I’m sick to death of you taking Santorum’s quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position. Your invectives against him amount to nothing more than tired, lame, and petulent responses to the politics of someone with whom you happen to disagree. You’re normally a sound, logical voice on all things political, but here, frankly, you are ANYTHING but. You reduce yourself to a firebrand for the gay agenda.
Patrick, for heaven’s sake, it’s a joke. I’m not raking anyone over the coals, I’m not spewing invectives against anyone, I’m not being petulent and I’m not reducing myself to a firebrand. I’m joking. Period.
Admittedly, this particular joke does happen to fit in with my personal political opinion about gay rights. But as the above links demonstrate, I am more than willing to engage in humor that goes against my political interests if I think it’s funny enough. To assume that my motivation here is my slavish devotion to the gay agenda is comically ridiculous, to the point that I’m almost wondering if someone is impersonating you.
Moreover, there are certain archetypal punch lines that I love to revisit whenever I have the chance, not because of any “agenda” but simply because they make me snicker. Like for example, blaming Karl Rove and/or John Ashcroft for random, absurd things. Or saying that robots eat old people’s medicine for food. There are plenty of other such punch lines in my repertoire, and “now that gay people can get married, [insert totally absurd scenario here] is also happening” is one of them. You might not think it’s as funny as I (and apparently Toni) do, and that’s fine… humor is in the eye of beholder. But just because you don’t think it’s funny, doesn’t mean you need to bite my head off!
The “blame the gays” thing is a punch line that I love to use when it’s totally absurd — the more absurd, the better. Indeed, back in 2003, I published a nearly identical post making this joke about dogs getting married. And I made a very similar joke in 2004, during the summer before starting law school, about airport-security strip searches. I used Santorum’s name both times, not because I think he would seriously make these absurd points that I’m jokingly making, but because I think it’s funny and everybody understands what I’m talking about when I invoke Santorum’s name. It’s HUMOR, Patrick, HUMOR. My motivation isn’t to make some sort of deeply powerful point on behalf of the “gay agenda” (again, it’s frankly absurd to suggest such a thing). My motivation is to make a joke. Just like, when I jokingly blame Karl Rove for totally random stuff, I’m not suggesting that Rove isn’t sometimes really to blame for things. I just think it’s funny to blame Rove for random stuff, and likewise to blame gay marriage for random stuff. Ha! Funny!
Patrick, you are being WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too sensitive about this. This post was about a puffer fish flirting with snails!! How on earth can you conclude from such an utterly silly post that my motivation is carrying water for the “gay agenda”?
Really, if someone were to analyze the jokes about gay-related issues that I make on my blog, I think they would find at worst a 50-50 split between jokes that could be offensive to oversensitive gay-rights supporters and jokes that could be offensive to oversensitive gay-rights opponents. If anything, I suspect it might lean more toward the former — i.e., toward offending my own side in the gay-rights debate — because of my tendency to have occasional silly posts along the lines of “tee hee, he’s gay” or whatever. For example, remember the posts about Lance Bass being gay, and how it caused my whole belief system to crumble? The joke there, of course, is that Bass always “seemed” gay, so what’s the big surprise? An oversensitive proponent of the “gay agenda” could certainly get offended by that, but I still thought it was funny, so I said it. Point being, I’m a slave to no agenda, certainly not when it comes to deciding which jokes to laugh at!
Finally: you’re “sick to death” of my anti-Santorum posts? Wow! I hate to think how you’d feel if I actually mentioned Santorum on a regular basis! (Or anything remotely approaching a regular basis!) Fact is, since I started law school at Notre Dame — which is to say, since I met you — I have mentioned Rick Santorum’s name in precisely five posts. The first one did nothing more than cite Santorum and Michael Moore as people whom I find “strikingly irritating” — a opinion to which I presume I’m entitled without being accused of “taking [his] quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it,” etc. The second one is about Tom DeLay, mentioning Santorum only in passing and without editorializing about him. The third one — to which you also overreacted — was the one calling Santorum a “bleepin’ idiot” because of his totally ridiculous statements about the National Weather Service. You accused me (incorrectly) of having primarily gay-rights-related motives for that post, but the fact remains that I didn’t take any Santorum gay-rights quotes “way the hell out of context” in that post, I just called him an “idiot” for an unrelated reason. My fourth post about Santorum is simple a follow-up to the NWS-related post, linking back to it and calling him an “idiot” again. And the fifth post is this one.
Five posts in over 2 years, none of which contain any substantive commentary on Santorum’s gay-rights views, and you’re “sick to death of [me] taking Santorum’s quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position”? WTF?
I daresay your baseless invectives against this obviously light-hearted and totally ridiculous joke amount to nothing more than a tired, lame, and petulent response to someone with whom you happen to disagree about Santorum specifically and gay rights generally.
Also, to expand on what 3L said: the term “gay agenda” is really somewhat offensive, if you stop and think about it. Whatever you happen to believe about homosexuality, it is undeniable that gay people do not have a single “agenda.” They are diverse people with diverse interests, political and otherwise. There isn’t a “gay agenda” any more than there’s a “black agenda” or a “white agenda” or a “Jewish agenda” or a “Catholic agenda.” The term you’re looking for — if your goal is to be fair-minded rather than demagogic — is “gay-rights agenda.” There is a “gay rights” movement in this country that has a definable “agenda” (though there are of course disagreements within the movement, as there are in any movement, but it’s still possible to distill a “agenda” out of it), so “gay-rights agenda” is a reasonable thing to say. “Gay agenda” is a meaningless and ultimately offensive term, which arguably is used by some less-than-scrupulous opponents of gay rights to subtly imply that there is some ulterior “agenda” inherent in homosexuality itself, harkening back to the poisonous notion of gays “recruiting” straight people, being a bunch of pedophiles, etc. I’m certainly not suggesting that that was your intent, but I believe the term “gay agenda” is sometimes used, rather than obviously more accurate alternatives like “gay-rights agenda,” for that very purpose. In any event, it’s inaccurate and meaningless and offensive, as I said.
P.S. If you don’t like the term “gay rights” because you don’t believe that the privileges they desire are truly rights (kinda like disliking the label “pro-choice” because you don’t think it’s a valid choice), I respect that (well, for the sake of argument, at least), but I would challenge you to come up with some other term than “gay agenda” (just as I challenge those who don’t like “pro-choice” to say “pro-abortion-rights” rather than “pro-abortion,” since the latter is manifestly inaccurate while the former is accurate if klunky). Maybe “gay equality agenda”? Or “homosexuality acceptance agenda”? Again, klunky… but, as I always say, “words have meanings,” and “gay agenda” is simply not an accurate pair of words to describe any imaginable political movement.
P.P.S. All that said: I don’t personally care if you say “gay agenda.” I’m not personally offended by it. I just believe it is objectively inaccurate, and objectively offensive to the same degree that “black agenda,” “Catholic agenda,” etc. are objectively offensive, because they imply that all people sharing a certain non-political trait (whether racial, religious or sexual) therefore share a political agenda. But there are lots of objectively offensive things I’m not personally offended by, and this is one of them. I recognize that you’re probably just using it because it’s a convenient, if inaccurate, shorthand. I wouldn’t even have brought it up if 3L hadn’t said anything. :)
Not really. I’m not angry or anything. I just can’t resist the easy pickin’s when I feel that someone has made a totally absurd point. It’s fun to eviscerate that point.
Incidentally, gahrie, I’m sorry your comments keep getting initially swallowed by Spam Karma. For some reason, you keep getting hit with the negative “karma” that comes from “Encrypted payload valid: IP not matching.” Alas, I don’t really know what that means…
Patrick, while my personal views on the “gay rights agenda” are probably closer to your’s than Brendan’s, I consider my public policy views to be closer to Brendan’s.
That said, I urge you to look at the Categories listings on a post when deciding how to respond. I think the “Misc. Funny Stuff” label might have softened your comments a bit.
Defend yourself all you like, but I hear you and Becky in both posts and comments alike, trash Santorum for his position on gay issues. In fact recently, I recall hearing Becky say that she would have preferred that Santorum died as opposed to Steve Irwin. What a wonderful thing to say about the father of 7! I hear tacky comment after tacky comment about him on this blog. It’s really quite childish, but whatever, say what you like about him…just realize that your words leave impressions.
2) I disagree with Santorum’s position on gay marriage. That fact is not in dispute. But there’s a difference between disagreeing with him and “trashing” him. The only time in recent memory that I have truly “trashed” Santorum on the blog, I was criticizing him for an entirely separate issue — his ridiculous stance on the National Weather Service. If you are going to characterize my disagreement with Santorum on gay marriage as “taking [his] quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position,” and then accuse me on that basis of being a shill for the “gay agenda,” you’d better have something better to back all that up than the simple fact that I disagree with the guy, I made a couple of silly jokes about him, and my wife — who, I repeat, is not me — made a comment in poor taste about him.
3) Your words leave impressions, too. The impression left here is that you are unbelieveably hypersensitive about criticisms of Rick Santorum, a politican whom you obviously admire. It would be like if I completely flew off the handle every time anyone said anything mean about Joe Lieberman…. which, come to think of it, I suppose I could somewhat reasonably be accused of. :) But I at least don’t bite people’s heads off when they joke about Lieberman. (Indeed, as noted earlier, I have been known to joke about Lieberman, myself!) I only let my true Joementum out when people actually bash the guy, calling him a traitor to his party and an unprincipled ass and so forth. That would be the equivalent of you bashing me for actually trashing Santorum. But here, again, I’m not actually trashing him. I’m just making a joke.
P.S. Although I’m under no affirmative obligation to criticize blog-comments (by Becky or anyone else) with which I disagree, I will say this: the only reason I didn’t jump in and criticize Becky’s comment about preferring Santorum’s death over Steve Irwin’s is that I felt you had covered it fairly well with your criticism. Please, don’t assume that just because Becky — or any other commenter or guest-blogger — says something on my blog, I therefore agree with it. Becky’s my wife and I love her dearly, but I often disagree with her, especially when she’s indulging in her tendency to be over-the-top offensive at times. (Remember her post about pedophile priests titled “If only God had snipers”? I chewed her out in comments for that one.) The only statements which can be attributed to me are the ones with the byline “Brendan Loy.”
Patrick, you still haven’t answered my question: What is the “gay agenda”?
P.S. - Santorum has six children, not seven, according to his website. He’s got one kid with two names (Sarah Maria), so at first I thought he had seven kids, too. (Unless they’ve had another one but haven’t updated the website…seems unlikely to me.) No big deal, just thought I’d pass that along.
It might not be laugh-out-loud funny if Santorum died, but his extremely conservative doctrine that drives many of us up the wall opens him up for certain attacks. In the same way everyone snickers when a Republican turns out to be a gay pedophile, it might elicit the same reaction should Santorum die of an STD or something.
But I agree with Brendan: you’re way too uptight about this. Every time you rant you remind me of a particular quote from Good Morning, Vietnam: “You are in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history.”
Patrick, before you go ballistic over Briandot’s comments (’cause, uh…yikes), could you answer my question first? You know, like first-come, first-served? Thanks!
The difference, here, between trashing Santorum and making a joke at his expense is minimal, if it even exists.
3L,
The gay agenda encompasses efforts to legalize gay “marriage”, to acquire the same legal rights for gay couples as straight couples such as placing gay couples on equal footing with straight, married couples for the adoption of children. It’s not very complicated. That’s what is commonly referred to as the “gay agenda”. Does this necessarily mean that all gays ascribe to agenda? No. Does my use of the term imply that I believe all gays ascribe to this definition? No.
Is this how liberals/Santorum haters treat people with whom they disagree? To completely and totally disregard a person’s values and mock them simply to get under their skin?
Wow, impressive. I’m far more inclined to listened to liberals with open ears now!
Patrick, you’re being utterly obtuse. The difference is obvious: while the joke was “at his expense,” it was by no means politically biting. This wasn’t Stephen Colbert-type political humor, where only people on his side of the political spectrum can possibly find it funny. This was a ridiculous, absurd, harmless joke.
Did you not read the list of links to where I have previously made, or quoted, jokes at the expense or Al Gore, NOW, Joe Lieberman, etc.? Was I “trashing” them too? Sheesh.
Step off your pedestal and admit you’re being oversensitive here — or at least stop digging the hole deeper, for heaven’s sake. You look completely foolish continuing to pretend that my silly joke is worth all this over-the-top condemnation.
