Bigoted NY Clerk Gets a Challenger »« The Second Coming of Bill Buckingham

Pat Buchanan’s Bizarro History

Pat Buchanan appeared on the Diane Rehm show this week and took a break from his usual racial bigotry to go old school and bring back his anti-gay bigotry. And he had some seriously twisted history to justify it:

REHM: And another question. “You’ve written in your columns of homosexuality, that in a healthy society, it will be contained, segregated, controlled, and stigmatized. You’ve also called homosexuality a disorder that can be handled with therapy. Do you still stand by those statements?”

BUCHANAN: Well, the statement that homosexuality is disordered is a statement from Pope Benedict in Rome, as well. It’s the view of the Catholic Church.

REHM: And you accept that?

BUCHANAN: Well, I believe that homosexuality is — that it is unnatural activity. Unnatural and immoral. I realize individuals are maybe born — nature or nurture, I don’t know what it is — I assume nobody actually gets to be 13 or 14 and suddenly chooses this. But I do think — and people may not be able to control their orientation — but I do believe as a Catholic that people can control their conduct. And that is where I think, I would say, that kind of conduct should be discouraged in a good society, in a healthy society. And it used to be discouraged. And I do think that the idea that men can marry men and women marry women in the USA is a sign of a civilization in its final throes. I mean, we saw things like this at the end of the Weimar Republic. Things like this at the end of the Roman Empire. And they are attendant to a declining nation and a declining civilization.

We saw same-sex marriage at the end of the Weimar Republic? Life on Planet Wingnuttia just gets stranger and stranger. Oh, and he says he wouldn’t throw gay people in jail — he just thinks the states should do so:

REHM: So if you were in charge somehow, you would outlaw these behaviors?

BUCHANAN: No, I would — I think the way we did it for 200 years in this country, this great melting pot country — was we left it to the states to decide. And that’s what I would do.

REHM: Leave it to the states to —

BUCHANAN: Yeah, I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. Was it Lawrence, I believe was the name of the Supreme Court decision that struck down seventeen state laws? I disagreed with that decision and I agreed with Judge Scalia’s dissent.

Because if the state oppresses you, it’s almost like you’re not being oppressed at all.

Comments

  1. ewanmacdonald says

    Buchanan isn’t a libertarian, but his ‘states’ rights’ logic is one of many reasons why I am no longer a libertarian. In the US many libertarians labour under the misapprehension that it’s only illiberal, only anti-freedom if it’s done by the federal government. The national level LP can wash its hands of difficult decisions by leaving it to the states – who then of course can implement any amount of legislation that’s counter to libertarian principles, but it’s alright because, well, they’re the states. And the state party can abdicate its pro-freedom responsibilities down to the counties, and the counties to the cities, and the cities to the districts, until people are being put in stocks in the village square by their fathers, and it’s all perfectly fine because the federal government isn’t involved :) It’s illiberal turtles all the way down.

  2. coragyps says

    Things like this at the end of the Roman Empire.

    Yeah, the end of the Roman Empire…..
    The Really Scandalous emperors were before 100 CE, right? Over two centuries before the Empire became Christian? Nearly four centuries before it fell?

    What a maroon.

  3. says

    “Things like this at the end of the Roman Empire. And they are attendant to a declining nation and a declining civilization.”

    Other things that happened at the end of the Roman Empire:

    Wide spread adoption of Christianity by ruling elites.(1)
    The adoption of a flat tax(2).
    An dramatic increase in the popularity of Country & Western music. (3).

    (1. Not that it had anything to do with the eventual collapse)
    (2. Not intended to be a factual statement.)
    (3. Not intended to be factual, but to get the reader to think about the relationship between Billy Ray Cyrus and the collapse of western society.)
    FSM and chemistry

  4. imrryr says

    Things like this at the end of the Roman Empire.

    It seems that Pat doesn’t know much about the history of the Roman Empire either. I’m sure no one’s surprised.

  5. helenaconstantine says

    There was never any gay marriage in the Roman Empire wither, certainly not at its end which came after more than a century of being a Catholic theocracy. The thing that the gay community itself point in Rome is the two marriage ceremonies that Suetonius mentions in which Nero married men–once as the bride and once as the groom. Even if anything like that happened (and it is as likely as not that Suetonius is reporting a malicious rumor), it is clear from the context that Nero did this for the purpose of being transgressive, because it outraged common opinion and the law; moreover the ceremonies were simply for show; he certainly never lived with either of the men in any kind of long-term stable relationship. The comparanda would not be actual gay marriage, but the fake marriage ceremonies performed out of purient interest in de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom.

  6. says

    ewanmcdonald wrote:

    Buchanan isn’t a libertarian, but his ‘states’ rights’ logic is one of many reasons why I am no longer a libertarian. In the US many libertarians labour under the misapprehension that it’s only illiberal, only anti-freedom if it’s done by the federal government. The national level LP can wash its hands of difficult decisions by leaving it to the states – who then of course can implement any amount of legislation that’s counter to libertarian principles, but it’s alright because, well, they’re the states. And the state party can abdicate its pro-freedom responsibilities down to the counties, and the counties to the cities, and the cities to the districts, until people are being put in stocks in the village square by their fathers, and it’s all perfectly fine because the federal government isn’t involved

    You have just discovered one of the most basic splits among libertarians. This is largely how I define the difference between right wing and left wing libertarians. It comes down to whether one supports the 14th amendment or not. The right wing libertarians — the Ron Paul / Lew Rockwell crowd — is opposed to the 14th amendment and sees that as the beginning of the end for limited government. The pro-14th amendment types, like Randy Barnett, strongly disagree. This is one of the main reasons why I can’t support Ron Paul even while I agree with much of what he has to say on civil liberties issues.

  7. carbonbasedlifeform says

    Once more, a conservative shows that what he means by “I believe in liberty for the individual” actually means “I believe in liberty for the individual to do anything I personally approve of.”

  8. lordshipmayhem says

    but I do believe as a Catholic that people can control their conduct.

    Like, say, the kiddie-diddlers priests are (not) able to control their conduct?

  9. says

    “No, I would — I think the way we did it for 200 years in this country, this great melting pot country —”

    The “great melting pot country” that allowed scum like Mr. Pukecannon to float to the top.

  10. Pierce R. Butler says

    After seeing the headline, I was looking forward to an exposition of Pat Buchanan’s personal bizarro history…

  11. Tualha says

    Not marriage of course, but I seem to recall that pre-Hitler Germany did have unusually liberal laws concerning homosexuality and a thriving gay community, due to the efforts of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, and, I suppose, those who came after him.

    Then the Nazis killed a lot of them, and the American occupiers saw no problem with leaving the rest imprisoned. Sure, let everyone else out, but not those nasty queers.

  12. Silent Service says

    Actually there was a push in the Weimar Republic to repeal anti-LGBT laws. It came crashing to an end when he who shall not be named was named Chancellor since there was no way that any repeal was going to make it past the Reichstag after that point. Of course Buchanan will want to claim that the acceptance of LGBT people continued after that point, but history shows us that is not true.

  13. ambulocetacean says

    States’ rights, states’ rights… What about the states’ right to allow gay marriage?

    And does the eeevil federal government suddenly become good should it legislate over the top of that right?

  14. dizzlski says

    Ed at comment 6 very succinctly explains the right/left split when it comes to libertarians. It makes so much sense that it will probably be vilified soon.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply