygamy bs being used as an argument against gay marriage. Katie Couric or someone needs to ask the follow up question…so Mike Huckabee, what you are arguing is that in states where gay marriage is already legal, that we should also legalize polygamous marriages? Of course he isn’t, his argument is completely disingenuous!

      Nov 25, 2009 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • YellowRanger
      YellowRanger

      Hitler didn’t hate the Jews, he was just really pro-Aryan.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alicia banks
      alicia banks

      if this is true, then when will this bigoted loon hickabee introduce us to his own parents’ DL homo spouses?

      denial + ignorance = doom!

      het parents become more toxic each day as bigots like hickabee ignore droves of their amoral het heathen spawn…

      shame!

      alicia banks
      ELOQUENT FURY

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Mike needs to worry more about his own morbidly obese kids torturing animals and taking loaded firearms to airports.
      http://a.abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3085058
      http://wonkette.com/334572/can-a-naughty-boy-bring-down-a-wannabe-president

      Nov 25, 2009 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      I have no problem with polygamy except that in most instances it involves older men marrying underage girls. If all parties are of legal age and the man or woman who is taking on the multiple spouses can afford them without public assistance and if it is based on a religious belief then why should I care? I think it would be great if women started pressing the case for multiple husbands like the fundamentalist Mormons press the case for multiple wives.

      I have a problem with someone with multiple spouses being on public assistance though to be honest.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      This man’s son strung a dog up with his eagle scout buddy and stoned it to death. Talk about a mind warp. Google it up, it’s there for all to see. What kind of freak creats a son who does this?

      Nov 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      A prior post that begs repeating because these asses won’t let the polygamy thing go!
      Their latest ploy has been to come off sounding like non-Christian, really progressive, incestuous polygamists that “wonder” why their “love” can’t be “honored” too, (when gays are legally recognized.) They say things like, “No really, I’m for gay marriage, I just want to know why….” Dale Carpenter has a good article about that slippery slope maneuver. Bidstrup and Jon W. Davidson from lambda legal have good replies, that is, if NOM-skulls try to back you into their slippery slope lair. “The sun will shine into our yard too.” I found a post from January that kicks ass, as I’m no expert in the slippery slope stuff:From Box-Turtle—
      Tim
      January 29th, 2009 | LINK
      I think it is important to look to what society defines marriage as, in contrast to what individuals or institutions consider as marriage for themselves. Society does not require married couples to procreate, nor does it require couples to have the capacity to procreate. Soceity appears to qualify marriage as the affirmation of a relationship of two persons, nothing more, nothing less. Should individuals or institions wish to apply a different definition or different requirements to marriage, they are free to do so for themselves. The fact of the matter is that society does not require anything more.
      In regards to the polygamy/incest/animal arguments, they are fairly simple to distinguish:
      1) Polygamy: without discussing the moral or social implications of permitting polygamy, this extension would create a whole new set of rights which no one in society currently enjoys, homosexual and heterosexual alike. The extension of marriage to homosexuals is based upon granting an existing right to a group in society who has been excluded on the basis of an immutable charactersitic – the right exists, but it is being denied to certain persons. Regardless of whether polygamy is right or wrong, that issue is completely separate from the same-sex marriage issue.
      2) Incest: this has been prohibited in many societies for various reasons, one of the more prominent of which is the preservation of familial relations and prevention of abuse. Due to the importance that family plays throughout one’s life, it is wise to prohibit the development of sexual relationships, which can often result in the abuse of power differentials and the breakdown of essential, life-long family relationships. As well, by preventing homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, you are preventing them from marrying anyone of the gender to which they are attracted. By prohibiting incest, you are merely removing a handful of people from the 3 billion persons of the gender to which you are attracted – hardly an equivalent restriction.
      3) Animals: this argument angers me, because it is the most irrational and desperate of them all. Animals cannot give legal consent, end of argument. Marriage is a contract, in the eyes of the state, and thus animals are completely out of the question. With same-sex marriage, we are talking about consenting adults. There is absolutely no logical way to think that same-sex marriage somehow leads to human-animal marriages. This argument, in my opinion, automatically identifies the speaker as someone incapable of rational thought on the subject.
      I currently live in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriages, and am extremely thankful for that right. If society wishes to take that right away, then I will respect that decision. So long as you also take away that right from barren women, impotent men and senior citizens, in addition to dissolving all childless marriages.
      Posted: Sep 23, 2009 at 11:13 pm