P.S. Andrew’s and Brian’s comments are indeed rude and uncalled-for, and I’m not trying to justify them, but the fact is that you are opening yourself up to mockery by being so absurdly hypersensitive about this. Again, I’m not saying that classless sexual jokes at your expense are therefore justified — they’re not. But a mild degree of non-offensive mockery is justified, or at least understandable, given how silly you are being. Anybody else on this blog, myself included, would be mocked as well if they lashed out like you have (and in my case, indeed I have been mocked in the past, as I’m occasionally prone to overreaction myself).
I just don’t think I’m being hypersensitive. I don’t even think I’m overreacting. As an isolated joke, my reaction might constitute an overreaction, but that only underscores my point - this is not an isolated joke.
Except that as I’ve already pointed out, it actually is pretty isolated. I very rarely mention Santorum, and on the rare occasions when I do, you have a habit of overreacting. You’re “sick to death” of something that I rarely if ever actually do. You haven’t even pointed to a single example where I (as opposed to Becky) said anything negative about Santorum that wasn’t one of the following: a) a silly joke, b) a reasonable, non-hyperbolic, non-distorted, non-petulent criticism, or c) a criticism unrelated to his gay-rights record. You asserted that I have a habit of “taking Santorum’s quote [about gay marriage] way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position,” but you have not cited a single example of where I’ve actually done that. I, meanwhile, have demonstrated that I rarely mention Santorum; that none of my references on the blog in recent years fit into the pattern that you claim I frequently follow; that I have a habit of making jokes about politics and political figures, whether I like them or not; and that I have certain favorite punch lines that I like to use because they’re silly and I find them funny, regardless of whether they fit in with my political positions (the logical conclusion therefore being that it’s a rather large stretch to assume, in the absence of any additional evidence, that a handful of silly jokes about Santorum implies an intent to make any sort of serious commentary on his record, let alone a commentary animated by my single-minded devotion to the “gay agenda”).
In short, I think it’s fair to say that I have PROVEN that your reaction constitutes an overreaction. In any event, you certainly haven’t offered anything in the way of contrary evidence or argument, with the exception of a weak attempt to conflate my opinions with my wife’s opinions.
Look, this is a tempest in a teapot… it really doesn’t matter at all. But nothing gets me fired up to keep the heat on in comments than a situation where I feel that someone is stubbornly clinging to an obviously incorrect position.
The gay agenda encompasses efforts to legalize gay “marriage�, to acquire the same legal rights for gay couples as straight couples such as placing gay couples on equal footing with straight, married couples for the adoption of children. It’s not very complicated. That’s what is commonly referred to as the “gay agenda�. Does this necessarily mean that all gays ascribe to agenda? No. Does my use of the term imply that I believe all gays ascribe to this definition? No.
Fair enough. Personally, I don’t much like identity politics, but to each his own. I assume that you wouldn’t have any problem, then, with people talking about the “Catholic agenda” or the “evangelical Christian agenda” or the “black agenda” or “Hispanic agenda” or “Jewish agenda” or whatever, if the agenda is question is commonly associated with those groups. As long as you’re consistent about it, I have no problem with this.
I’m not stubbornly holding on to a position that is obviously incorrect. First, it’s not merely being stubborn. I have my reasons (which I will briefly explain below); and second, the position is not obviously incorrect.
Go to Google and search how many times you’ve mentioned Santorum’s name in your posts/comments on this blog. The count is in the “hundreds”. I frequent this blog with enough regularity to appreciate your utter disdain for the man…you’d readily admit this disain, would you not? How else would I recognize this about you Brendan were it not for the frequency at which you castigate him? I have no problem with your criticisms of Republicans generally, but let’s be honest…you single Rick Santorum out, and for a reason I find far less rational than 99% of your otherwise thought-provoking political commentary.
Santorum’s comments concering the Lawrence v. Texas have been construed as equating gay sex with polygamy, group sex, prostitution, incest, and bestiality. Based on this erroneous interpretation of Santorum’s words, he has become the butt of ridicule from those that support gay rights. If one were to read Santorum’s comments critically, it is readily and unambiguously apparent that he was arguing that under the legal reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas the sexual behaviors listed above would pass muster under the Supreme Court’s right of privacy doctrine. He was only arguing that Lawrence v. Texas’ definition of privacy essentially sanctions any sexual behavior. He has been absolutely dragged through the mud for this. Why? I don’t know. It makes NO sense to me. It’s unfair, and I find the failure of people who support the “gay agenda” to recognize this baffles me.
So Brendan, you may have been joking, but your joke is based on a false reading of Santorum’s words for which he has been repeatedly, extensively, and unfairly condemned. As one of his supporters (though not as a voter…I don’t live in PA), I find it incredibly annoying.
Also, for the sake of convenience, I have absolutely no problem with the coupling of the term “agenda” with any socio-economic identifier. I understand that these terms never include all members of a socio-economic group so identified.
Patrick, googling Brendan’s site for the number of times Santorum has been mentioned in no way proves how often Brendan has mentioned him. A search for “Santorum” from Brendan’s site does indeed return 135 hits, but a huge number of them are duplicates. From the first 10, the unique hits are 1) this thread, 2) the comment about dogs Brendan alluded to earlier, 3) the national weather service thing, 4) something written by Becky, and 5) something from before you even met Brendan. I typically disagree with you on just about everything politically, Patrick, but I respect you for being level-headed and admitting when you say something wrong. On this particular topic though, I have to admit that you are coming across as rather shrill and oversensitive, and you’re going to need specific examples to have a chance of convincing people like me or Brendan than you’re not.
Hmmm, using Brendan’s convenient search feature on the left i come up with 12 posts in which Brendan mentions Rick Santorum. Prior to today the last time Brendan mentioned him in a post with regard to the “gay agenda” was July 14…..2004. Thats right a whole TWO YEARS AGO. In fact Brendan has made 5 posts in addition to this one which mention Rick Santorum in regards to his “gay agenda” comments dating back to April 4, 2003. Thats right, for someone who mentions Santorum all the time, its happened 6 times over 3+ years. Relax, at this rate you don’t have to hear a Santorum gay sex related reference for another 6 months! And of the posts which mention Rick and gay marriage only 3 others can reasonably be included since tehy actually involve jokes “at his expense”. So over that same 3+ year period Brendan has joked about this 4 times. Yeah, talk about an obessison.
See the problem with your Google approach, is that anytime ANYONE on this blog has commented on Rick Santorum, joking or not, it will show up. In a post directly referencing him various comments are goign to show up as multiple results. Its a flawed statistic. And there is ntohing that bothers a math major more than flawed statistics.
