« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/28/2009
Perhaps they are the ones devaluing this fight?
It is almost unbelievable that the social conservatives are pinning their marriage inequality hopes on a runner-up in a Donald Trump-produced, non-scholarship, Vegas-based beauty pageant who gave a factually-inaccurate answer about "opposite marriage." But it's not the thing of bad college screenwriting: Anti-equality advocates like Mags Gallagher are seriously still using Carrie Prejean to somehow lend credence to their cause!
This is the cover of the latest National Review:
Can you even imagine if we were doing something similar? They would be throwing every term in the book at us, talking about how our supposedly frivolous regard for marriage runs no deeper than the double-sided tape that holds the evening gown in place. They would undoubtedly question the morality behind our decision to exalt a non-trained, non-political, non-informed on the issues personality onto the national stage as some sort of "expert." And while we can't imagine that they'd disparage Carrie personally (neither would we), they would surely (and rightfully) point out the flaws in her argument, both in terms of fact and articulation.
But for the Maggie Gallaghers of the world, an unorthodox star has been born. And you know what? We actually kind of hope that they do keep trying to make her happen. We think they might be shocked to find how quickly this effect will "carrie" them to the land of socio-politico irrelevancy!
*Read the article: "The Carrie Effect" [Right Wing Watch]
Your thoughts
Further evidence that Maggie and her base are, well, base.
Posted by: SammySeattle | Jul 28, 2009 5:30:56 PM
I finally realized something!! She is their female "Joe the plumber". They both even fit right into conservative's idea of proper gender roles. Overall, I like the fact that our opponents choose to use uninformed representatives because the contrast will highlight how correct we are.
Posted by: DanM | Jul 28, 2009 5:48:12 PM
"Ho the Hummer"?? maybe?
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 28, 2009 7:01:58 PM
This is the same magazine that in its early days was sympathetic to racial segregation. Being on the wrong side of history is a habit for them.
Posted by: Rachel Snyder | Jul 28, 2009 7:53:46 PM
Seriously, SERIOUSLY, Delusional.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jul 28, 2009 9:05:24 PM
How the eff does she get her own effect?!
Posted by: Really? | Jul 28, 2009 9:19:04 PM
T - otally
A - nother
R - etarded
T - rollup
Posted by: Jim | Jul 28, 2009 9:35:30 PM
For all these people rant about what they claim is God's law, it's quite funny that their new spokeswoman is someone who didn't think her God-given beauty was good enough.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Jul 28, 2009 9:56:50 PM
comments powered by Disqus
