Pro-gay / Pro-stitution: Let the unfair linking begin
Just as we expected, some of our socio-political adversaries are already trying to connect Eliot Spitzer's love for gay rights with his apparent love for sex workers. Here is what the Campaign for Children And Families' Randy Thomasson (pic) has to say on the matter:
Despite some viewing Spitzer as a "moral authority," noting he had instituted a "moral code" to clean up Wall Street and fight organized crime, Spitzer apparently has no moral code in sexual matters. More than any governor, Spitzer has tried to destroy the man-woman marriage definition and to license homosexual "marriages." As Attorney General, he harassed pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.
"Spitzer has embraced anti-family public policies since day one," said Thomasson. "Is it any surprise that his so-called 'private' policies are also destructive to his own family? His immoral practices have made him unfit for public office. It's sad that his wife stood next to him, instead of distancing herself to show her real hurt and disapproval. As Dina Matos McGreevey would tell you, this 'stand by your political man' act is a sad, choreographed charade."
And speaking of "sad, choreographed charades": Over on the One News Now site, they've run this little gay-teargeting blip featuring one of Judaism's most queer-hostile voices, Rabbi Yehuda Levin:
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the New York-based group Jews for Morality, said sarcastically that Spitzer was "being too hard on himself" during his news conference. "...There is no reason that we should be judgmental on this," says a sarcastic Levin. "We have to understand that those who are making a connection between his personal behavior and the social legislation he's pushing -- homosexual marriage, ...abortion as a...constitutional right in the state of New York. These people are just discriminatory, [and] bigoted..."
Ah yes, expect one of the world's oldest professions to get a major highlighting in the right wing's response to Mr. Spitzer. But we're not talking about prostitution. No, no. We're talking about the tired, old job of attacking your opponents by making disingenuous leaps in logic about their character. Ever since the dude who discovered fire had his good deeds slighted and trivialized because of his sexual tryst with a wooly mammoth, political opponents have been unfairly marrying one's accomplishments with their missteps. Why should now be any different?
comments powered by Disqus