Recall that I included “comments” among the incidences of Brendan referring to Santorum. I distinctly recall him criticizing Santorum’s comments about the NWS in comments during the Katrina fallout (For that matter, I remember accusing Brendan of singling Santorum out for his ill-advised comment when countless other politicians were making equally absurd comments). So he as, at the very least, mentioned him within the past year.
Did Patrick really mean to call Andrew a “liberal” for his tasteless comment about being a page? Uhm, ok. Newsflash to Patrick” One does not have to be a liberal to think you are overreacting about Brendan’s joke.
Patrick, and as both Mike and I mentioned, including “comments” especially using your google example is rather ridiculous as those are very likely NOT by Brendan. If you want to demonstrate a pattern of behavior and convince us all that you aren’t a raving lunatic in this case, you need to provide links to a large body of evidence.
As for his comments regarding the NWS, um, to put it bluntly, what the hell does that have to do with taking Santorum’s gay marriage quotes out of context and using them to promote a gay agenda?!?! Did you not read my post? You know, the one in which i mention my comments are in regards to posts Brendan made regarding Santorum + “gay agenda”? Of cours I didn’t mention the NWS post as it was wholly unrelated.
Seriously when you get Andrew and I to agree on something non-football related, especialy something relating to politics you know you are making a pretty weak if not non-existant case.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have, at last our smoking gun.
Patrick, the only reason the gay issue came up in the comments section of Brendan’s most recent post which referenced Santorum was because….wait for it……YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
You accused Brendan of having it in for Santorum and always singling him out, even though, get this, that post was one of only TWO in 2005 that was critical of Santorum (a third post mentioned him being critical of Tom DeLay and was in no way critical of Santorum). In addition it has been over 10 months since Brendan mentioned Rick Santorum in any of his posts and you STILL claim he has some irrational exuberance for criticizing Ricky-boy.
You have dug yourself in so deep its ridiculous. BTW, step one when trapped in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
Patrick, I am quite sympathetic to the prospect of passing laws or amendments to ban gay marriage (my point has always been, I want either side of the gay marriage debate to win with legislative votes, not judicial decisions), and while he’s hardly my favorite politician, I have nothing specific against Rick Santorum. He seems like a predictably conservative, reliable Republican — I’m all for that, regardless of whatever crude references about him are made by Dan Savage or Andrea Sullivan (the humor of which I nevertheless appreciate). Yet, this has become a textbook example of why so many are scared or put off by the “Religious Right”: It’s less about the policy and more about the posture.
You won’t find a more stalwart Republican than me, and while I lean more libertarian in social policy than guys like Santorum, I nonetheless find most of their policy positions acceptable. However, these kinds of politicians and their supporters like you seem completely insulated from the logic, culture, and sensibilities of their fellow Americans, appear to lack any sense of humor or context, and nearly always lack perspective on how much real change their policy prescriptions will actually accomplish. To put it all another way, you won’t find a more sympathetic audience than me on this issue, and yet the way you respond hypersensitively to these light-hearted jokes triggers me to mock you instead of defend you.
See, now this is something i don’t understand, why the antipathy towards judicial decisions? I understand the whole voice of the people thing, but sometimes the voice of the people is just plain wrong and unconstitutional. We could go back to decisons like plessy v ferguson or brown v board of education to show examples where the majority leaned one way but the judiciary came in and made the right call. Isn’t that what they are there for? I really do think that often the fear here, and this is not jsut in this case, but in general when we hear things like “Legislating from the bench” thrown around is that the accuser is afraid that their side might lose more than actual judicial overreach is occuring.
David, judicial fiat over public support is a very real problem, and not just because some people are afraid of judges legislating from the bench something they disagree with. Before someone takes your comment further and complains about how opponents of gay marriage always bitch about courts ruling favoraly on gay marriage, let me say that not everyone who opposes judicial rulings favoring gay marriage is opposed to gay marriage. Some supporters of gay marriage have a problem with blatant violations of the law, a la Gavin Newson marrying gay couples in San Francisco, and with judicial rulings that twist stuff up to force a policy change onto a population that disagrees. Personally, my problem is both with the disregard for the law and my concern that the kind of backlash that these actions spur creates more problems in the long run for gay rights supporters. We could turn this into a judicial activism debate, but if it goes that route, I’m out.
Bea - it seems, often enough, that Andrew and David keep arguing like an old-married couple, thus leading to … perhaps they are just more like the “Bickersons” …
Oh - and for those who do not yet know about the homosexual agenda - see here …
First of all, Alasdair, I don’t think the arguing Andrew and I engage in is even remotely close to arguing like an “old married couple”, but clearly you tried (and failed miserably) to be funny. Second, what arguing between us have you even witnessed in this thread? Thats right, none. So go sit down and be quiet, things were proceeding just fine without your lack of intelligetnt input.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:57:02 pm
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 11:51:21 pm
Brendan,
I’m sick to death of you taking Santorum’s quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position. Your invectives against him amount to nothing more than tired, lame, and petulent responses to the politics of someone with whom you happen to disagree. You’re normally a sound, logical voice on all things political, but here, frankly, you are ANYTHING but. You reduce yourself to a firebrand for the gay agenda.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:38:42 am
Patrick, what exactly is the “gay agenda”?
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:53:52 am
Patrick, for heaven’s sake, it’s a joke. I’m not raking anyone over the coals, I’m not spewing invectives against anyone, I’m not being petulent and I’m not reducing myself to a firebrand. I’m joking. Period.
In your zeal to defend Senator Santorum’s honor, you may not have noticed this, but I like to joke about political matters on my blog sometimes. When I joked about Al Gore stripping at a global-warming convention, was I reducing myself to a firebrand for the anti-Kyoto agenda? When I linked to The Onion’s piece making fun of N.O.W., was I reducing myself to a firebrand for the anti-feminist agenda? When I suggested that Washington’s controversially elected governor was rigging the state-quarter election, was I reducing myself to a firebrand for the anti-Gregoire agenda? When I quoted the Daily Show’s jokes about Joe Lieberman, was I reducing myself to a firebrand for the anti-Lieberman agenda?
Admittedly, this particular joke does happen to fit in with my personal political opinion about gay rights. But as the above links demonstrate, I am more than willing to engage in humor that goes against my political interests if I think it’s funny enough. To assume that my motivation here is my slavish devotion to the gay agenda is comically ridiculous, to the point that I’m almost wondering if someone is impersonating you.
Moreover, there are certain archetypal punch lines that I love to revisit whenever I have the chance, not because of any “agenda” but simply because they make me snicker. Like for example, blaming Karl Rove and/or John Ashcroft for random, absurd things. Or saying that robots eat old people’s medicine for food. There are plenty of other such punch lines in my repertoire, and “now that gay people can get married, [insert totally absurd scenario here] is also happening” is one of them. You might not think it’s as funny as I (and apparently Toni) do, and that’s fine… humor is in the eye of beholder. But just because you don’t think it’s funny, doesn’t mean you need to bite my head off!
The “blame the gays” thing is a punch line that I love to use when it’s totally absurd — the more absurd, the better. Indeed, back in 2003, I published a nearly identical post making this joke about dogs getting married. And I made a very similar joke in 2004, during the summer before starting law school, about airport-security strip searches. I used Santorum’s name both times, not because I think he would seriously make these absurd points that I’m jokingly making, but because I think it’s funny and everybody understands what I’m talking about when I invoke Santorum’s name. It’s HUMOR, Patrick, HUMOR. My motivation isn’t to make some sort of deeply powerful point on behalf of the “gay agenda” (again, it’s frankly absurd to suggest such a thing). My motivation is to make a joke. Just like, when I jokingly blame Karl Rove for totally random stuff, I’m not suggesting that Rove isn’t sometimes really to blame for things. I just think it’s funny to blame Rove for random stuff, and likewise to blame gay marriage for random stuff. Ha! Funny!
Patrick, you are being WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too sensitive about this. This post was about a puffer fish flirting with snails!! How on earth can you conclude from such an utterly silly post that my motivation is carrying water for the “gay agenda”?
Really, if someone were to analyze the jokes about gay-related issues that I make on my blog, I think they would find at worst a 50-50 split between jokes that could be offensive to oversensitive gay-rights supporters and jokes that could be offensive to oversensitive gay-rights opponents. If anything, I suspect it might lean more toward the former — i.e., toward offending my own side in the gay-rights debate — because of my tendency to have occasional silly posts along the lines of “tee hee, he’s gay” or whatever. For example, remember the posts about Lance Bass being gay, and how it caused my whole belief system to crumble? The joke there, of course, is that Bass always “seemed” gay, so what’s the big surprise? An oversensitive proponent of the “gay agenda” could certainly get offended by that, but I still thought it was funny, so I said it. Point being, I’m a slave to no agenda, certainly not when it comes to deciding which jokes to laugh at!
Finally: you’re “sick to death” of my anti-Santorum posts? Wow! I hate to think how you’d feel if I actually mentioned Santorum on a regular basis! (Or anything remotely approaching a regular basis!) Fact is, since I started law school at Notre Dame — which is to say, since I met you — I have mentioned Rick Santorum’s name in precisely five posts. The first one did nothing more than cite Santorum and Michael Moore as people whom I find “strikingly irritating” — a opinion to which I presume I’m entitled without being accused of “taking [his] quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it,” etc. The second one is about Tom DeLay, mentioning Santorum only in passing and without editorializing about him. The third one — to which you also overreacted — was the one calling Santorum a “bleepin’ idiot” because of his totally ridiculous statements about the National Weather Service. You accused me (incorrectly) of having primarily gay-rights-related motives for that post, but the fact remains that I didn’t take any Santorum gay-rights quotes “way the hell out of context” in that post, I just called him an “idiot” for an unrelated reason. My fourth post about Santorum is simple a follow-up to the NWS-related post, linking back to it and calling him an “idiot” again. And the fifth post is this one.
Five posts in over 2 years, none of which contain any substantive commentary on Santorum’s gay-rights views, and you’re “sick to death of [me] taking Santorum’s quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position”? WTF?
I daresay your baseless invectives against this obviously light-hearted and totally ridiculous joke amount to nothing more than a tired, lame, and petulent response to someone with whom you happen to disagree about Santorum specifically and gay rights generally.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:12:22 am
Also, to expand on what 3L said: the term “gay agenda” is really somewhat offensive, if you stop and think about it. Whatever you happen to believe about homosexuality, it is undeniable that gay people do not have a single “agenda.” They are diverse people with diverse interests, political and otherwise. There isn’t a “gay agenda” any more than there’s a “black agenda” or a “white agenda” or a “Jewish agenda” or a “Catholic agenda.” The term you’re looking for — if your goal is to be fair-minded rather than demagogic — is “gay-rights agenda.” There is a “gay rights” movement in this country that has a definable “agenda” (though there are of course disagreements within the movement, as there are in any movement, but it’s still possible to distill a “agenda” out of it), so “gay-rights agenda” is a reasonable thing to say. “Gay agenda” is a meaningless and ultimately offensive term, which arguably is used by some less-than-scrupulous opponents of gay rights to subtly imply that there is some ulterior “agenda” inherent in homosexuality itself, harkening back to the poisonous notion of gays “recruiting” straight people, being a bunch of pedophiles, etc. I’m certainly not suggesting that that was your intent, but I believe the term “gay agenda” is sometimes used, rather than obviously more accurate alternatives like “gay-rights agenda,” for that very purpose. In any event, it’s inaccurate and meaningless and offensive, as I said.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:21:38 am
P.S. If you don’t like the term “gay rights” because you don’t believe that the privileges they desire are truly rights (kinda like disliking the label “pro-choice” because you don’t think it’s a valid choice), I respect that (well, for the sake of argument, at least), but I would challenge you to come up with some other term than “gay agenda” (just as I challenge those who don’t like “pro-choice” to say “pro-abortion-rights” rather than “pro-abortion,” since the latter is manifestly inaccurate while the former is accurate if klunky). Maybe “gay equality agenda”? Or “homosexuality acceptance agenda”? Again, klunky… but, as I always say, “words have meanings,” and “gay agenda” is simply not an accurate pair of words to describe any imaginable political movement.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:25:03 am
P.P.S. All that said: I don’t personally care if you say “gay agenda.” I’m not personally offended by it. I just believe it is objectively inaccurate, and objectively offensive to the same degree that “black agenda,” “Catholic agenda,” etc. are objectively offensive, because they imply that all people sharing a certain non-political trait (whether racial, religious or sexual) therefore share a political agenda. But there are lots of objectively offensive things I’m not personally offended by, and this is one of them. I recognize that you’re probably just using it because it’s a convenient, if inaccurate, shorthand. I wouldn’t even have brought it up if 3L hadn’t said anything. :)
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:28:53 am
Wow..hit a nerve did he?
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:33:33 am
Not really. I’m not angry or anything. I just can’t resist the easy pickin’s when I feel that someone has made a totally absurd point. It’s fun to eviscerate that point.
Incidentally, gahrie, I’m sorry your comments keep getting initially swallowed by Spam Karma. For some reason, you keep getting hit with the negative “karma” that comes from “Encrypted payload valid: IP not matching.” Alas, I don’t really know what that means…
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:17:10 am
Patrick, while my personal views on the “gay rights agenda” are probably closer to your’s than Brendan’s, I consider my public policy views to be closer to Brendan’s.
That said, I urge you to look at the Categories listings on a post when deciding how to respond. I think the “Misc. Funny Stuff” label might have softened your comments a bit.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:34:07 am
Brendan,
Defend yourself all you like, but I hear you and Becky in both posts and comments alike, trash Santorum for his position on gay issues. In fact recently, I recall hearing Becky say that she would have preferred that Santorum died as opposed to Steve Irwin. What a wonderful thing to say about the father of 7! I hear tacky comment after tacky comment about him on this blog. It’s really quite childish, but whatever, say what you like about him…just realize that your words leave impressions.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:24:52 am
1) I am not Becky.
2) I disagree with Santorum’s position on gay marriage. That fact is not in dispute. But there’s a difference between disagreeing with him and “trashing” him. The only time in recent memory that I have truly “trashed” Santorum on the blog, I was criticizing him for an entirely separate issue — his ridiculous stance on the National Weather Service. If you are going to characterize my disagreement with Santorum on gay marriage as “taking [his] quote way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position,” and then accuse me on that basis of being a shill for the “gay agenda,” you’d better have something better to back all that up than the simple fact that I disagree with the guy, I made a couple of silly jokes about him, and my wife — who, I repeat, is not me — made a comment in poor taste about him.
3) Your words leave impressions, too. The impression left here is that you are unbelieveably hypersensitive about criticisms of Rick Santorum, a politican whom you obviously admire. It would be like if I completely flew off the handle every time anyone said anything mean about Joe Lieberman…. which, come to think of it, I suppose I could somewhat reasonably be accused of. :) But I at least don’t bite people’s heads off when they joke about Lieberman. (Indeed, as noted earlier, I have been known to joke about Lieberman, myself!) I only let my true Joementum out when people actually bash the guy, calling him a traitor to his party and an unprincipled ass and so forth. That would be the equivalent of you bashing me for actually trashing Santorum. But here, again, I’m not actually trashing him. I’m just making a joke.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:28:06 am
P.S. Although I’m under no affirmative obligation to criticize blog-comments (by Becky or anyone else) with which I disagree, I will say this: the only reason I didn’t jump in and criticize Becky’s comment about preferring Santorum’s death over Steve Irwin’s is that I felt you had covered it fairly well with your criticism. Please, don’t assume that just because Becky — or any other commenter or guest-blogger — says something on my blog, I therefore agree with it. Becky’s my wife and I love her dearly, but I often disagree with her, especially when she’s indulging in her tendency to be over-the-top offensive at times. (Remember her post about pedophile priests titled “If only God had snipers”? I chewed her out in comments for that one.) The only statements which can be attributed to me are the ones with the byline “Brendan Loy.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:29:29 am
Patrick, you still haven’t answered my question: What is the “gay agenda”?
P.S. - Santorum has six children, not seven, according to his website. He’s got one kid with two names (Sarah Maria), so at first I thought he had seven kids, too. (Unless they’ve had another one but haven’t updated the website…seems unlikely to me.) No big deal, just thought I’d pass that along.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:30:04 am
It might not be laugh-out-loud funny if Santorum died, but his extremely conservative doctrine that drives many of us up the wall opens him up for certain attacks. In the same way everyone snickers when a Republican turns out to be a gay pedophile, it might elicit the same reaction should Santorum die of an STD or something.
But I agree with Brendan: you’re way too uptight about this. Every time you rant you remind me of a particular quote from Good Morning, Vietnam: “You are in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:31:27 am
Oh, jeez.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:34:42 am
Patrick, before you go ballistic over Briandot’s comments (’cause, uh…yikes), could you answer my question first? You know, like first-come, first-served? Thanks!
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:58:52 am
What? What’d I say? :)
Am I channeling Becky? Or just trying to bait the papist into further blog-rage?
:-P
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:39:08 am
Rick and Karen Santorum had an infant daughter that died. I stand by my comment. He is the father of 7.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:40:33 am
Briandot,
You have no class..none whatsoever.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:48:20 am
Hey Patrick, were you Rick Santorum’s favorite page or something?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:50:45 am
Brendan,
The difference, here, between trashing Santorum and making a joke at his expense is minimal, if it even exists.
3L,
The gay agenda encompasses efforts to legalize gay “marriage”, to acquire the same legal rights for gay couples as straight couples such as placing gay couples on equal footing with straight, married couples for the adoption of children. It’s not very complicated. That’s what is commonly referred to as the “gay agenda”. Does this necessarily mean that all gays ascribe to agenda? No. Does my use of the term imply that I believe all gays ascribe to this definition? No.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:55:08 am
Andrew,
Again, no class.
Is this how liberals/Santorum haters treat people with whom they disagree? To completely and totally disregard a person’s values and mock them simply to get under their skin?
Wow, impressive. I’m far more inclined to listened to liberals with open ears now!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:57:13 am
Patrick, you’re being utterly obtuse. The difference is obvious: while the joke was “at his expense,” it was by no means politically biting. This wasn’t Stephen Colbert-type political humor, where only people on his side of the political spectrum can possibly find it funny. This was a ridiculous, absurd, harmless joke.
Did you not read the list of links to where I have previously made, or quoted, jokes at the expense or Al Gore, NOW, Joe Lieberman, etc.? Was I “trashing” them too? Sheesh.