      Nov 25, 2009 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Destroy kids’ minds! What could be worse than torturing an emaciated dog! Rot in Hell spawn of Hickabee!

      Nov 25, 2009 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Mick Fuck-a-boo does more damage to kids with his ugly face.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      “Polygamy is having one wife (husband) too many. Monogamy is the same thing.”
      — Oscar Wilde.

      Huckabee is not an ignorant bigot; he is a very very smart bigot. He knows full well that his arguments do not hold water. Are there any sincere arguments against marriage equality? Of course not, thats why the wingnuts invent all this crap that they can sell (raise money). And Huckabee is just another politico hack saying/doing whatever it takes to wield a power base.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 9:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      Attack Sarah Palin at your own peril, gay lefties. This guy’s the real Gay Public Enemy No. 1.

      His argument is like saying “I’m not anti-Israel, I’m just pro-Palestinian” or “I’m not anti-black, just pro-KKK”. They are one and the same. The Palestinian movement is anti-Israel by definition, the KKK is anti-black by definition, and the Orwellian red herring called “traditional” marriage is anti-gay by definition. And it isn’t even traditional: it’s been set in stone since the ancient times of 1967.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      AndrewW,
      False historical comparisons are sly ways to get us to stay with failed strategy. So is the self righteous pose.
      That was then. Black folk were fed up and committed to the struggle. The hippie movement helped. The economy had been booming since the end of WWII.
      This is now. What christian support we have is more than offset by raving fundies. The economy is in the toilet. Straights see that we’ve been too self destructive for thirty years to stop aids in our community. They’re probably waiting for us to grow up before they waste energy helping us. And there’s no hippie movement to help.
      I think the movement is still controlled by the victim complex crowd who actually want us to loose so they can feel sorry for themselves.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      #2: Polyamory is different than polygamy, at least as usually practiced. One is a single marriage with more than two people in it, and the other is multiple two-person marriages running in parallel. (Wives A, B, and C are not married to each other; they just have a common husband.) Allowing either one would require a rewrite of most laws that have anything to do with marriage, but they’re not

      Nov 26, 2009 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      Besides which, domestic partnership is equal. It contains the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marraige. It’s just a different name. The public are sentimental about the word ‘marraige’, and they don’t want to share that. It’s just a word. Get over it.
      They also realize it’s unfair to deny us partnership benefits and are willing to grant them to us. That’s a huge concession. We should be dancing in the streets. Instead, we’re insisting on something we can’t win so that the victim crowd can feel sorry for themselves. Please.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear WillBFair,

      http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc84.jpg

      Nov 26, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      WillBFair: You are preaching to the choir with me Brother! I have posted the same thoughts many threads and had tons of poo tossed at me for doing so. I say mimic what we achieved in Washington in every state. I say let the rightwing-nutbag lunatic zealots have the word “marriage” I have never attended a cookie cutter ceremony in a chruch or temple that comes anywhere near the sincerity and true espressions of love that one sees at a Gay ceremony in which the partners create a ceremony which refelets their relationship and what they feel for each other. Give us the same rights and benefits that any hetro couple recieve from marriage thru the easier to swallow domestic partnerships. And then after a few years and we have proven that Gays together will not result in catastrophic destruction of the world as we know it, if your panties are still bunched up about the word “marriage” you can fight for its inclusion. There is a teen who posts on these threads PopSnap, he posts the most intelligent observation: To the yonger gen. being a Gay is no big deal. They see it, are used to it, and accept it. We basically have to wait for the older gen who are most rabidly opposed the Gay marriage. As they die off it will be no big deal for us to have really strong anti discrimination laws and Gay marriage. We basically have to let them fuck off and die (literaly!!)

