The GOP Needs to Learn to Read Lyrics »« Kinchlow’s Inaccurate Accusations

Comments

  1. cptdoom says

    Regarding the Congressmen who voted for DOMA – Gordon, Kennedy didn’t have to look into their hearts to see their animus, he only had to read the Congressional Record.

  2. John Pieret says

    Kennedy is “looking at Jesus in us and calling him evil.

    No, he is looking at the bigotry in you and calling it no basis under the Constitution to treat similarly situated people differently.

  3. ccogan says

    I don’t think Jesus said anything against same-sex marriage, did he? Did he say that a marriage could only be one man and one woman? I doubt it. It looks like Klingenschmitt is simply shoving his own nasty bigotry onto Jesus because he has no reality-based arguments. Instead of facts and rational argument, he appeals to an “authority” who, if he existed at all, apparently didn’t even express the views Klingenschmitt implicitly attributes to him.

    But, since the Biblical Jesus is fundamentally a fictional character, Klingenschmitt’s argument fails even before it starts.

  4. zippythepinhead says

    Technically, the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutional issue of same-sex marriage at all. They ruled DOMA unconstitutional sure, but that was whether the federal government could discriminate against existing same-sex marriages. And in Prop 8, they ruled the Prop 8 proponents had no standing, essentially letting the existing district court ruling stand. So SCOTUS did not technically change any marriage laws anywhere let alone redefine marriage.

  5. Cal says

    Is he saying that Justice Kennedy has X-Ray vision? That is all I could think of as he was talking…

  6. ccogan says

    Addendum to my previous comment: the word “only” in the second sentence should have been italicized or bolded. Klingenschmitt says Jesus is defining marriage as one man and one woman, but there is little basis in Jesus’s quoted remark to suppose that he was actually giving a strict formal definition of marriage as necessarily only one man and one woman.

    But, as I said before, since the Biblical Jesus is primarily a fictional character, there is no reason to suppose that his remarks, definitional or not, have any basis except in human conventions. If Klingenschmitt wants us to take his view of marriage seriously, he needs reality-based arguments, not fiction-based ones.

  7. grumpyoldfart says

    So much money for so much bullshit. Klingenschmitt must laugh every time he swipes his credit card during a purchase.

  8. some bastard on the net says

    @ #8

    Y’know, I like Depeche Mode as much as the next person, but you’re really starting to kill it for me.

  9. DaveL says

    Gordo, if any of your right-wing buddies ever saw Jesus in you, they’d be the ones calling it evil.

  10. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    “… and found us evil. They said we are hateful, and we want to demean people and our motives are malicious.”

    Yes. Correct. Your point being…?

    “Justice Kennedy you are full of blasphemy”

    Oh Noes! I think I may like Kennedy more as a result of that…

  11. spamamander, internet amphibian says

    I’m surprised Mabus posting on a thread about Klingenschmitt didn’t cause some kind of insanity implosion.

  12. dingojack says

    Thumper – did ‘being ull of blasphemy’ make you think of:

    MAITRE D’: A little more blasphemy Justice Kennedy?
    KENNEDY: Fuck off I’m full!
    MAITRE D;’: Oh Go on. It’s only wafer-thin.
    KENNEDY: Oh alright then. [eats the blasphemy wafer as the Maitre d' jumps behind an aspidistra]

    BLAMMO!!!

    :) Dingo

Leave a Reply