Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Gay rights group compares Frankfort demonstrators to Ku Klux Klan

Herald-Leader? Courier-Journal? Are you there? Are your hypocrisy meters turned on? Once again gay rights advocates, who make a big show of opposing hate, are spewing hateful rhetoric.

Here is the Kentucky Equality Federation on today's rally at the Capitol against taxpayer-funded health benefits for live-in sexual partners of state university staff:
The Family Foundation of Kentucky, our 'KKK members with church clothes on' are holding signs deliberately bringing religion into government even though it is prohibited by the Commonwealth's Constitution.
Is there a better example of hate than comparing someone to the Ku Klux Klan? What exactly did the demonstrators--who are supposed to be so hateful, according the "Equality Federation"--say that even compares to it?

Of course the state media will completely ignore this most recent example of hate speech by gay rights groups. They get a free pass on this behavior by a media that thinks they can do no wrong.

Then there is this little gem from the "Ditch Mitch" blog:
What makes the rally so disgusting is that their protest runs much deeper than even homophobia – it’s simply a pro-hate rally.
Now the Ditch Mitch people know hate when they see it. What constitutes hate for these people? Hate, they argue, is when anyone would not be willing to force taxpayers to pay for anyone and everyone's health care:

Right here in America, nearly 18,000 people die every year simply because of a lack of healthcare coverage. With nearly 1 in 6 people in the country living without access to healthcare, we should all be rallying in favor of anything that helps cover more Americans. Anything less is simply unconscionable.

In other words, anyone who opposes universal health coverage is guilty of hate.

Well, if anyone ever wondered why civil discourse has gone down the tubes, they need look no further than groups like the Kentucky Equality Federation and "Ditch Mitch," which can't acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with them is anything but evil.

It must be hard to live in a world where you think that anyone who disagrees with you hates you too. Maybe we shouldn't be indignant about them after all. Maybe pity is more appropriate.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Listen to the voice of history. Religious based bigotry is wrong.

http://www.faithinamerica.info/pdf/FIA-bigotry-4.pdf

Martin Cothran said...

I'm listening, but I'm not hearing the voice of history say that someone who believes marriage is a unique cultural institution that should be treated differently from other relationships is equivalent with being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor am I hearing it say that anyone who doesn't agree with universal health care is ipso facto a hatemonger.

randy said...

What does "marriage" have to do with "domestic-partners?" Nothing.

Regarding marriage: people only get married for the legal benefits, now we hardly do that anymore. Who cares about marriage? Let them get married our divorce will just raise yet again.

solarity said...

As in so many other arenas, the left has succeeded in even dumbing down the good old-fashioned practice of hate-mongering. When I was but a wee lad, hate-mongering speech generally came from the mouth of a true villain. Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Don Rickles, et al. Today, hate-mongering is apparently being routinely committed whenever a conservative voices objection to a liberal idea.

Stay alert, as I suspect good old fascism is next on the list for re-defining.

Anonymous said...

Are you guys leading the fight to outlaw divorce in Kentucky? After all, isn't divorce a bigger threat to marriage than domestic partner benefits?

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

I don't know who you mean by "you guys," but if you're asking me about it, I personally think no-fault divorce is the stupidest cultural idea ever devised by man. The contractual obligation that affects culture more than any other is the only contractual obligation that can be broken unilaterally by one party.

Do we simply turn back the clock and reinstitute the status quo ante? I don't know. But I do think that at least a marriage in which children are involved should at least be treated different legally from one that does not, since other people than the primary parties are affected.

Anonymous said...

Some questions: When is the rally to eliminate no-fault divorce in Kentucky going to be scheduled? I agree with your comment concerning no-fault divorce, but this social ill has simply been forgotten about.

Also, you comment "I do think that at least a marriage in which children are involved should at least be treated different legally from one that does not, since other people than the primary parties are affected." It appears from your answer that children are a primary focus of marriage. I can't argue with that part. However, my next question is as follows: Is a marriage without children of lesser importance than a marriage with children since some folks do marry and do not want/are incapable of having children? If the answer to this question is no, then why not treat domestic partners equal with marriage since, like a childless married couple, only the interests of the domestic partners are all that is at stake?

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

You seem very concerned about the issue of no-fault divorce: Why don't you go ahead and organize the rally against it? I'll even try to be there.

Also, you argued: Is a marriage without children of lesser importance than a marriage with children since some folks do marry and do not want/are incapable of having children? If the answer to this question is no, then why not treat domestic partners equal with marriage since, like a childless married couple, only the interests of the domestic partners are all that is at stake?

Well, for one thing, I did not argue that a marriage without children is "of lesser importance." I said it affected only the people who originally made the marriage. In the case of divorce, if it the state has an interest in protecting children, then making divorce harder in such cases is in the state interest.

But even if marriages without children were of lesser importance, it wouldn't follow that domestic partners were of equal importance. The state has an interest in marriage per se, since most marriages do produce children and children are better off in homes where the parents are not divorced, and the state does not know which marriages will produce children and which won't.

Maybe you could further explain your argument for domestic partners being equivalent to marriages without children in terms of the interests of the state.

Anonymous said...

"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." George Washington