Step off your pedestal and admit you’re being oversensitive here — or at least stop digging the hole deeper, for heaven’s sake. You look completely foolish continuing to pretend that my silly joke is worth all this over-the-top condemnation.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:03:27 am
P.S. Andrew’s and Brian’s comments are indeed rude and uncalled-for, and I’m not trying to justify them, but the fact is that you are opening yourself up to mockery by being so absurdly hypersensitive about this. Again, I’m not saying that classless sexual jokes at your expense are therefore justified — they’re not. But a mild degree of non-offensive mockery is justified, or at least understandable, given how silly you are being. Anybody else on this blog, myself included, would be mocked as well if they lashed out like you have (and in my case, indeed I have been mocked in the past, as I’m occasionally prone to overreaction myself).
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:02:17 am
I just don’t think I’m being hypersensitive. I don’t even think I’m overreacting. As an isolated joke, my reaction might constitute an overreaction, but that only underscores my point - this is not an isolated joke.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:26:33 am
this is not an isolated joke
Except that as I’ve already pointed out, it actually is pretty isolated. I very rarely mention Santorum, and on the rare occasions when I do, you have a habit of overreacting. You’re “sick to death” of something that I rarely if ever actually do. You haven’t even pointed to a single example where I (as opposed to Becky) said anything negative about Santorum that wasn’t one of the following: a) a silly joke, b) a reasonable, non-hyperbolic, non-distorted, non-petulent criticism, or c) a criticism unrelated to his gay-rights record. You asserted that I have a habit of “taking Santorum’s quote [about gay marriage] way the hell out of context, taking it to extremes, distorting it and then raking him over the coals for this warped version of his position,” but you have not cited a single example of where I’ve actually done that. I, meanwhile, have demonstrated that I rarely mention Santorum; that none of my references on the blog in recent years fit into the pattern that you claim I frequently follow; that I have a habit of making jokes about politics and political figures, whether I like them or not; and that I have certain favorite punch lines that I like to use because they’re silly and I find them funny, regardless of whether they fit in with my political positions (the logical conclusion therefore being that it’s a rather large stretch to assume, in the absence of any additional evidence, that a handful of silly jokes about Santorum implies an intent to make any sort of serious commentary on his record, let alone a commentary animated by my single-minded devotion to the “gay agenda”).
In short, I think it’s fair to say that I have PROVEN that your reaction constitutes an overreaction. In any event, you certainly haven’t offered anything in the way of contrary evidence or argument, with the exception of a weak attempt to conflate my opinions with my wife’s opinions.
Look, this is a tempest in a teapot… it really doesn’t matter at all. But nothing gets me fired up to keep the heat on in comments than a situation where I feel that someone is stubbornly clinging to an obviously incorrect position.
The gay agenda encompasses efforts to legalize gay “marriage�, to acquire the same legal rights for gay couples as straight couples such as placing gay couples on equal footing with straight, married couples for the adoption of children. It’s not very complicated. That’s what is commonly referred to as the “gay agenda�. Does this necessarily mean that all gays ascribe to agenda? No. Does my use of the term imply that I believe all gays ascribe to this definition? No.
Fair enough. Personally, I don’t much like identity politics, but to each his own. I assume that you wouldn’t have any problem, then, with people talking about the “Catholic agenda” or the “evangelical Christian agenda” or the “black agenda” or “Hispanic agenda” or “Jewish agenda” or whatever, if the agenda is question is commonly associated with those groups. As long as you’re consistent about it, I have no problem with this.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:58:48 am
Brendan,
I’m not stubbornly holding on to a position that is obviously incorrect. First, it’s not merely being stubborn. I have my reasons (which I will briefly explain below); and second, the position is not obviously incorrect.
Go to Google and search how many times you’ve mentioned Santorum’s name in your posts/comments on this blog. The count is in the “hundreds”. I frequent this blog with enough regularity to appreciate your utter disdain for the man…you’d readily admit this disain, would you not? How else would I recognize this about you Brendan were it not for the frequency at which you castigate him? I have no problem with your criticisms of Republicans generally, but let’s be honest…you single Rick Santorum out, and for a reason I find far less rational than 99% of your otherwise thought-provoking political commentary.
Santorum’s comments concering the Lawrence v. Texas have been construed as equating gay sex with polygamy, group sex, prostitution, incest, and bestiality. Based on this erroneous interpretation of Santorum’s words, he has become the butt of ridicule from those that support gay rights. If one were to read Santorum’s comments critically, it is readily and unambiguously apparent that he was arguing that under the legal reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas the sexual behaviors listed above would pass muster under the Supreme Court’s right of privacy doctrine. He was only arguing that Lawrence v. Texas’ definition of privacy essentially sanctions any sexual behavior. He has been absolutely dragged through the mud for this. Why? I don’t know. It makes NO sense to me. It’s unfair, and I find the failure of people who support the “gay agenda” to recognize this baffles me.
So Brendan, you may have been joking, but your joke is based on a false reading of Santorum’s words for which he has been repeatedly, extensively, and unfairly condemned. As one of his supporters (though not as a voter…I don’t live in PA), I find it incredibly annoying.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:07:24 pm
Also, for the sake of convenience, I have absolutely no problem with the coupling of the term “agenda” with any socio-economic identifier. I understand that these terms never include all members of a socio-economic group so identified.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:36:24 pm
Patrick, googling Brendan’s site for the number of times Santorum has been mentioned in no way proves how often Brendan has mentioned him. A search for “Santorum” from Brendan’s site does indeed return 135 hits, but a huge number of them are duplicates. From the first 10, the unique hits are 1) this thread, 2) the comment about dogs Brendan alluded to earlier, 3) the national weather service thing, 4) something written by Becky, and 5) something from before you even met Brendan. I typically disagree with you on just about everything politically, Patrick, but I respect you for being level-headed and admitting when you say something wrong. On this particular topic though, I have to admit that you are coming across as rather shrill and oversensitive, and you’re going to need specific examples to have a chance of convincing people like me or Brendan than you’re not.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:57:34 pm
Hmmm, using Brendan’s convenient search feature on the left i come up with 12 posts in which Brendan mentions Rick Santorum. Prior to today the last time Brendan mentioned him in a post with regard to the “gay agenda” was July 14…..2004. Thats right a whole TWO YEARS AGO. In fact Brendan has made 5 posts in addition to this one which mention Rick Santorum in regards to his “gay agenda” comments dating back to April 4, 2003. Thats right, for someone who mentions Santorum all the time, its happened 6 times over 3+ years. Relax, at this rate you don’t have to hear a Santorum gay sex related reference for another 6 months! And of the posts which mention Rick and gay marriage only 3 others can reasonably be included since tehy actually involve jokes “at his expense”. So over that same 3+ year period Brendan has joked about this 4 times. Yeah, talk about an obessison.
