RECENT  POSTS:  » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy' » Legal profession made up of ideologues, demands legal ideologue » FRC's senior fellow for exporting/criminalizing gay people bemoan's discrimination's dwindling acceptance  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/18/2008

Video: Hasselbeck & Shepherd. Again. Yes, seriously -- again. They simply refuse to listen. It's annoying. Blech.

by Jeremy Hooper

On today's "The View," Elisabeth and Sherri continued their parade of misinformation.

- Elisabeth passed off the idea that "four justices decided what was best for society." The reality, of course, is that the justices did their job, which is to ensure that current laws and policies are up to constitutional snuff! Just as they have done throughout history, correcting wrongs along the way.

-Elisabeth referred to Prop 8 as a "reaction" rather than an initiation. This is of course only true if you support the idea that gay lives and loves are something to which people should have a "reaction."

- Sherri keeps touting the lies that churches are going to be forced to marry gays. She even used the word "Pandora's box" to describe this situation.

-Elisabeth asserts that gays should protest Obama and Biden for Prop 8, completely overlooking that both OPPOSED PROP 8! She is using the same deception that the "yes on 8" crowd used.

-Elisabeth just can't for the life of her understand why churches are attracting scrutiny, with Hasselbeck completely overlooking their unprecedented role in marrying church and state with this issue.

-Both ladies used hostile code-wording like "traditional marriage," "the institution of marriage," and "redefining marriage."

Watch:

Oh, these ladies. So well coiffed and styled. So myopic and damaging.

Though we're sure Kristen Wiig is quite happy that Elisabeth has once again validated the actress' mimicry skills:

**EARLIER: Video: Our equal Joy -- what's the big Whoopi? [G-A-Y]
Video: Marriage equality? Sherri doesn't say 'Whoopi!' [G-A-Y]

**SEE ALSO: On this same episode of "The View," Mike Huckabee put forth some interesting thoughts about gays and their worthines of rights and protections:

Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed 'Civil Rights' Violence Threshold [Towle]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Marriage is already being redefined, though. Look at m-w.com and you'll see that same sex marriage is part of the definition, and has been for at least four years now.(that's my estimate based on finding a freeper freakout dated in 2004 over the issue).

And that whole "this isn't about equal rights" nonsenses is just that. These folks look at two men, or two women, and say "that's not marriage". And if you ask them why it's so important that marriage remain heterosexual they'll say it's because it's "special" or "sacred". And then you'll hear them talk about civil unions being equal. Uh, they're not equal if marriage is sacred and special and Civil Unions aren't. Sacred and special is the reasoning for the division. And we end up with seperate institutions Marriage and Civil Unions only ONE of which is sacred and special, the other of which is something else. How is that equal?

Posted by: Jason D | Nov 18, 2008 1:46:50 PM

"-Elisabeth referred to Prop 8 as a "reaction" rather than an initiation. This is of course only true if you support the idea that gay lives and loves are something to which people should have a "reaction.""

I guess the Yes on 8 crowd must have looked in their magic ball for this "reaction". While the vote occured after the court decision, the proposition was written and signatures collected before the court decided.

Posted by: Timothy | Nov 18, 2008 1:50:40 PM

Exactly, Timothy!

Elisabeth has really upped her opposition on this one. It annoys me, as she's actually been pretty good on marriage equality in the past. It seems that since the election, her desire to voice the "yes on 8" view has trumped everything else.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 18, 2008 2:05:16 PM

Don't these frizz heads have any gay friend...Hey how about on the SET of the d*** show, that are eloquent enough to break them of all this rubbish? Sorry, don't do videos or TV and that is why. SEE Savage /Hugley re Full CIVIL Marriage rights. At least these MEN can same some articulate things... even though blacks can't see past the 'LIFESTYLE"whine still.
cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/hughley.savage.prop.8/index.html

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 18, 2008 3:05:03 PM

she's complains that "4 justices decided what was best for society." However, when you really look at it, prop 8 barely passed at 52% of the vote. 48% of Californians voted against it, meaning in this case 4% of Californian voters decided what was best for society. Think about it.

Posted by: dragon88 | Nov 18, 2008 3:09:56 PM

she's complains that "4 justices decided what was best for society." However, when you really look at it, prop 8 barely passed at 52% of the vote. 48% of Californians voted against it, meaning in this case 4% of Californian voters decided what was best for society. Think about it.

Posted by: dragon88 | Nov 18, 2008 3:11:25 PM

I guess Sherri's marriage where her husband was cheating on her and got another woman pregnant, leading to her contentious divorce, makes the marriage even more " sacred"?

Posted by: Robert deMichiell | Nov 18, 2008 4:59:04 PM

They both hurt my brain.

Posted by: John Bisceglia | Nov 18, 2008 5:19:28 PM

I don't get Sherri. She was also on Rachel Ray today and talked about going to Janet Jackson with Cheyenne Jackson. Obviously she pals around with the gays. Also it seemed like Elisabeth cut the show to a commercial when they started to get into Arkansas' new adoption law with Mike Huckabee and how it targeted gays.

Posted by: socaldesign | Nov 18, 2008 7:21:45 PM

And she never answers the question: how does my gay marriage hurt you?

She wants to backtrack to something else because she knows the question corners her. It doesn't hurt her at all. It offends her, but it doesn't hurt her, and she's willing to strip another human being of her rights because she's offended by them.

Every person who voted for this proposition should really sit down and ask themselves, "What is it TO me?"

Posted by: Michael | Nov 18, 2008 7:31:07 PM

They both appear to SHARE a brain.

Posted by: Bill S | Nov 18, 2008 7:31:25 PM

It's really disheartening to see Sherri talk like this, given that the gay community played a role in her rise to fame. She used to perform stand-up comedy frequently at the Lovely Carol Show at Rage in West Hollywood during the mid 1990s.

The Lovely Carol Show was an open-mike talent show where (mostly) singers and stand-up comedians would ply their trade, hoping to win that night's competition in order to come back and perform in front of actual casting agents about eight weeks later.

I saw her perform live three times during this period, and she was, hands down, the funniest stand-up comic I've ever seen live. Usually there was about 200 people in attendance every Tuesday, and the all-gay crowd would be *roaring* with laughter. Every time she performed, she'd win the competition and come back for the finals.

It wasn't long afterwards that she started popping up in guest roles on sitcoms, so you do the math.

We do our part to support a talented performer, and this is what we get in return. Sad.

Posted by: Christopher™ | Nov 18, 2008 8:32:27 PM

Why don't we have the Government get out of the Marriage Business altogether. Let Religion have that word.

And the government can be free to issue a Civil Contract between (2) Consenting Adults - Gay or Straight. And churches can decide what types of religious "Marriage" they will support.

There is a difference between the 2 and that is what is being neglected in the conversation.

Posted by: Chapeau | Nov 18, 2008 10:39:16 PM

What buisness is it of anyone if gays want to MARRY??? No I am not gay nor is it my buisness to say who can or who can not marry. I am a Canadian where Gay marriages has been legal for a few years. It blows me away that heterosexuals believe in common law and divorice yet gays believe very strongly in marriage yet it is opposed by hippocrits[heterosexuals]. Also child abuse in Gays is 1 % versa child abuse in heterosexuals at 98%. Do the math. Give me a gay parent anyday.

Posted by: mamasprettyboy3 | Nov 24, 2008 10:56:04 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails