Americablog points us to this Townhall column by Star Parker, which finally explodes the myth that Republicans seek to use anti-gay rhetoric as a wedge to pry African-American support away from the Democratic Party:
Anyone still harboring doubts that we need a Federal Marriage Amendment should read what Mary Cheney has to say about it in her new book. No, you don’t have to buy it. A five-minute skimming session in the bookstore is all it will take.
Any longer and someone might notice you devouring the Cheney family?s latest contribution to lesbian lit and mistake you for a, uh… Dutch water diversion structure, if you know what I mean, and then you?d never get a man. Well, you would, but just as an observer, or possibly as a subscriber to your premium webcam site. And besides, this one isn?t nearly as hot as Sisters.
In a few breezy sentences, Mary Cheney confidently relegates a few thousand years of religious tradition regarding the nature of marriage to an historic footnote and curiosity.
And as Ann Coulter has taught us, footnotes are the moral equivalent of date rape.
According to her, legal formalization of this traditional arrangement would abrogate freedom and be discriminatory.
Um?isn?t marriage already legal? I mean, I know I can be a bit of a bastard, but don?t tell me I?m a bastard! (In the “Andrew Stevens isThe Bastard in John Jakes? The Bastard” sense.)
Cheney effortlessly transforms traditional marriage and family from the core institution on which our free society is built into an instrument of oppression.
She?s breezy! She?s effortless! Mary Cheney isn?t just a deviant attempting to subvert the natural order of society, she?s a new fragrance by Price Matchabelli! But come on, she really wants to turn traditional marriage into an instrument of oppression? You?re a little late to thatparty, Sister Man!
With little thought
(…and as someone who spent five minutes flipping through this book in order to marshal her exhaustive rebuttal, Star knows whereof she speaks)
she glosses over the truth that this is not about freedom but about the exchange of one source of authority for our laws and values for another. Will it be the bible or Mary Cheney’s youthful passions and impulses?
That?s a pretty tough choice. I guess I?d have to see her version of the Decalogue first. If it contained less of that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor?s ox stuff and more commandments that thou shalt serve Cadillac margaritas during marathons of The L Word, I think we could tempt over at least a few of the pervier Founding Fathers. Maybe not John Adams or Alexander Hamilton, but probably Jefferson. And definitely Franklin.
Sure, there are lesbians in the ghetto.
Although suspiciously this fact was omitted from Elvis Presley?s exhaustive 1969 study of inner city pathologies, ?In the Ghetto.?
But they generally don’t “discover” their sexuality one post-pubescent day and break the news to their doting parents, amidst tears and hugs
Yep, for a white girl all it takes to ?discover? she’s a lesbian is a one-day Outward Bound excursion. But in the ghetto, becoming a lesbian requires ?learning? your sexuality over a grueling 13 week course at an accredited vocational school.
Growth in black lesbianism is generally the product of a culture where families already have been destroyed.
But as Jonah Goldberg points out, it?s also a product of the sizzling Bush Economy, since recent studies show that lesbianism in the ghetto has been growing at an average rate of 3.2%, nearly double the rate under Clinton. And while the President has endured unceasing abuse for his supposed ?loss? of the majority black city of New Orleans, he has received zero credit for the deregulation and bold tax relief that have helped to create over 90,000 new black lesbians since 2002.
It’s so unfair.
These aren’t pioneers
(Again, see Sisters by Lynne Cheney. Page 98 is especially good. I?ll lend you my copy, just don?t smudge the notes in the margin.)
venturing out of an intact family that has given them a good life, to discover a new “lifestyle.”
?or any other condom. I mean what’s the point?
The injustice and discrimination they feel is to never have had the opportunity to grow up in an intact family and to understand what it means to have a man in your life who is responsible and from whom you can receive love and respect.
I don?t want to minimize the challenges faced by black families, I just don’t believe they’re the prime vector for homosexuality. Like a lot of people, I didn?t grow up in a two-parent home (often it wasn?t even a one-parent home) and as far as I know it didn?t turn me into a lesbian. (Okay, maybe I was a LUG, but that?s it.) And as long as we’re arguing social science by begging questions and pulling anecdotes out of our ascending ileums, I’ll just say that I?ve known a number of women who grew up without a father, and for most of them, it had no apparent effect on their sexuality. For the remaining minority, the effect seemed to consist largely of sleeping with their professors and screwing up the grading curve for the rest of us.
