Video: The gall of Karl

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

03/08/2010

by Jeremy Hooper

Don't you dare "attack" Karl Rove by suggesting "ugly things" like that his father could've been gay. Ya know, because gay citizens' right to marry under civil law is simply a "public policy" matter that "can and should be divorced from our families":

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The unbelievable nerve of this person! This is a man who used gay families in order to elect his boss. He exploited our love and our rights as citizens in order to deliver us the man who'd go on to become the most unpopular president in modern American history. He pushed to change our nation's most precious governing document for the sole purpose of discriminating against gay-headed homes. And now he's refusing to take responsibility for this? He's seriously suggesting that it's HIS family that's been turned into a "convenient targets to shoot at"?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Nu uh. This man cannot and will not wash his hands clean of the soul-numbing pain that he brought to this nation's LGBT people. There is no community who was more targeted or made to feel more worthless under Karl Rove's tutelage. And he's still doing it, by suggesting that being gay is an "ugly thing." So we will never let this man wash his hands clean of the dark discrimination that he pushed upon this nation. Nor should any objective follower of political history.

Remembering his past is not an "attack" on Mr. Rove (nor is asking whether his father was gay). He dished it with the fire of a thousand Falwells. He must now take the deserved legacy that comes with casting a rich and vibrant minority population as an "ugly" undesirable other! He made that majestically cruel and unfortunately deliberate choice, not us.

2004:

ROVE: "Well, marriage is a very important part of our culture and our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal. And the ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman.

And we cannot allow activist judges to overturn that. We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else." [Source]

space