Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 22, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • After Terrible Storm, ABC Devotes 10 Minutes to Crime, Botox and Entertainment, Skimps on IRS
  • ABC and CBS Ignore Obama Administration Investigating FNC's James Rosen
  • NBC's Gregory Scolds GOP for Comparing Obama to Nixon
  • CBS Highlights Ex-IRS Staffer Who Declares There Were No Politics at Cincinnati Office
  • Monday's Amnesia: CNN Covers Powerball Jackpot Winner as Much as IRS, AP, Benghazi Scandals
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News

Frank Rich Tells Rachel Maddow Ballet Backers Should Support Gay Rights

By Noel Sheppard | February 28, 2012 | 10:12

A  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

New York magazine's Frank Rich on Monday stereotyped folks who back ballet as defacto supporters of gay rights.

This came during a lengthy segment on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show wherein the host absurdly told viewers that it's wrong for wealthy people who appear to be socially liberal to fund conservative candidates that don't completely support same sex marriage (video follows with transcript and commentary):

FRANK RICH, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: And look, someone like Ken Mehlman is in a long tradition, I hate to say it, of Republicans who were closeted homosexuals, in power, actually enabled homophobic policies, in some periods really a demonization of gay people, and then as soon as they're away from it, as soon as Ken Mehlman, who had been head of the Republican Party under Bush when Bush had all these homophobic marriage amendments and ballot initiatives, he and Karl Rove, then he comes out and does the right thing, comes out as gay, but also comes out of those policies. But where was he when it really mattered within his own party?

In that sense, it's like Terry Dolan, Roy Cohn, all these people, Finkelstein, the consultant who worked for Jesse Helms, one of the most homophobic senators ever, he was in a gay marriage in Massachusetts after he stopped working for Jesse Helms.

So there's something -- there's a real sort of pathological disconnect. And they've really got to be called on it and they`ve got to be called on it by Democrats as well as people like us.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

MADDOW: I will -- I think that Ken Mehlman though has sort of -- I think Ken Mehlman has done the right thing to the extent that you can't do back in time.

RICH: Right.

MADDOW: You can indict what he did in the past, but then once you come out, if you were complicit in politics that were not only hypocritical but that you had decided were very bad for the country, I think ethically the right thing to do is then work to change those politics. He's certainly doing that in his public life.

RICH: He's doing things like the Proposition 8 fight. But what is going on with the Republican Party?

MADDOW: That's the --

RICH: How is it every candidate, every single candidate with the arguable exception of Jon Huntsman who's long gone, has taken such anti-gay views in terms of policy and rhetoric? How have they remained silent when you have a gay soldier who's serving in Iraq ask a perfectly innocuous, pleasant question through YouTube at a Republican debate, and no one, including the then nine candidates on stage speaks up against it?

It's great that Ken Mehlman is involved with the raising money for AFER and to fight Proposition 8 and so on. But what about within that party?

Yes, and I'm not -- I don't mean to single him out, Paul Singer, these hedge fund guys, all the big bucks people who think of themselves as being enlightened about social issues. The Koch brothers. I mean, they sponsor things like the New York City ballet. Why are they remaining silent, the party that they support, the movements that they support in terms of Tea Party, is so homophobic.

I just don't get it. It's a disconnect, but also it`s something that actually does damage, not only do gay Americans, but to children who have gay parents. You know, anyone who has a friend or a relative who's gay.

I'd say the ignorance on display here was staggering, but nothing on MSNBC should surprise anyone anymore.

First off, there are many Republicans especially on the coasts that are fiscally conservative while being socially moderate or liberal. But such views have to be prioritized, and for many, fiscal matters are far more important when it comes to the candidates they support.

But liberals in the media don't seem to get that. In their view, social issues should be paramount. Latinos, for instance, should only care about a politician's position on immigration.

Also absurd was the contention that all of the Republican candidates are anti-gay rights. Most support civil unions.

Unfortunately, the liberal press think that unless you completely back same sex marriage, you're homophobic.

As for Rich's ballet assertion, was he stereotypically casting all supporters of the arts as socially liberal or just those that back the ballet?

I think he'd be surprised that there are even benefactors of the great San Francisco Ballet in my part of the country who are quite fiscally conservative and consider that far more important in their candidates than their views on same sex marriage.

That must be too intellectually dexterous for a New York City snob like Rich.

(H/T Ann Coulter)

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • Homosexuality
  • Same-sex marriage
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Charles Koch
  • David Koch
  • Rachel Maddow
  • MSNBC
  • New York Magazine
  • Rachel Maddow Show
  • Video
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Civil Unions?

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 10:39am.

DEAR NOEL:

You write, "Absurd was the contention that all of the Republican candidates are anti-gay rights. Most support civil unions."

Of the two frontrunners, Rick Santorum has explicitly stated that he opposes civil unions for Gay couples. But let's put that fact aside for a moment, and consider alternative legal arrangements for Gay couples anyway.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that. After all, there aren't going to be language police roaming around, telling Gay couples they can't use the term "marriage." When asked where the ceremony took place, Gay couples will say, "Oh we were married in Cancun," or wherever. Gay couples would still refer to one another as "married," and for all intents and purposes we would BE married, even if the legal designation is "civil unionized" or whatever.

That OK with you?

  • Login to post comments

Government needs to get out of the marriage business

Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 10:57am.

The only interest that government has is determining who is responsible for raising the children.

That determination is on the birth certificate, which has the name of the mother and the name of the father. If the mother opts not to identify the father, she's on her own. At a later date, she may go to court to formally identify the father, but at her own expense.

Adults would be free to enter into marriage or marriage-like relationships according to their own faith and convictions. Religious institutions would continue to marry members according to their respective customs and traditions.

Adoption certificates would name the parent(s) who assume responsibility for the child.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR GALVANIC:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 11:01am.

If the government's only interest is in who is responsible for raising children, where does "marriage" come into the equation? Procreation and parenting seem to be irrelevant here, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license. There's also the fact that growing numbers of Gay couples DO have children, either through adoption or artificial insemination.

  • Login to post comments

That's precisely my point, Bear

Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:10pm.

From the government's perspective, marriage doesn't enter the equation.

Adults who desire to enter a formal marriage or marriage-like relationship are free to do so through non-government venues, such as religious institutions.

Government would neither issue marriage licenses, nor litigate marriages differently than any other 'civil union' arrangement.

Should a marriage or similar relationship dissolve, the government's only involvement would be in recognizing any change in the responsibilities for raising the children until they reach the age of maturity. In other words, courts would litigate child custody issues just as they do today.

  • Login to post comments

You described my original position on the issue

Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 11:22am.

...bacik in 2004 when SSM was being debated in Canada.

For that, I was called a Homophobe, anti-equal-marriage, among other niceties, and was stridently told by one of our country's opposition leaders (the late Jack Layton) that "Equal but Different is NOT EQUAL"

(Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out the logical path for that one).

In short, my idea of a 'compromise' was flatly rejected. It was all or nothing. It was a matter of rights, you see, and we can't have gay couples refer to their relationships as simply "civil unions" restricting the term 'marriage' for hetero couples only. That would be discriminatory and prejudice, and make gays second-class citizens. GLAAD would take offence. Too many feelings would be hurt, and we can't have that in this country, after all, we are now living in the 21st century, and it's time to shed that kind of obsolete thinking.

Ok, so since then, I've come to see the light. If it's going to be all in, or the status quo, I'll choose the status quo -- the TRUE definition of marriage. If that makes me a homophobe, then hand me the sticker, and I'll slap it on my forehead with pride.

"There... Are... Four... Lights!"

  • Login to post comments

DEAR DUMBCANUCK:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 11:35am.

It seems to be a very interesting impasse we have arrived at here.

You seem to think that providing Gay couples with "civil unions" is an acceptable compromise. All the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities to marriage would be extended to Gay couples EXCEPT for the word "marriage." Even though Gay couples would call themselves "married," and even though we would BE, for all intents and purposes, "married," you could still claim that "marriage" is an exclusively heterosexual term.

Will there be laws in place forbidding Gay couples from using the word "marriage" in reference to themselves? What am I missing here?

  • Login to post comments

Because God said so.

Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:24pm.

period.

  • Login to post comments

Because God said so?

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:39pm.

Hmmm ... I just wish that GOD, in His wisdom and omnipotence, would be just a bit more media-savvy in this day and age. I mean, we’re talking about the same God that allegedly created the Universe (just 6,000 years ago, according to some people), flooded the entire Earth, parted the Red Sea, and whose Earthbound avatar came back to life after having assumed room temperature for three days. Why does He insist on taking such a hands-off approach? We have one Book which has been translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, until hardly anyone can agree on what it means. We have dozens of Christian denominations, each with its own unique take on what God expects of us. Wouldn’t God be a little more effective in getting us to behave decently toward one another if He would just put together a website or a television channel or at the very least a 1-800 number? There is a wide variety of contemporary social and economic issues I sure would like to get His opinion on.

  • Login to post comments

Yes, and you're sarcasm and

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:29pm.

Yes, and your sarcasm and mockery of God is really going to get you the results you want.

Keep trying.

Also, so if I don't believe in gay marriage I'm not "behaving decently toward one another"??? Could it be that I just have a different opinion than you and I am entitled to that opinion. It doesn't make me a hate monger, it means I disagree with you.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR NC COP:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 3:30pm.

If your personal religious beliefs inform you that it's wrong for Gay couples to legally marry, I have two suggestions: (1) Do not marry another man, even if he's someone you have fallen hopelessly in love with, and (2) politely decline any invitations to Gay weddings that you should receive.

But keep in mind that not all people of faith feel the same way you do. You are free to conduct your own personal life as you see fit, but don't presume that your personal religious beliefs should be codified as public policy. Your life and marriage will be completely unaffected by the fact that the Gay couple down the street decides to get married also.

  • Login to post comments

Polish Bear

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 7:49pm.

Interesting advice to NC Cop, particularly this: don't presume that your personal religious beliefs should be codified as public policy Do you think YOU could stop trying to get your beliefs codified into public policy? Marriage has always been between two people of the opposite sex. What gives you the right to change it? Other than your personal beliefs I mean.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Rad---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 8:29pm.

That was one hell of a nice shot !

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

⇒ Heh Heh

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 10:13pm.

He said "codified" heh heh, yeah, codified.

  • Login to post comments

LIKE LIKE LIKE

Submitted by dyardley on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 10:10pm.

Well said Rad.

directionforourtimes.org
  • Login to post comments

DEAR RADICAL1979:

Submitted by PolishBear on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:12pm.

There is no effort underway to "change" or "redefine" marriage as it applies to Straight couples. All of my Straight friends who have gotten married? I couldn't be happier for them. Most people always have been and always will be Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

  • Login to post comments

Polish Bear

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:52pm.

Sorry, that make no sense at all. You are still the one trying to change law based on your personal beliefs. Something you said NC Cop shouldn't do.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Bear

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 4:55pm.

My entire objection IS the changing of the legal definition of "marriage." To change this through legislation or court ordered rulings means that "marriage" now means anything. There could be no objection to immediate family members, or multiple people.

Knowing full well how Americans are no longer satisfied with any victory, there would be folks wanting to change the legal definition of "consenting" and "adult." Please don't dismiss that without at least thinking about how litigious we have become. Once these words are changed, there would be no legal objection to animals or children coming into the "marriage" equation.

What I am still wanting to see is the absolute medical or scientific PROOF that homosexuality is anything other than a personal preference about how to have sex. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof. WHY is it that homosexuals are deserving of special legislation? Will you accept the argument that bestialists and pedophiles are "born that way" and deserving of protection when it becomes an issue in 30 or 40 years?

There's no mention of religion or morality in my argument. I'm just looking at the future by evaluating the past. If "marriage" no longer means 1 man, 1 woman, then it means anything that a court or legislative body decides. And if it can change one way through those means, will you accept it if the pendulum swings back the other way?

President Obama is a Muslim (from his own lips), Kenyan (read it from his publicist) a homosexual (read it on a news magazine cover) and a Socialist (I'm alive and can see it for myself)
  • Login to post comments

DEAR TUGBOAT PHIL:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 5:38pm.

These "slippery slope" arguments really are starting to get tiresome.

The State of Virginia used to have an anti-miscegenation statute called the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which essentially told people, "You have every right to get married, as long as you marry someone of the same race as yourself." In 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Virginia law, and I have no doubt there were similar complaints like, "If you allow a good ol' white boy to marry a colored woman, who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to marry a SHEEP?"

As someone who supports marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples, I hear this all the time. People like you say, "If you allow Gay couples to marry, it will almost certainly lead to legalized incest, polygamy, and bestiality."