See the problem with your Google approach, is that anytime ANYONE on this blog has commented on Rick Santorum, joking or not, it will show up. In a post directly referencing him various comments are goign to show up as multiple results. Its a flawed statistic. And there is ntohing that bothers a math major more than flawed statistics.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:18:11 pm
David,
Recall that I included “comments” among the incidences of Brendan referring to Santorum. I distinctly recall him criticizing Santorum’s comments about the NWS in comments during the Katrina fallout (For that matter, I remember accusing Brendan of singling Santorum out for his ill-advised comment when countless other politicians were making equally absurd comments). So he as, at the very least, mentioned him within the past year.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:38:12 pm
Did Patrick really mean to call Andrew a “liberal” for his tasteless comment about being a page? Uhm, ok. Newsflash to Patrick” One does not have to be a liberal to think you are overreacting about Brendan’s joke.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:01:20 pm
Patrick, and as both Mike and I mentioned, including “comments” especially using your google example is rather ridiculous as those are very likely NOT by Brendan. If you want to demonstrate a pattern of behavior and convince us all that you aren’t a raving lunatic in this case, you need to provide links to a large body of evidence.
As for his comments regarding the NWS, um, to put it bluntly, what the hell does that have to do with taking Santorum’s gay marriage quotes out of context and using them to promote a gay agenda?!?! Did you not read my post? You know, the one in which i mention my comments are in regards to posts Brendan made regarding Santorum + “gay agenda”? Of cours I didn’t mention the NWS post as it was wholly unrelated.
Seriously when you get Andrew and I to agree on something non-football related, especialy something relating to politics you know you are making a pretty weak if not non-existant case.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:09:40 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, we have, at last our smoking gun.
Patrick, the only reason the gay issue came up in the comments section of Brendan’s most recent post which referenced Santorum was because….wait for it……YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
You accused Brendan of having it in for Santorum and always singling him out, even though, get this, that post was one of only TWO in 2005 that was critical of Santorum (a third post mentioned him being critical of Tom DeLay and was in no way critical of Santorum). In addition it has been over 10 months since Brendan mentioned Rick Santorum in any of his posts and you STILL claim he has some irrational exuberance for criticizing Ricky-boy.
You have dug yourself in so deep its ridiculous. BTW, step one when trapped in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:11:24 pm
Patrick, I am quite sympathetic to the prospect of passing laws or amendments to ban gay marriage (my point has always been, I want either side of the gay marriage debate to win with legislative votes, not judicial decisions), and while he’s hardly my favorite politician, I have nothing specific against Rick Santorum. He seems like a predictably conservative, reliable Republican — I’m all for that, regardless of whatever crude references about him are made by Dan Savage or Andrea Sullivan (the humor of which I nevertheless appreciate). Yet, this has become a textbook example of why so many are scared or put off by the “Religious Right”: It’s less about the policy and more about the posture.
You won’t find a more stalwart Republican than me, and while I lean more libertarian in social policy than guys like Santorum, I nonetheless find most of their policy positions acceptable. However, these kinds of politicians and their supporters like you seem completely insulated from the logic, culture, and sensibilities of their fellow Americans, appear to lack any sense of humor or context, and nearly always lack perspective on how much real change their policy prescriptions will actually accomplish. To put it all another way, you won’t find a more sympathetic audience than me on this issue, and yet the way you respond hypersensitively to these light-hearted jokes triggers me to mock you instead of defend you.
Way to build support for your view, Patrick!
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:08:35 pm
See, now this is something i don’t understand, why the antipathy towards judicial decisions? I understand the whole voice of the people thing, but sometimes the voice of the people is just plain wrong and unconstitutional. We could go back to decisons like plessy v ferguson or brown v board of education to show examples where the majority leaned one way but the judiciary came in and made the right call. Isn’t that what they are there for? I really do think that often the fear here, and this is not jsut in this case, but in general when we hear things like “Legislating from the bench” thrown around is that the accuser is afraid that their side might lose more than actual judicial overreach is occuring.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:15:44 pm
Andrew,
I fail to see how your inclination to mock me is somehow my fault. That’s your immaturity, not mine.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:25:29 pm
Santorum told me personally that this puffer fish will burn in the fourth circle of hell. I hope it ends up crispy. Mmmmcrispy.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:30:40 pm
David, judicial fiat over public support is a very real problem, and not just because some people are afraid of judges legislating from the bench something they disagree with. Before someone takes your comment further and complains about how opponents of gay marriage always bitch about courts ruling favoraly on gay marriage, let me say that not everyone who opposes judicial rulings favoring gay marriage is opposed to gay marriage. Some supporters of gay marriage have a problem with blatant violations of the law, a la Gavin Newson marrying gay couples in San Francisco, and with judicial rulings that twist stuff up to force a policy change onto a population that disagrees. Personally, my problem is both with the disregard for the law and my concern that the kind of backlash that these actions spur creates more problems in the long run for gay rights supporters. We could turn this into a judicial activism debate, but if it goes that route, I’m out.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:33:27 pm
* me being a gay marriage and gay rights supporter.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:52:40 pm
But, Bea - I thought Andrew was going to marry you, not David ?
(mallarding, grinning)
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:17:58 pm
Huh?
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:14:20 pm
Also huh?
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:15:27 pm
Patrick, what exactly is the “gay agenda�?
Isn’t it getting Barbara Streisand elected President?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:34:50 pm
Bea - it seems, often enough, that Andrew and David keep arguing like an old-married couple, thus leading to … perhaps they are just more like the “Bickersons” …
Oh - and for those who do not yet know about the homosexual agenda - see here …
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:16:22 pm
First of all, Alasdair, I don’t think the arguing Andrew and I engage in is even remotely close to arguing like an “old married couple”, but clearly you tried (and failed miserably) to be funny. Second, what arguing between us have you even witnessed in this thread? Thats right, none. So go sit down and be quiet, things were proceeding just fine without your lack of intelligetnt input.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:19:17 am
Via Kevin Drum, we get this Oxblog post about Santorum’s latest direct-mailer.
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/santorum-appeals-to-oxblog-looking-to.html
It incudes this little gem:
You probably remember well when Bill Clinton and the Democrats passed the largest single tax increase in our nation’s history in 1993, $293 billion.
That sent our nation into an economic slump.
By comparison, that makes “We found the WMD!” look positively insightful.