Quantcast

«

»

Jul 02 2013

Wiles: Americans Will Flee to Cuba to Escape Gay Marriage!

Of all the reactions from wingnuts to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality rulings, I was really waiting to see two of them: Rick Wiles of TruNews and Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio. They make other wingnuts seem almost reasonable by comparison. Wiles did not disappoint, saying, “Life in America changed today to life in Mystery Babylon.” Ooh, goody, this should be fun.

Tyranny! Communism! Illegal immigrants! Oh, and all these things combined will lead to this:

Why do I have this gnawing feeling in my gut that the real reason to militarize the border is not to keep the Mexicans out but to keep the Americans in? It is looking increasingly obvious that the national security apparatus is systematically locking down the country. At some point Americans desiring to flee the growing tyranny in the USA will not be allowed to leave, and we’ll have to float on rafts to Cuba to get away from El Presidente Obama’s Communist revolution.

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.

29 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Roger

    Growing tyranny, eh? So when do I get my government-issued jackboots and pleather rainbow-colored faux-SS uniform?

  2. 2
    some bastard on the net

    Oh, and all these things combined will lead to this:

    For some reason, this made me imagine a wingnut spinoff of Captain Planet.

    Gays! Immigrants! Tyranny! Communism! Obama!

    By your powers combined, I am The End of America!

  3. 3
    Gregory in Seattle

    @Roger #1 – The Gaystapo wear kinky boots nowadays: jackboots are SO last season.

  4. 4
    Larry

    When?

  5. 5
    yoav

    Isn’t militarization of the border exactly what these assholes were demanding for years now? And after reading Wiles latest column I’m sure Castro’s first reaction was to order the Cuban coastguard to beef up their patrols.

  6. 6
    matty1

    Isn’t Mystery Babylon a reggae group?

  7. 7
    Moggie

    If you’re fleeing communism, maybe Cuba isn’t the best place for you. Also, shakes fist at matty1 for beating me to the reggae gag.

  8. 8
    matty1

    I’m just disappointed I can’t think of a Guantanamo joke, there has to be one.

  9. 9
    dingojack

    Rick – you could always take your people to the promised land – Mexico. (oh wait now*)
    Dingo
    ——–
    * from FoAW:

    On 21 December 2009, the Federal District’s Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early March 2010.[119] On 10 August 2010, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that while not every state must grant same-sex marriages, they must all recognize those performed where they are legal.[120]
    On 28 November 2011, the first two same-sex marriages occurred in Quintana Roo after it was discovered that Quintana Roo’s Civil Code did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage,[121] but these marriages were later annulled by the governor of Quintana Roo in April 2012.[122] In May 2012, the Secretary of State of Quintana Roo reversed the annulments and allowed for future same-sex marriages to be performed in the state.[123]“

    Footnotes:
    119. “Mexico City’s gay marriage law takes effect”. MSNBC. Associated Press. 4 March 2010. Retrieved 6 March 2010.
    120. “Supreme court rules gay weddings valid in all Mexico”. BBC News. 10 August 2010.
    121. Brisa Muñoz (2 December 2011). “Dos matrimonios homosexuales se casaron en un municipio conservador” (in Spanish). CNN México. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
    122. Santana, Rosa (17 April 2012). “Anula gobernador de Quintana Roo dos bodas gay; lo acusan de homofóbico”. Proceso (in Spanish). Comunicación e Información, S.A. de C.V. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
    123 Varillas, Adriana (3 May 2012). “Revocan anulación de bodas gay en QRoo”. El Universal (in Spanish). Retrieved 13 June 2012.

  10. 10
    blorf

    Castro please, please,please, take a page from Putin and grant them clemency, but only if they STOP TALKING?

  11. 11
    matty1

    @9 Poor America surrounded by homomarriage on both sides.

  12. 12
    timgueguen

    Apparently these two banannabrains don’t believe in the “Second Amendment Remedy,” which is probably a good thing..

  13. 13
    John Pieret

    Why take rafts? I’m sure a lot of us will chip in to get you a luxury liner if you and your ilk just promise never to come back.

  14. 14
    iangould

    “@9 Poor America surrounded by homomarriage on both sides.”

    You’re the meat in a Manwich.

  15. 15
    steve84

    Cuba will have same-sex marriage before the entire US does.

  16. 16
    lldayo

    I’m going to start a business building rafts out of old flags and Toby Keith hats. Wingnuts will make me RICH!

  17. 17
    matty1

    Wikipediaquotes Carlos Sanchez of the International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association for the Latin America and Caribbean Region as saying.

    “Lesbians and gays do not consider fighting for the right to marriage, because that institution in Cuba does not have the same value that it has in other countries. Unmarried and married people enjoy equal rights.”

    Now to what extent he is just covering for the Cuban government is not clear but it seems possible that Cuba has yet to see a movement for same sex marriage so we don’t know how they would react.

  18. 18
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Certainly for me, as a queer person, I’d find the government getting right out of the business of marriage altogether a perfectly acceptable response. If the government ended all the privileges of being legally married, then whether or not people get married would be pretty much left between the people involved in the decision, where it belongs.

    Privilege for all or none, works just fine in this case. The problem is and has been the four-legs-good-two-legs-bad approach the government’s taken to marriage generally. As we’ve seen again and again, separate-but-equal is rarely equal.

  19. 19
    bmiller

    matty1:

    The Cuban response is interesting.

    To a degree the focus on marriage is somewhat problematical in itself. Why are married people considered “special” under the law isn’t that an underlying problem?

    Note that given the realities of how our society is structured, it is fantastic that gay equality is expanding to include marriage. But some argue that the real problem is the fundamental institution itself.

  20. 20
    shouldbeworking

    At least the crazies aren’t threatening to invade come to Canada. We have enough of our own.

  21. 21
    matty1

    There is an attraction to ‘privatising’ marriage but it could be pushed too far.

    Take the example of hospital visitation rights, these impose duties on a third party (the hospital), which private contracts cannot normally do. If I draw up a contract to sell you my car I can’t write into it that the guy next door has to buy us both a pizza*. A form of contract that places obligations on those who are not parties needs to be explicitly set out in law together with ways for those obligations to be enforced and that is (among other things) what state recognised marriage does.

    There are though a lot of things the government shouldn’t do with regards to marriage.

    - Impose conditions on who can marry beyond their being consenting and able to consent (no children or people with a mental illness so severe they don’t know what they are doing)
    - Make requirements for the marriage ceremony beyond those needed to ensure the parties freely consent (no rules about where you can marry, who can officiate or the words you have to recite just a declaration to sign or say yes to in the presence of a witness)
    - More controversially give special tax breaks to people on the grounds they are married

    I’d also like to see an end to the societal expectations that marriage requires you to celebrate in certain ways that not everyone may enjoy.

    *I am not suggesting the right to visit a loved one in hospital is as trivial as this example.

  22. 22
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    How about, “Anyone in hospital can choose who gets to visit them based on their own criteria, and not a narrowly-monogamy-normative one?” If the person isn’t able to indicate whom they want there, they’re most likely going to be unable to notice whether they have visitors. If the law can say “you have to let married people visit one another”, it can as easily say, “the hospitalized get to choose”.

    Least harm, least regulation, patient-centred, agency-encouraging. Win win win win.

    But in any case, we should hardly be discouraged from a useful social-justice goal simply because it might be tricky to write the legislation.

  23. 23
    Moggie

    matty1:

    Poor America surrounded by homomarriage on both sides.

    “Come out with your hands up! We’ve got you surrounded!”

  24. 24
    matty1

    If the person isn’t able to indicate whom they want there, they’re most likely going to be unable to notice whether they have visitors.

    But in that case visiting is for the benefit of the visitor not the unconscious person. Some of the most heartbreaking stories around the gay marriage issue have been people prevented from seeing their spouse for the last time because they didn’t meet the hospital’s definition of next of kin. You can’t solve this by letting the staff guess who should be allowed in without leaving bigots with this kind of veto.

    The point about monogamy is a good one I wouldn’t limit the number of people in the room until they were so many they got in the way of medical treatment but I would want some way for the patient to pre-specify “These people must be allowed to see me if I’m not able to ask to see them” and have that upheld by the law.

    I don’t think we are far apart, I would strip down most of what is called marriage to a simple declaration “If I can’t make my wishes known at the time this is what they are and these are the people involved” but I do still think that needs a different legal structure to purely private agreements or commercial contracts.

  25. 25
    kermit.

    CaitieCat. one problem with letting the hospital choose is that some have already chosen to prevent a gay or lesbian from visiting his sick partner, reflecting the local culture values, and I’m sure that some would make similar decisions based on ethnicity or accent or religion.
    .
    But in any case, we should hardly be discouraged from a useful social-justice goal simply because it might be tricky to write the legislation.
    .
    Actually, considering the current gang of sociopaths, cowards, and lunatics infesting our legislative halls, I would consider that to be a strong argument for at least postponing it. Also, any laws written now will be poisoned by the machinations of faceless financial elites or by religious fanatics. If we got a bunch of poorly-written, confusing laws as a result (cf the US tax code), can you imagine the series of fights requiring each one to get corrected?
    .
    We’re winning the marriage fight. Let’s keep the nuanced and reasoned arguments for a legislature (or voting population) that can hear them.

  26. 26
    yoav

    @CaitieCat #22
    It’s not really about who can visit and bring flowers. If you get in an accident and brought to the hospital unconscious then your spouse as next of kin has to make medical decisions on your behalf, as far as I know you can’t, under the current legal standards, designate someone who isn’t an immediate family member (parent, sibling, child) or your legal spouse as next of kin for that purpose. If we change that law and make it so you can designate whoever you want then the hospital would have to have their lawyers examine the marriage agreement made by any patient in order to verify that they have indeed included the medical decision clause unless you make the private marriage agreement nationally uniform by law in which case why not use the existing standardized agreement we currently call marriage instead of paying a private lawyer to draw you the exact same agreement.

  27. 27
    steve84

    @yoav
    But you should be able to. There are already Medical Powers and Attorney and shit like that. But it’s still too restrictive. And hospitals still ignore them.

    Let’s take two 70ish old friends who live together to help each other in the household. Why shouldn’t they be able to designate each other to make medical decisions?

  28. 28
    yoav

    Steve84, if it’s a scheduled surgery then you have the time to make sure that person Y has the power of attorney to make medical decisions on your behalf but in an emergency the hospital can’t take the time to review your agreement to make sure it was written so it covers medical decision, if they even have a way to find out about it (see my example above), so they would contact your next of kin as determined by law.

  29. 29
    matty1

    Let’s take two 70ish old friends who live together to help each other in the household. Why shouldn’t they be able to designate each other to make medical decisions?

    Yes of course they should, it’s just that there needs to be a standardised format to do that, which will avoid the lawyer problem yoav talks about. For the rest I think I’m on record as being against the concept of a ‘sham’ marriage – if someone wants to name another person as next of kin for medical decisions and so on that should be separate from any assumptions we make about their sexual/ romantic lives just as it should be separate from any religious celebration they want.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site