I would suggest that incest, polygamy, and bestiality have no more to do with a Gay couple marrying than a Straight couple marrying. Otherwise, I could just as easily say, "If you allow a man to marry ONE woman, then you have to allow him to marry as many women as he wants!"

It's ludicrous.

The marriage equality movement is nothing more than an acknowledgment that Gay people exist, that we want nothing more than the right to marry the person we love, and that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR LUDICROUS*

Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 6:03pm.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

 

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/09/14/unethical-quote-of-the-month-canadian-judge-joanne-veit/

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4440

  • Login to post comments

You're just wrong

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:21pm.

You still haven't explained how a man that practices homosexual sex is biologically different from any other man. And regardless of how tired you are of the slippery slope argument, in the real world of legislation and court rulings, there is nothing other than a slippery slope.

When the time comes to redefine "consenting" and "adult" in a legal sense, will you stand against it? Having used the same tactic to get YOUR marriage, how can you? Legally you won't be able to.

My argument isn't that there aren't people that practice homosexuality.  My argument is that regardless of your anecdotal evidence, you CAN'T prove in the medical or scientific realm that you are any different than any one else. 

If I went around saying that I can tell who is and isn't homosexual by their behavior, I'd be labeled a hateful bigot.  But if a homosexual were to say, "Of course I'm gay, can't you tell?'  Then somehow it's supposed to be something identifiable.

And as ridiculous as you claim my arguments to be, and isn't that just laziness on your part, when I say there are people wanting to redefine Consenting and adult, they are out there.

Wouldn't it be better if these lovers could just get married?

President Obama is a Muslim (from his own lips), Kenyan (read it from his publicist) a homosexual (read it on a news magazine cover) and a Socialist (I'm alive and can see it for myself)
  • Login to post comments

LOL, Phil

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:31pm.

That's the most clear cut case of Pomeranian discrimination as I've ever seen.

  • Login to post comments

deleted

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 11:37am.

deleted

  • Login to post comments

that's been my opinion all

Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:17pm.

that's been my opinion all along - but no, gays want to have it all right now. meanwhile we rush headlong into uncharted territory and shrug it off as progress

Congratulations Jimmy Carter!

  • Login to post comments

Sorry Polishbear

Submitted by chiefpayne on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:20pm.

But even IF the SCOTUS DID state that homosexual marriage was legal (and that would be difficult), the homosexuals would STILL lose.

You see, they want to FORCE people to ACCEPT their "marriage" and lifestyle...and that will STILL not happen.

The BEST way to fix this inequality issue as those who are homosexual like to put it, would be for the federal government to recognize ALL legally binding unions as Civil Unions. THAT way the homosexuals could get their "equal rights" and those who marry in a Christian church can refer to themselves as married.

Everyone would be happy that way.

Oh and for the record, IMO, if a church does marry a homosexual group, that church is NOT a Christian church. Even if they claim to be, they cannot be because they are going against the Christian Bible which is the foundation of a Christian church.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR CHIEF PAYNE:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 2:00pm.

Whether or not YOU accept marriage equality for Gay couples is irrelevant. It's no skin off MY back.

I understand that most churches are not willing to marry Gay couples. If it makes you feel any bettewr, they will never be FORCED to marry Gay couples, any more than they are forced to marry Muslim or Atheist or Jewish couples. But again it's irrelevant, since none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church, they come from the government.

There are some churches that ARE willing to marry Gay couples. Whether you think those churches are not authentically Christian is irrelevant also.

  • Login to post comments

I see it now...

Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:10am.

After reading many, many of your "Oh whoa is we..." posts I see what you are doing... You are wanting SO bad that someone here will throw out a "fag" or "twink" or "homo" or anything along that line so you can run back to DU and say "See, see, those conservatives are ALL a bunch of homophobes!" Guess we haven't turned out like you wanted huh? You are too transparent PB! We could care less about your lifestyle, we love you, not your sin. Get over it, you already have equal rights as does every American, period. You want SPECIAL rights, sorry, that's not what we are about. One person, one vote, all equal under the Constitution. You aren't special in any way, we are all the same under the law of the land. Stop pretending you and yours are so put upon... ask the Jewish folks about being spit on, get over yourself, you aren't any more special than I am, we operate under the same Constitution whether you like it or not! Whining get's you nowhere PB, stop it.

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!
  • Login to post comments

Frank Rich

Submitted by John21 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:04pm.

So according to Frank Rich and his very limited understanding of the art world all Ballet Backers are gay. A conservative says this same kind of nonsense would be hung out to dry but since it is a bigot of the liberal persuasion it is acceptable.

Only in the mind of a far left liberal could this be called logic instead of bias. Does this mean Mr. Rich is pro gay or just stupid?

  • Login to post comments

Apparantly, not all ballet

Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:04pm.

Apparantly, not all ballet fans are like Roni Reagan and Rhambo Emmanuelle................or Rachel Madcow.

  • Login to post comments

No way

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:08pm.

I don't want to see gay rights.  Why should they have something any different than what everyone else has?

And if it's about marriage, as they see it, they are wrong.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

DEAR JON TORLIN:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:26pm.

You ask, "Why should they have something any different than what everyone else has?"

Let's see:

Have Straight people ever had to worry about being fired from their jobs because the boss found out they were Straight?

Have Straight people ever been denied the opportunity to adopt children because of their sexual orientation?

Have Straight people ever been kicked out of the military solely because of who they are dating on their own time?

Has a Straight person ever been prohibited from marrying another non-related adult person that they love?

NO?

Then why should Gay people have to worry about these things?

  • Login to post comments

yes but fighting this with

Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:32pm.

yes but fighting this with laws is legislating morality - which the left supposedly abhors

Congratulations Jimmy Carter!

  • Login to post comments

Let's see:

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 3:45pm.

Job discrimination: we already have laws on the books to prevent that.

Children: Children are not pets. it is in the overall interest of society at large for children to be raised in traditional nuclear families. This is undeniable.

Military: fixed.

Last: The word marry is already taken. Come up with another one, and get the IRS to recognize that word as good enough to be able to file jointly (which I happen to think IS unfair). Same thing with insurance and inheritance law. So find a good word, and go with it.

  • Login to post comments

For those who argue....

Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 12:54pm.

that "separate but equal is not equal", then why do we have other laws, i.e. "hate crimes", which name homosexuals for special treatment?

  • Login to post comments

DEAR ALMOSTACOWBOY:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:00pm.

The federal hate crimes law does not just apply to homosexuals. It applies to heterosexuals as well. The law refers to crimes of violence against persons that are motivated by "sexual orientation." And that's the thing about sexual orientation: EVERYBODY HAS ONE.

So if a bunch of Gay men catch some poor guy coming out of a Straight bar, and beat him up presumably because he is heterosexual, they are equally liable for prosecution under the federal hate crimes statute.

Hope that makes you feel better.

  • Login to post comments

EVERYBODY HAS ONE?

Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:09pm.

I don't think I have one..except maybe towards lithuanians..does that count?

  • Login to post comments

I dunno, mandrake - I think

Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:22pm.

I dunno, mandrake - I think there's some very beautiful women in Lithuania!!!

  • Login to post comments

DEAR MANDRAKE:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:39pm.

My own ancestry is part Lithuanian. Should I be flattered?

  • Login to post comments

I guess so

Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:57pm.

My wife is Lithuanian..most beautiful women on the planet..not really attracted to you though :)

  • Login to post comments

Really??? I can't seem to

Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:17pm.

Really??? I can't seem to recall ever hearing, or reading, about a 'straight, white guy' EVER being a victim in a 'hate crime' case, to tell you the truth. And since when did a crime - which has a definition attached to it - become a 'hate crime' - which has the SAME definition, except with a couple of added politically correct words attached to it???

And, growing up in Hawaii, I could say a few things about 'hate crimes' - as they relate to 'white people',except that I've never bought into this whole concept of 'hate crimes', and I can guaran-damn-tee you that the whole concept of the law was motivated by political correctness, 'racism', 'homophobia', and the rest of the excuses and alibis that we constantly hear about, designed to re-calibrate our social and political thought processes.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR KILLA37:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:25pm.

People err when assuming that expanding the hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation (meaning Gay AND Straight, by the way) will “criminalize” a person’s thoughts. The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them.

But there is a BIG difference between expressing personal prejudice against a group, and being motivated by that prejudice to attack someone’s person or property. I don’t care if Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity or Lou Sheldon hurl their anti-Gay invective until the cows come home; but if someone uses Scripture as a justification for beating up someone who is Gay, that’s a different story.

Likewise when it comes to delineating between different crimes against property: There’s a big moral and ethical difference between someone who spraypaints a “tag” on a highway overpass, and someone who spraypaints swastikas on the front of a synagogue.

Until conservatives mount a concerted effort to repeal the federal hate crimes statute that has been in effect for past 40 years, I’ll continue to see their arguments against the legislation that President Obama signed as pretty disingenuous.

  • Login to post comments

I'm still

Submitted by bobsmom on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:27pm.

trying to puzzle out who will be convicted for the "hate crime" I read about the other day where 3 lesbians beat up a gay man. There's a conundrum for the PC crowd. I think we should start a pool.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR BOBSMOM:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:36pm.

This really depends on the motivation for the assault, and ultimately that's up to a judge to determine. The incident occurred after the guy "bumped into" the women in a subway stairwell. Did they know he was Gay? Was racial prejudice a factor? There are a lot of questions about this case I would like to see answered in court.

  • Login to post comments

Hmm

Submitted by bobsmom on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:43pm.

was not aware there was a racial component to it at all. And while I am truly not interested in having any of the questions answered in court, I think it's going to cause some major confusion all around since all the above are the "victims" as we are often told. Bet they sue the city and the subway.

  • Login to post comments

PolishBear - I'll tell you

Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:46pm.

PolishBear - I'll tell you straight upfront- I'm a blue collar country boy, and also kind of a simpleton - so I'll re-ask the same question as I did in my first post............................when did a crime become a 'hate crime'??? And I'm not interested for one second in all of the nuances and explanations and ring-around-the-rosies about the justification of it either.

  • Login to post comments

DEAR KILLA37:

Submitted by PolishBear on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 2:12pm.

According to Wikipedia:

"The modern era of hate-crime legislation was begun in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin."

This was over 40 years before the current federal hate crimes statute was expanded to include sexual orientation as a protected category.

From Wikipedia:

"A hate crime is a legal category used to described bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion."

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters."

  • Login to post comments

Which, of course, is much

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 8:18pm.

Which, of course, is much worse than assault, injury and murder for other reasons. So if my mother is murdered by someone wanting money, they won't get as much time as someone who murders for reasons of bigotry.

That makes perfect sense.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, Polish...........as

Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 2:31am.

Yeah, Polish...........as long as their race or color isn't 'white', and their religion isn't some form of Christianity or Judaism, and their national origin is from somewhere else besides here in the USA. I was right on my first assessment, and after two different sets of alibis, excuses, explanations, and politically correct reasoning.................I'm STILL RIGHT!!!

I might be a country boy, but I'm also 'country-dumb'.................and these libs don't fool me ONE BIT with their bullsh*t!!!

  • Login to post comments

While

Submitted by bobsmom on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 1:25pm.

the major point of discussion here is around gay rights, etc, I'm having a hard time getting by this particular sentence:

"And they've really got to be called on it and they`ve got to be called on it by Democrats as well as people like us." As uttered by Mr Rich. I'd like his definition of what he meant about "people like us".

And I guess, since I have season tickets to the Tigers, I must now make sure to support Jock Itch and Athlete's Foot products, is that right Mr Rich and Mr Maddow? Is that the rationale?

  • Login to post comments

Rich

Submitted by mmilesll on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 2:05pm.

Another "truly rich" remark from Rich. Idiots never do know when to STFU do they.

  • Login to post comments

Is Rich saying there's such a thing as a homophobic ballet fan?

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 4:34pm.

LOL. Show me one, Frank. Just one.

  • Login to post comments

Mandatory Support? Homophobic What?

Submitted by stratman on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 8:12pm.

Someone forgot to print that on the contract for my yearly subscription to The Cleveland Ballet. Never saw it on my tickets, in the programs, or on posters outside the theater nor did I ever hear in the happy cocktail chatter during intermissions.

Using Rich's childish logic, homosexuals who buy something produced by non-homosexuals should not support gay marraige. That would go over big time in San Francisco.

Frank Rich creates controversy out of whole cloth. Again.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
  • The folly of 'do something' liberalism (Patriot Update)
  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • NYT Gets Sen. Cruz's Opposition to Marketplace Fairness Act Dead Wrong
  • Oops! CNN Commentator Falsely Accuses Okla. State Rep While Trying to Score Liberal Points on Tornado
  • Sen. Whitehouse Blames GOP For Okla. Tornado, Storms, Rising Seas, Etc.
  • On Leno: Kids Ask Obama the Darndest Questions
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use