If heart disease doesn't kill every last no-good man, the irony of this breakthrough could certainly do it.
When Chris Wallace of Fox News sparred hard with Ms Cheney, he asserted,
Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamists, polyamorists, (which I learned means group marriage) or even cohabiting relatives and friends.
Ms Cheney countered,
It's one thing that I don't take very seriously. You know, look: What we are talking about are relationships between two consenting adults. I think that is the debate that we need to have. That is the discussion that our country needs to have.
Upon hearing this, Ms Parker fell over some straight white Republican in her sprint to the keyboard. Presumably she fell. Maybe. Hell, I don't know, I wasn't there — in much the same way Ms Parker wasn't there for every page of Ms Cheney's book before waxing conservatively:
Now it is absolutely clear that legalization of gay marriage opens the door to every imaginable possibility. 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.
Yes, thank you for clearing that up. If it's not biblical, it must be political. It can't possibly be about equality or basic human rights.
As have many conservatives before her, Ms Parker uses one of the most overused and under-proven arguments of all time: (insert issue here) will open the door to "every imaginable possibility." Crikey. Someone call the fun police — the Blacks want to be free, er the Irish want jobs, er women want the vote, er the homosexuals are about to knock down the walls of depravity. (Everyone knows the porn industry wouldn’t exist if not for the gay dollar.)
Wallace's assertion, with Ms Parker's backing, that once gays have recognized commitments it'll break open the floodgates to all manner of God-awfulness, is a sorry attempt to class-up a still-classless act. It wasn't that long ago when people like this thought it was logical to make the leap from a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults to one person insisting themselves upon an animal and/or a child. When that didn’t work, they moved on to polygamy. But just in case, props to the poor vs rich approach:
Now, admittedly, I come from a different place than Mary Cheney. Sure, there are lesbians 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.
No, probably not. I'll tell you the price of tea in China if you can tell me how a Federal Marriage Amendment will make the lives of lesbians in the ghetto any better. Oh, wait, that wasn't your point. What was your point?
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.
Liberal elitists took away tradition and personal responsibility? Powerful force, they are. You’d think with all that strength, they’d get to marry. One thing's for sure: they're not powerful enough to invade every institution of our society because if they were, well, just think of the impact:
Such changes would impact every institution of our society, 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?
Man, Ms Parker, you sure scare easy. As a U.S. Marine wife of more than 20 years, I gotta say, I've not heard of America's gay finest causing more trouble than their heterosexual counterpart. Might be different in the Army. They all seem to have bigger things on their minds — like living through war. The few gay teachers my children have had through the DoD school system were never quarantined for cooties, nor were any of the gay military chaplains I've met. Maybe some day, Ms Parker, you’ll share the experiences you've had or present the evidence you’ve found to illustrate your point and support your contentions. I do hope you start with the line between homosexuality and welfare because I'm still unclear on that one.