« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/21/2007
Ann vs. Mike. vs. Lawrence vs. TX
This week, some obscure blonde columnist by the name of Anna Culker, Cooker, Corker (or something like that) wrote a column in which she condemned Mike Huckabee for being -- and get ready for this one -- TOO LIBERAL in terms of gays. She was basing that on some comments Huckabee had made in regards to the Supreme Court's landmark, pro-acceptance Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Well, never one to take gay-friendly claims lying down, Huckabee has issued a press release saying, "Yo, chica: I ain't gonna be marchin in no pride parades anytime soon!" Here's a sample:
Ann Coulter's comments are based on a response I made during a radio call-in show in which a caller asked what I thought about the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. At the time I had not read the ruling and was basing my opinion on the summary by the caller. After reading the decision I believe it is obvious that the ruling was wrongly decided. Lawrence v. Texas is an extreme example of judicial activism. It could, in fact, be inappropriately used to attack our marriage laws nationwide.
I am in agreement with the dissent by Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas:
...
Furthermore, As Justice Thomas said, we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges. No such activist Justices will be appointed as long as I am President.
I wish Ms. Coulter had contacted me or my campaign to discuss my position in detail before writing her column. I would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify this matter.
Oh kids, settle down: You're both disturbingly hostile towards basic rights for gay people! No need to fight over who more fully wants to deny gay people their holiness during this holy season. There should be unity within your disunity-encouraging ranks. Remember that popular motto: United you will force us to take a stand -- divided, you will help allow unfair and unreasoned bias to fall! That is a saying, right?
But thanks, Mr. Hucks, for giving gays YET ANOTER reason to lie awake at night fearing your potential reign. We're grateful for it and all, but, well -- do you by any chance have the gift receipt to go along with it? We'd kinda like to see if we can return it the day after Christmas in exchange for some peace of mind. We're sure you'll understand.
Team Huckabee: Response To Ann Coulter [PressMediaWire]
Your thoughts
No, no! Let them fight amongst themselves. It'll make our job easier.
Posted by: Howard | Dec 21, 2007 3:15:18 PM
Wasn't she caught in a West Hollywood gay-run restaurant a few months ago?
Bitch don't mind it when we do her hair and pick out her cocktail dresses, but god forbid we want the right to fuck in our own houses or have our relationships recognized on the same level as everyone else's.
Posted by: Brandon H | Dec 22, 2007 3:12:10 AM
So I have a few questions for "Reverand" Huckabee:
1) What does he propose to be the penalty for consensual sex between unrelated consenting adults in private? If, say Arkansas passed a law mandating a minimum 50 year prison sentence for it, would it be unconstitutional? How bout the death penalty?
2) Would you intern all Gay men in the same place with the HIV positive people. Where would these camps be built?
3) So the pre Lawrence v Texas sodomy laws were used by courts to deny LGBT persons access to the courts (rulings would be used with the statement "but its illegal activity, so we wont rule on the merits of the case, but simply dismiss the LGBT argument"). What other 'Nuremberg Laws' denying citizenship to LGBT people does he support?
4) In Kansas, a Gay man was sentenced to 15 extra years in prison because he was Gay. Do you support extra penalties for Gay persons like in the Limon case?
Posted by: Tom in Houston | Dec 22, 2007 7:13:33 PM
comments powered by Disqus