Dean Chambers is Hilarious

Dean Chambers, the git who humiliated himself with those “unskewed polls,” clearly has a big future as a wingnut pundit. Like all the other great ones, he is capable of writing the most astonishingly stupid things while remaining utterly oblivious to how ridiculous he is. Like did you know that “same-sex marriage is actually marriage inequality”? I didn’t either. But he does:

The real issue of same-sex marriage, or “gay marriage” as some call it, is allowing just three percent of the population to redefine marriage from something entirely different than what the word has meant for thousands of years.

Yeah, just like the Civil Rights Act was allowing just 13% of the population to redefine who could and couldn’t eat at a lunch counter for thousands of years. Wait, the percentage of people who benefit from equality has nothing to do with whether equality is a good thing? Gosh, I would never have guessed.

They aren’t seeking equal rights for those involved in these other kinds of relationships, they are seeking special rights for those involved in their relationships that those in “same-sex marriages” as they call them would not enjoy. Just this past week, actor Jeremy Irons pointed out how a father and son could exploit gay marriage “rights” by getting married and the father passes real estate to the son without paying inheritance taxes on it. This is just one of many not yet thought of unintended consequences that will come from the far left’s “marriage equality” agenda.

Uh, Dean…I don’t know how to break this to you, but daughters can inherit money too. So what is preventing a father from marrying his daughter in order to get out of paying inheritance taxes? Oh, right — you can’t marry your children. Just think of this as an unintended consequence of you being a fucking moron.

Comments

  1. Ben P says

    Not to mention that if a father wants to pass land to his son without paying an “inheritance tax.” Well…

    1. as long as the estate is worth less than 5 million, you don’t have to worry about it at all. Likewise if that “estate” primarily consists of a family farm, because those are except.

    2. He could you know, just sell it to the son for a discounted rate some time prior to death, and the chances of the IRS trying to claw that back as fraudulent are small, even if the facts were pretty outrageous.

    3. There are about 50,001 ways to avoid that via trusts, none of which involve marrying your child.

  2. Doug Little says

    just this past week, actor Jeremy Irons pointed out how a father and son could exploit gay marriage “rights” by getting married and the father passes real estate to the son without paying inheritance taxes on it.

    Holy Fuck, this is a glowing endorsement of this guy either being a fucking moron or a raving misogynist who doesn’t think women can inherit property… strike that he is both of those things.

  3. freebird says

    When you’re relying on actors to do your thinking for you instead of people who would know better, you deserved to be ridiculed.

  4. Synfandel says

    This is one of a myriad of variations on the theme that boils down to: if you don’t follow all of God’s rules (as I define them), then you obviously don’t follow any rules at all, you anarchist.

  5. says

    What makes this rationale irritating for me is that he doesn’t acknowledge heterosexuals who also want to redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples. Of course, that’s probably a calculated propaganda point (or a parroting of a calculated point) intended to oversimplify it into “us versus teh gheys.” He doesn’t want his echo chamber followers from figuring out that their real enemy is a much larger community with reasoned, consistent morality that rejects arbitrary distinctions.

  6. D. C. Sessions says

    So what is preventing a father from marrying his daughter in order to get out of paying inheritance taxes?

    Uh — the fact that, in accord with Biblical law — females can’t inherit?

    Of course, there’s always the Davidic/Solomonic method: marry a trophy wife, she marries your son after you die. When she dies, he gets everything.

    We all know women are stupid, so she’ll never suspect that she’s just baggage for the moolah.

  7. says

    Uh, Dean…I don’t know how to break this to you, but daughters can inherit money too. So what is preventing a father from marrying his daughter in order to get out of paying inheritance taxes?

    The religious right will understand this point, because to them, everything falls into one of two categories: Jesus-approved or “sin”. Marriage between one man and one woman he purchased from her father for seven goats is not related to is Jesus-approved. Homosexuality is “sin.” So is incest (both same and opposite sex) and bestiality. In their minds, once you open the door to one sin, you’ve opened it for all. So, Jesus-approved marriage can never lead to fathers marrying their daughters but gay marriage will.

  8. DaveL says

    @10,

    Yup. This is exactly the same cognitive mechanism that allows them to believe, without noticing any inconsistency, that the very same men who will refuse to procreate with women once we allow them to marry men would still stand ready to be overcome by lust and rape those same women should they dare to appear in public provocatively dressed.

  9. says

    This seems to be becoming a standard obfuscation-point for right-wingers trying to roll back all forms of antidiscrimination policies: trot out all kinds of twisted logic and word-salad to show that equal rights is really unequal. We see it, for example, in “Professor” Harmless Rape Landsburg’s blog post about how laws against hiring discrimination are unfair because they coerce employers in their hiring decisions, but don’t coerce employees to accept jobs. (IIRC he called it “sideways discrimination.”)

  10. says

    Funny how wingnuts like to bash celebrities who give their opinions on political issues except when that celebrity says something they agree with.

  11. lofgren says

    Wait, the percentage of people who benefit from equality has nothing to do with whether equality is a good thing?

    The percentage of people who benefit from equality does have something to do with whether equality is a good thing. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. said: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

  12. Stacy says

    Like did you know that “same-sex marriage is actually marriage inequality”?

    I’ve heard a variation of this. I once argued online with a man who claimed that in demanding marriage equality, LGBTQ people wanted “special rights.” Somehow he never did explain just what was so “special” about the right being demanded. I did ask.

  13. iangould says

    The blinding obvious flaw in his argument is that it isn’t only gay who support marriage equality just as i twasn’t only people in interracial relationships who opposed miscegnation laws.

  14. dingojack says

    So let me see if I have got this right.
    a) Teh Gheyz wanting to get married is claiming ‘special rights’
    b) straights have been getting married (the exact same way apparently) for ‘thousands of years’

    So marriage has some kind of ‘special’ advantage that the Teh Ghey can’t have (’cause it’s ICCKY or sumptin’) that straights have been able to access for a long time (‘thousands of years’ ie since c 16th century).
    But a special right restricted to one group of people, and withheld from another, isn’t ‘privilege’ that violates the concept of all being equal before the law, oh no never!
    @@
    Dingo

  15. bificommander says

    You gotta love those people that simultaniously say “Gays already have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, they’re both allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex” and “We can’t let gays marry someone of the same sex, that’s unfair because that’s a kind of marriage only for them”.

    No, wait, “love” is the wrong word. “Despise”, that’s more like it.

    Don’t worry, concerned heterosexuals who have nothing against gays but just can’t stand the unfairness. If gay marriage is legal you’ll have the same right to marry someone of the same sex as gays. Sure, you probably don’t want to marry someone of a gender you’re not attracted to. But hey, that’s the same fair offer you gave the gays.

  16. thisisaturingtest says

    @#16, Stacy:

    I once argued online with a man who claimed that in demanding marriage equality, LGBTQ people wanted “special rights.” Somehow he never did explain just what was so “special” about the right being demanded. I did ask.

    It’s a “special” right because it’s not already theirs, it’s the heterosexual’s only. IOW, these people are confusing “right” with “privilege.”
    @#21, bificommander:

    You gotta love those people that simultaniously say “Gays already have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, they’re both allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex” and “We can’t let gays marry someone of the same sex, that’s unfair because that’s a kind of marriage only for them”.

    I’d tell those folks not to worry; once it’s established that an equal right is really equal and no longer defines marriage based on sexual orientation, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex as homosexuals.

  17. scienceavenger says

    What is it with Rightwingers and child rape? It seems to be the first thing that pops into their head in any discussion of marriage rules. It’s as if they are acknowledging that the only thing that keeps them from marrying children is the laws against it.

  18. escuerd says

    I know that you favor prevention
    Of the things that your cult sees as bad,
    But thick as you are, pay attention!
    Kids already can’t marry their dad.

    It’s clear from your arguments’ reaching
    That you’re not being all that sincere,
    And it’s no more convincing than preaching
    That god hates those of us who are queer.

    So be prepared for increasing inclusion.
    Be prepared for sensational news.
    A shining new era
    Is tiptoeing nearer.
    You didn’t expect it,
    But you can accept it.

    You may find it sordid
    But you’re being thwarted
    In denying gay people their due,
    An injustice deliciously squared
    Be prepared!

    [Chambers et al.]
    This looks like a good way of cheating
    The death tax that we strongly oppose.
    [/Chambers et al.]

    Of course, notwithstanding your bleating
    It works not quite as you suppose.
    The future will hold some surprises.
    And although there’ll be fraud, I confess
    A point that we must emphasize is,
    The law won’t apply any less!

    So be prepared to be called on your bullshit!
    Be prepared to give up stupid claims.
    Ridiculous chatter
    Is not gonna matter.
    Decades of oppression
    Explains the obsession
    With rights undisputed, respected and rooted
    In sound constitutional law.
    Yes Dean Chambers is desperate and scared.
    Be prepared!

Leave a Reply