      As to Huckelberryee. He is one of the more dangerous RWNBLZs, He comes across as a smilin’ folksy good ole guy. Always bein’ nice, playin the electrik geetar………….Yet he still advocates the same hatefull agenda the rest of the more obvious RWNBZs urge…………..

      Nov 26, 2009 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darvey
      Darvey

      Katie Couric is paid $15 million a year to do what again, exactly? To give Mike Huckabee a platform for a sophisticated, dishonest attack like this? He certainly didn’t get the Palin treatment, to say the least… In fact, her only “challenge” was to read an email from an “openly gay” woman in Arkansas, almost tripping over herself in saying those two words. And she utterly (and I think quite deliberately) failed to call Huckabee on his implied notion that studies of two-parent gay parenting showed the kids can’t up short.

      So what do studies of single-parent families have to do with anything here? Why not mention the studies of kids raised by two-parent gay families? Somehow that wasn’t in the informercial.

      It’s no secret that Katie Couric is Republican. It’s also no secret that you can torque a “60 Minutes” story with Lesley Stahl if you offer the potential to enrich her daughter on the side. So you got to wonder: what kind of Pay-2-Play deal does Couric have with Huckabee? Was Palin just not in the loop about how to grease the wheels?

      Nov 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HaHa
      HaHa

      Maybe he’s got a point on the polygamy. If we have gay marriage, pretty soon the throuple will want in.

      “Do you, Justine, the steroid queen, take Mickey, the cute ‘n silent one, and Maxine, the Russian anteater, as your lawful wedded husbands?”

      “Do you, Mickey, the cute ‘n silent one, take Justine, the steroid queen, and Maxine, the Russian anteater, as your lawful wedded husbands?”

      “Do you, Maxine, the Russian anteater, take Justine, the steroid queen, and Mickey, the cute ‘n silent one, as your lawful wedded husbands?”

      (In unison) “WE DO!!”

      “I hereby pronounce you a throuple. Now go forth and torture the shit out of each other as long as you can stand it.”

      Nov 26, 2009 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      I find it extremely dismaying that LGBT folks like WillBFair and TERRWILL,continually attempt to hoodwink those of us who know differently, that civil-unions, domestic partnerships or whatever else you choose to call alternatives to marriage, will give us the same benefits and rights that only a full-fledged marriage status like the heteros enjoy can bestow on us.

      It is out and out lying and makes you no better than the Mormons, Catholics, the fundamentalist crazies and people like who also lie through their eye-teeth, like Fuckabee, to make their point and get their way with respect to depriving us of our rights. These people never had the right to vote on our rights. They just took it and no one is holding them accountable for their disgusting and contemptible behavior and actions.

      http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090120.html

      One of the glaring inequities, among many, of alternatives to seemingly hetero-owned marriage, is the inequality that exists with respect to immigration rights. Unlike heteros, who can petition the US Immigration Dept. to bring a foreign born, opposite-sex partners to the US and sponsor them for citizenship, partners in same-sex unions may NOT do so.

      Adoption is another gray area for same-sex partners that are in civil-unions and other alternatives to full-fledged marriage. Is it fair that having children should be limited only to breeders who in many cases, make worse parents than anyone could ever accuse LGBT people of doing?

      In advocating the acceptance of second-class citizenship for all LBGT members, you TERRWIL and WillBFair, are throwing millions of LGBT under the bus, in much the same manner as Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank did with transgendered people when ENDA was being pushed for.

      If y’all are content with second-class citizenship and the inequities inherent to such a lowered status, fine. Who am I to tell you how to live?

      But, do not presume to speak for the rest of us and trading our rights away, simply so you can have the limited ones you are willing to content yourself with is not acceptable to those of us who demand FIRST-CLASS Citizenship.

      I for one, am not content to sit at the back of the bus…or even in the middle, for that matter.

      Only the front seat, if it’s available, will do, thank you very much!

      Nov 26, 2009 at 8:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Brooklyn
      Mike in Brooklyn

      To WillBFair: you are wrong, domestic partnership are inferior to marriage.

      My hubby of 24 years and I entered into a domestic partnership several years ago. At every instance we attempted to take advantage of “all the same rights as marriage” we faced high hurdles of notarized paperwork, repeated denials, separate powers-of-attorney for medical matters and for financial matters. Purchasing property and obtaining a mortgage requires additional legal work, higher transaction costs. In contrast, married couple rarely need to present a copy of a marriage certificate, they can simply represent that they are spouses.

      We married last year, thank you Massachusetts, and its been a mix bag. Some transactions, changing auto titles, were a breeze. Health insurance required several phone calls, letters, and copy of marriage certificate. My hubby’s married co-workers did not need proof of marriage.

      For work purposes, recently we moved to Asheville, North Carolina. Here our marriage means dick and no domestic partnerships either.

      But much more importantly, my marriage is a marriage.

      Nov 26, 2009 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andy
      andy

      Sometimes it seems that there isn’t much difference between the republicans and the democrats but I only have to see an interview like this to point out the difference quite clearly.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 22 · WillBFair wrote, “Besides which, domestic partnership is equal. It contains the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marraige.”

      The California Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages, before Proposition Eight changed the state constitution, said that was not sufficient in its decision. One example was in applying for employment – if nearly all domestic partnerships consist of gay couples, then a question on an employment form asking if the applicant is single, married, or in a domestic partnership can be used to make an educated guess at the applicant’s sexual orientation, thereby violating the applicant’s right to privacy.

      You can find this at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF (scroll down to page 105).

      The idea that domestic partnerships provide “the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as marriage” and that this is sufficient is a naive statement for the reasons outlined in the court decision.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 2:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      The United States should be run by Zappos

      Nov 28, 2009 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Schlukitz: I am disowning you as my surrogate Grandfather ;-(
      I am not attempting to hoodwink any one, I am simply stating the well accepted battle plan to win a war is to win a series of battles before claiming victory. The term “marriage” is what sets the rightwingnutbags off. As I stated as long as we have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS thru civil unions let them have the term marriage…………..

      Nov 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atypicalG
      atypicalG

      I worry that Mike Huckabee (among others) will destroy kids’ minds.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      TERRWIL, I never did much like the role of grandpa anyway. The role of Daddy is much more to my liking. ;P

      In any event, if civil-unions did in fact, give the exact same rights and benefits, I would be solidly behind you 100%.

      Like you, I don’t much give a hoot what it’s called. Shakespeare’s famous quotation about a rose by any other name comes to mind.

      The problem is, civil-unions don’t bestow the the exact same rights and benefits, and that is the objection that many gays like myself have to civil-unions.

      As to setting the rightwingnutbags off, I could care less. They are, after all is said and done, the very same type of people who objects to blacks marrying whites and they truly deserve a wake-up call and being exposed for the idiots that they are.

      Their arguments were dumb then, and they are dumb now. Dumbness should not be allowed to pass as legislation against any group of people…LGBT people included. ;)

      Nov 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Schlukitz: Now I am confused I don’t know how to address you!! =}
      I never advocate second class sets of rights. From what I have read in Washington the Gays recieve basically every right and benefit that the straights do. If we can mimic that on a state by state basis we can then work the word marriage into the equasion if those are set on it. And you are one of the few persons (at least who will admit it) who are in a certain age (see how nice I am being??) and are 100% comfortable in your Gay skin and it seems don’t give a shit who knows about it. Too many of your generation are in the anti Gay mind set, and they are NEVER going to change. We are the last boogey man for the right to attack. As much as they lust for the “good old” days they can’t openly attack women, Jews and Blacks. Although god knows if the right wing white men could warp back to the 1800’s you know all the blacks who scream about Gay marriage and their solidarity with the rightwing would be standing on an auction block………

      Nov 28, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @ WillBfair & Terrwill

      Washington State’s Domestic Partnerships only apply to State benefits and are not recognized by the Federal Government.

      Just because they called it “everything but marriage,” doesn’t make it so. It’s not the same as “marriage,” just ask the IRS.

      Equality means same, not “sounds like.”

      Nov 28, 2009 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 35 – Terrwil

      Schlukitz: Now I am confused I don’t know how to address you!! =}

      Call me anything you like. Just don’t call me late for dinner. LOL

      Sorry if you thought I was mad at you. I wasn’t. I just simply did not agree with what you were saying. That’s all. Nothing personal. ;)

      You strike me as a very nice young man and your courtesy, tactfulness and apparent sense of humor are very much appreciated. You are a fine reflection on your parents.

      While I proudly admit to my age of 73, that is where the similarity to people of my own age group ends and I do not mind sharing the fact with you, that being comfortable in my gay skin and my outspoken attitude have pissed-off any number of my senior associates. They will get over it.

      Three rapid snaps of my fingers in the air. LOL

      I do appreciate AndrewW coming forward and adding further illumination to an issue that seems to be misunderstood by a great many LGBT folks.

      The sad truth is, that the religious right does not even want us to have civil-unions or partnerships that will give us any of the rights the heteros enjoy, much less the institution of marriage which they selfishly wish to keep to themselves as their own little private club, subsidized by LBGT taxpayer dollars.

      Trust me when I say that there are a great many other ways in which Equality “sounds like”, but is not the same but it is not my purpose to hammer you over the head with them. A simple Google search will reveal the myriad ways in which civil-unions, partnerships, etc. differ from marriage and that is why I refer to such unions as second-class citizenship.

      If the LGBT community accepts this watered-down version of marriage, then there will be an awful lot of gay people who will have been thrown under the bus, just like the transgendered folks that Barney threw under the bus recently.

      If there is one single person left who does not enjoy equal rights, then the rights of all other people is suspect and open to attack.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 10:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      He certainly didn’t get the Palin treatment, to say the least…

      The tough treatment she gave to Palin? You mean asking Palin what newspapers she reads and to name one Supreme Court decision aside from Roe vs Wade? Those were ridiculously easy questions, Palin just stumbled on them because she was so ignorant and dumbfoundingly unqualified. And Couric didn’t criticize her or come down hard when Palin gave non-answers.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 3:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Gay marriage is monogamy. Therefore, it has nothing to with polygamy. Monogamy doesn’t lead to polygamy.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 6:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Schlukitz: You rock!

      Nov 29, 2009 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @29 Andy:

      “Sometimes it seems that there isn’t much difference between the republicans and the democrats but I only have to see an interview like this to point out the difference quite clearly.”

      The difference is that Republican big-government-for-Jesus bigot Mike Fuckingbreeder can insult us to our faces, while Democrats cloak their bigotry in ostensibly pro-gay platitudes.

      Nov 29, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patriotic Blonde
      Patriotic Blonde

      Strategy is the key.

      Mine started two years ago when I put on hold a dance music project I had been working on in order to make videos that took on the Westboro Baptist Church. I defended and still defend dead soldiers.

      I became a flagwaving drag queen who used country music to take on people who complain about America and our freedom.

      I figured I could simply continue like I have for two years, or do something even more constructive. I decided to look into volunteering for the USO.

      I’ve had the boyfriend/lover thing. I think I need space! So domestic partnership is okay by me, for now. Its not a loss to accept that. For now. Its a WON BATTLE, not a WON WAR. You can always get married later. You REALLY have to live together to know if its bearable. I’m not sure we know how to make a marriage work any better than you guys do, but if you let us try you might find out and learn something.

      This new journey is likely going to take me place I have not gone before, like picking daisies in a field no one had ever walked through.

      Patriotic Blonde

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jj
      jj

      Mike Huckabee just needs to go fuck himself.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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