So, as conservative black activists like myself work to put humpty dumpty back together again in the way of the black family
?by criticizing white lesbians
we now have Vice President Cheney’s daughter working to get the message out that there really is no point to it. By her standards, the inner city is utopia.
Until now there has been some dispute over the conditions responsible for urban poverty. Was it primarily a product of underfunded schools and diminished social services? The death of the manufacturing sector? The lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow-era oppression? Nope. Turns out South-Central L.A. is the Garden of Eden (?the women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage, no?Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit? Sisters, page 129) and the only reason inequality still exists is because The Man is keeping you down! (And by The Man, I mean two lesbians planning a lovely Spring wedding in Vermont.)
Give vent to every impulse, legitimize every feeling and, by all means, don’t be judgmental.
??cause that?s Star’s job, bitches!
What Mary Cheney calls oppressive and straight, blacks call white.
And what you call ?Hell,? Rambo calls ?Home.?
It’s hard to figure out whether Mary Cheney is simpleminded or just disingenuous.
I sympathize, since it’s so hard to figure out if Star is ruthlessly cynical or just monumentally stupid.
Now it is absolutely clear that legalization of gay marriage opens the door to every imaginable possibility.
Oops, just checked my notes. That should read, ?it is absolutely clear that entering the wardrobe opens the door to Narnia.?
Once the authority for defining marriage moves from biblical tradition to politics
?women will start pouring out of the menstrual hut while they?re still unclean!
marriage will be defined by whatever might be deemed so by a court or that can be passed into law.
And how the hell are we gonna make that work with the rule of law. You gotta think this stuff through, people!
Such changes would impact every institution of our society
Our Department of Motor Vehicles! Our municipal recycling centers! Our Civic Light Operas!
Well. Maybe not that last one so much.
Well. Maybe not that last one so much.
and Ms Cheney’s uninformed casualness about the scope and seriousness of this is frightening. We’ve already seen the impact in adoption. How about in our public school system, our military, our churches, or our corporations?
Well, given that our corporations are tax-exempt, holy places, the government wouldn?t dare touch them. But our churches are definitely in trouble!
We can look at Europe as a laboratory for what to expect. George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington reports in the current issue of Commentary Magazine, for instance, that in Spain, where gay marriage and adoption is now legal, the words “Father” and “Mother” are being replaced on birth certificates to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.”
That?s pretty bad, but I think I?d still rather be called ?Progenitor B? on a birth certificate than ?Official A? in a Patrick Fitzgerald filing.
I don’t know what the president’s wife, Laura Bush, had for breakfast the other day
?she got up before I did and just left me a note on the pillow?oops.
The gay movement is but a new chapter being written by liberal elitists who brokered the displacement of tradition and personal responsibility with disastrous welfare state policies. Blacks paid dearly and still are paying.
In other words…Fight the Real Enemy:
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay and White Blues: How Pat Boone Could So Totally Kick Robert Johnson?s Ass.
By the way, in case you haven?t seen Pam Spaulding?s photo account of her wedding, it looks like it was both beautiful and informative, in that we now know that the conspiracy to keep America?s underclass crushed beneath the iron boot of oppression was hatched at the Apricot Cat and Black Dog Bed & Breakfast in Vancouver, British Columbia.
It?s always in the last place you look.
22 Responses to “OF IRON HEELS AND SENSIBLE SHOES”
So what is Starr saying, exactly? That legalizing gay marriage will cause black families to break down? My reading comprehension skills are quite good, honest, I just can’t quite believe that’s what she’s saying.
Those pictures of Vancouver made me so homesick. What a great story.
Those pictures of Vancouver made me so homesick. What a great story.
Aw… I always cry at weddings. And I always laugh until I cry at morons who think that love “destroys” what is a malleable “institution” to begin with.
Male homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament. Most forms of divorce are condemned there, too; as is adultery and other common failings. At worst, and assuming it�s not inborn, homosexuality is just another in a litany of sexual sins � and almost all of us have broken some of those many rules. Divorce is, despite the Biblical laws against it, already legal. So is looking at porn. Society hasn�t imploded.
But this issue of gay marriage has nothing � nothing! � to do with religion. Marriage � that union that protects one spouse from having to testify against the other in court, and that allows one partner to take sole custody of any children should the other partner die etc. � is a civil matter; and the denial of access to it is an issue of civil rights.
So long as individual churches are legally allowed to deny people the opportunity to marry within their communities of faith, they should have no complaint whatsoever if civil authorities approve gay marriage in the secular sphere. Some churches don�t recognize the validity of a divorcee’s second marriage. That doesn’t mean remarriage should be illegal.
As to Parker�s assertion that approval of gay marriage somehow translates into the romanticizing of life in ghetto, it�s just so stupid that arguing against it would be like nailing jell-o to a tree. I mean, that argument is really stupid � so stupid that there is no way to rebut it except to call it for what it is: completely stupid. And did I mention that her argument is truly, astonishingly fucking stupid?
But this issue of gay marriage has nothing � nothing! � to do with religion. Marriage � that union that protects one spouse from having to testify against the other in court, and that allows one partner to take sole custody of any children should the other partner die etc. � is a civil matter; and the denial of access to it is an issue of civil rights.
So long as individual churches are legally allowed to deny people the opportunity to marry within their communities of faith, they should have no complaint whatsoever if civil authorities approve gay marriage in the secular sphere. Some churches don�t recognize the validity of a divorcee’s second marriage. That doesn’t mean remarriage should be illegal.
As to Parker�s assertion that approval of gay marriage somehow translates into the romanticizing of life in ghetto, it�s just so stupid that arguing against it would be like nailing jell-o to a tree. I mean, that argument is really stupid � so stupid that there is no way to rebut it except to call it for what it is: completely stupid. And did I mention that her argument is truly, astonishingly fucking stupid?
So, Star is the C.U.R.E. What coems next? “Meet the disease”?
I second the “truly, astonishingly fucking stupid” and would like to open the floor to all manner of “thoroughly, if not criminally, insane” as well. And can we get a shout out for “completely incoherent”, though there seems to be a lot of that going around.
Personally, I would pay good money (two bits, anyway) to see the rhetorical love child of Ms Parker and Ms Grogan. Now *that’s* a society breaker.
Personally, I would pay good money (two bits, anyway) to see the rhetorical love child of Ms Parker and Ms Grogan. Now *that’s* a society breaker.
I sympathize, since it�s so hard to figure out if Star is ruthlessly cynical or just monumentally stupid.It’s not that hard.
You mean Mary Cheney’s book *doesn’t* contain detailed policy prescriptions for re-engineering the mores of the contemporary black family? “Shock” doesn’t even begin to describe my reaction to the news.
As Devil’s Advocate says: “Male homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament” and don’t let the fags try to tell you otherwise.
Oh and ignore the whole bit where David loved Saul like a woman–it’s metaphorical! And all that “he clasped him under the thigh”–it’s like a masonic handshake, totally not gay.
Another thing condemned by the bible? Mixing cloths! And shell-fish of course.
But marriage according to the bible? Absolutely and unequivocably between a man and a woman—or a man and several women. Plus you get to have sex with your daughters as long as you are drunk. Oh, and one final tip—if a roaming band of aggressive homosexuals demand to have sex with your apparently male house-guests, offer them your virgin daughters. I twon;t work, obviously, but they will be distracted for a while. If you don;t have virgin daughters, try offering a cat.
Oh and ignore the whole bit where David loved Saul like a woman–it’s metaphorical! And all that “he clasped him under the thigh”–it’s like a masonic handshake, totally not gay.
Another thing condemned by the bible? Mixing cloths! And shell-fish of course.
But marriage according to the bible? Absolutely and unequivocably between a man and a woman—or a man and several women. Plus you get to have sex with your daughters as long as you are drunk. Oh, and one final tip—if a roaming band of aggressive homosexuals demand to have sex with your apparently male house-guests, offer them your virgin daughters. I twon;t work, obviously, but they will be distracted for a while. If you don;t have virgin daughters, try offering a cat.
Man, didn’t the right-wing fruitcakes get all a’twitter when Kerry and Edwards made mention of Young Lady Cheney’s sexuality? They were nice about it, too, like “Hey, Dick, you still love your gay daughter even though your administration is trying to cram through a cynically driven, vote-getting ammendment that would abridge her rights as a human being. Guess you’re not a total asshole after all.” Shit, Star Parker is blaming Mary Cheney for the inner-city blues.
Wouldn’t one expect to see the wingnuts calling for Parker’s head on a platter with such uncivil disrespect to a private citizen?
Wouldn’t one expect to see the wingnuts calling for Parker’s head on a platter with such uncivil disrespect to a private citizen?
She was interviewed on TDS and didn’t know they were making fun of her. She is freaking clueless.
Once the authority for defining marriage moves from biblical tradition to politics marriage will be defined by whatever might be deemed so by a court or that can be passed into law.
I’m not sure I disagree with this point too severely, especially since “Biblical tradition” (insert photo of Topol here) is fairly lax on what makes a marriage. After all, Sarah allowed Abraham to fuck their slave. Sounds like a swinging couple to me. Adam had two wives, and I don’t recall that he ever divorced Eve or Lilith. I just wish one of them had been named “Steve”…that would clarify the whole issue.
I’m not sure I disagree with this point too severely, especially since “Biblical tradition” (insert photo of Topol here) is fairly lax on what makes a marriage. After all, Sarah allowed Abraham to fuck their slave. Sounds like a swinging couple to me. Adam had two wives, and I don’t recall that he ever divorced Eve or Lilith. I just wish one of them had been named “Steve”…that would clarify the whole issue.
It’s self-policing. Since fatherless homes create lesbians, at the current rate of growth there will be no more single mothers by 2065.
Do motherless homes produce gay men?
If Parker can call Mary Cheney out on being “uninformed” on the subject of “gay marriage”, does this mean Starr is *not* “uninformed”?
After all, since she has this annoying habit of declaring her own mistakes immoral and wanting to make them totally off limits for other people, is this more of the same? Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to!
After all, since she has this annoying habit of declaring her own mistakes immoral and wanting to make them totally off limits for other people, is this more of the same? Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to!
It’s even weirder than that, Matt T. She seems to be implying homosexuality is a “white thing”-that it’s only poverty that turns African-American women into lesbians.
I remember seeing another wingnut(whose name unfortunately I can’t recall, it was a long time ago) say something similar. He said that none of the slaves brought into this country could have been homosexual, because they were chosen for breeding capability and physical labor. Why the latter would exclude homosexuals, he didn’t say.
I remember seeing another wingnut(whose name unfortunately I can’t recall, it was a long time ago) say something similar. He said that none of the slaves brought into this country could have been homosexual, because they were chosen for breeding capability and physical labor. Why the latter would exclude homosexuals, he didn’t say.
Why I should listen to Ms. Jumbo McLardington, Fatty-Fat-Fat-McFattington, Greasebag, X-tra Super Hippo-sized, Dirigible-like, Monumentally-Bloated, Gianormous, Mountainesque, Supremely Mastadonic Star Parker is beyond me. And, surely there’s a way to fit a Pay Less shoes joke in there somewhere… between the folds.
Um…are you sure you’re not confusing Star Parker with Star Jones, Marq? Parker is more like the African-American version of Anne Coulter, only more severe.
Growth in black lesbianism is generally the product of a culture where families already have been destroyed.
Of course it is, and it’s because every black man under the age of 30 – who did the drugs that George Bush did when he was that age – is in jail.
Of course it is, and it’s because every black man under the age of 30 – who did the drugs that George Bush did when he was that age – is in jail.
Doghouse Riley Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
It�s self-policing. Since fatherless homes create lesbians, at the current rate of growth there will be no more single mothers by 2065.
But plenty of girl-on-girl porn. Yum!
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
It�s self-policing. Since fatherless homes create lesbians, at the current rate of growth there will be no more single mothers by 2065.
But plenty of girl-on-girl porn. Yum!
Whoops–my bad. I was wondering why she never came off as such a wingnut on “The View.” Probably had something to do with her not being her. Redirect my comments to K-Lo, instead!
Marq: “I was wondering why she never came off as such a wingnut on �The View.�
That’s HER?!!! The one who proclaimed her lawyerly qualifications when she could and would then ramble on?
Oh, I guess I shouldn’t be so shocked. I still naively think that logic should be on the toolkit of lawyers, but clearly I am deluded. I know realize that law and reason are just the playdoh of self appointed “authorities”. My mistake.
That’s HER?!!! The one who proclaimed her lawyerly qualifications when she could and would then ramble on?
Oh, I guess I shouldn’t be so shocked. I still naively think that logic should be on the toolkit of lawyers, but clearly I am deluded. I know realize that law and reason are just the playdoh of self appointed “authorities”. My mistake.
No, no–that’s the one I mistakenly thought she was. Bill S. sez thereal one is skinny ‘n stuff. So, I must again confess my utter unfamiliarity with her, thank goodness!
No comments:
Post a Comment