Bil Browning

Where Kurt is King

Filed By Bil Browning | May 17, 2008 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics

This is why I stopped reading Veritas Rex - false advertising. The truth is never King; spin is King there. I'm very disappointed that Kurt would claim to follow God's footsteps while treading (most dangerously) on the path of the Great Deceiver.

For example, Kurt pulls a quote out of context to highlight in the post. If he'd stopped his knee-jerk reaction, he'd realize that the City Attorney is referencing the fact that anyone worldwide can come to California to be married. Somehow he's twisted "Anyone can come here for equal treatment under the law" into "We'll take over the world!" *cue sinister Snively Whippersnit laugh*

What has him in a snit?

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

The spin continues in the comments section of the post.

The fact is clear that gay marriage proponents want it both ways. They want (1) to challenge our assertion that gay marriage should be illegal using both the legislative process and in the courts and (2) suggest that we don't need a marriage amendment because our law will never be overturned. That's a dubious argument that relies on both a total suspension of logic- and naivety from traditional marriage supporters.

And why is it wrong for LGBT people "to challenge our assertion that gay marriage should be illegal using both the legislative process and in the courts"? Are we not due the same American principles that they are? Are we to be denied access to the legislature and the courts? Should we just sit down and learn our place?

Perhaps he'd like to count each of us as 3/4 of a person. I hear voting is highly over-rated too; after all, if they deny us access to the ballot box, they'd win a lot more elections! Because his side, of course, should have access to the legislature and courts. (Or that blog and organization wouldn't exist!)

And poor Conservatives. In the comments section he complains the Court hasn't been kind to them lately. *sobs*

As for Don's attempts to cast dispersions for dubious reasons... my point is still strong. It is that our courts have not been a friend to conservatives recently. I don't trust them with the fate of traditional marriage. Our elected officials who understand that they answer to a largely pro-family constituency are more likely to do what's right in this situation.

And Fiat Lux, your post is ridiculous. It doesn't matter why the court overturned marriage- just that it was overturned. The fact remains that in CA there is no difference now between marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It can't be the actual Court being talked about he references - the CA Supreme Court; we're not in California! So Kurt must be talking about recent Indiana-relevant rulings. Let's see what Republican State Representative Jackie Walorski has to say about court cases lately on her blog...

"Does anybody else see a pattern here? In just a few short months, the ACLU & their Democratic friends have filed several suits including, "Prayer" at the Statehouse, the "In God We Trust" license plate, and now the "Voter ID" law...ALL of which were ruled in OUR favor!!"

Apparently Kurt thinks Rep. Walorski is a liar.

And then we turn to Kurt's complete rejection of the facts. He tells commenter Fiat Lux, "It doesn't matter why the court overturned marriage- just that it was overturned." I'd hate to see that big word "why" startle Kurt into a mindless automaton, so I'll help him out:

The "why" is important to these things called judges, Kurt. If something is against the law at Point A but not at Point B, someone can't charge someone from B with breaking A's laws. Why? Because that's how the law works, Kurt. Indiana activists won't be able to use CA's ruling to overturn IN's. Why? Because that's how the law works, Kurt. It's hard to base an Indiana decision on a domestic partnership law that CA has.

At least when Ryan McCann debates the issue he tries to stick with these things called "facts." While he might twist them to fit his purpose, at least he doesn't blatantly say, "I don't care about these things called laws or facts or reasons. My opinion should be everyone's laws and facts and reasons!"

Truth? Who needs it. At Veritas Rex, Kurt is King."

Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.