Alabama’s Next Top Wingnut


When you’re one of nine Republicans running for a House seat, you have to do something to make yourself stick out. And when that seat is in Alabama, you have to definitely stake out the far right and mark your territory. Candidate Dean Young is attempting to do that by demanding that the other candidates sign this pledge:

1. I believe that the only marriage is between one man and one woman.

2. I believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and thereby gay marriage.

3. The tenants [sic] of my church oppose gay marriage.

4. I oppose gay marriage.

5. As a member of Congress, I shall take active steps to oppose gay marriage.

6. I support the by-law change to expel any member of the Republican Executive Committee who opposes the party position by supporting gay marriage.

Young is endorsed by totalitarian theocrat Roy Moore.

Comments

  1. Brain Hertz says

    I’m only surprised that he didn’t make his list of variants of “I really, really, really oppose gay marriage. And I mean it this time” to 10. It’s a nice round number.

  2. carlie says

    I wish there were tenants in churches. Then maybe they’d get used more than one day a week and stop being such a waste of building space.

  3. says

    Candidate Dean Young says he’s against gay marriage, but is he against it enough for Moral Alabama? Why is Dean Young so soft on gay marriage? What’s Dean Young hiding about his softness on gay marriage?
    Ask yourself this, Alabama, ‘Is Big Gay behind Dean Young?’ Can you take a chance? Can America?
    Vote Modusoperandi and send him to Washington to ram no-gay marriage down their throats. A vote for Modusoperandi is a vote for being even more against gay marriage than Dean Young. Modusoperandi: Good for Alabama, bad for gayhomo mansex.
    ‘I’m Modusoperandi, and I haven’t seen this message.’
    This message brought to you by Constitutional Liberty Americans for Family and Freedom.”

  4. Synfandel says

    carlie, give it five years. Webster’s will recognize that as a valid meaning of ‘tenant’, because, you know, language ‘evolves’. Literally.

  5. pocketnerd says

    By all means, Republicans, keep fighting the battle against The Gay, through 2014, to 2016, and beyond. No retreat! No surrender!

  6. raven says

    Fundie Death Cult xianity seems to have devolved to the point where they only believe in hating gays and right wing extremist politics.

    If that is all they’ve got, you can call that a religion if you want, but it isn’t much of one.

    It’s just the banality of evil and ultimately pretty boring.

  7. Michael Heath says

    Dean Young’s missing one:

    7. In order to carry out my advocacy that gays’ rights should not be equally protected under the law, I will lie when taking the oath of office by swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution. I’ll by lying during the oath because I promise to instead actively seek to subvert the Constitution in order to carry out the demands of my religion which are in direct conflict with it, like denying gays the equal protection of their rights since the Bible demands that we instead kill gays.

  8. lancifer says

    Synfandel,

    Yeah, it is frustrating that if enough people fuck up a word, or use it incorrectly, that the people in charge of “official” English will decide that it must be codified into the language.

    Imagine a common math mistake, like 2^3 = 6, being declared correct just because enough knuckleheads get it wrong.

    (I must admit that I typed “tenant” when I meant “tenet” in a blog post last year. When I hit “submit comment” I saw the error immediately, but alas there is no edit function here at Science Blogs. One of the next comments dealt the pain with a sarcastic remark pointing out my error. I had it coming. I try to use the “preview” but it’s easy to get in a hurry and your errors are preserved, at least until the thread slides into obscurity.)

  9. exdrone says

    There is something cost efficient about this proposal and its extended argument. If all the right-wingnuts got all their candidate pledges endorsed, then they could just mail them to Washington instead of sending senators and representatives. Then the Dems could draft laws on their own and, as the last part of the process, simply check them against all the pledges. If the Dems have a majority, they could send back a message, “We passed such-and-such law, which contravenes pledge articles 6, 9 and 12, so suck it.” If the Dems have a minority, then nothing will get done, which is pretty much the current situation.

  10. says

    “4. I oppose gay marriage.”

    It’s a good thing he included that one, because I wasn’t quite sure where he was going with the first three.

  11. dan4 says

    With Young bringing in the totally irrelevant “religion” aspect into his pledge, it looks like he’s inferring that “Republican in Alabama running for Congress” and “non-Christian” are incompatible with each other.

  12. francesc says

    “2. I believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and thereby gay marriage.”
    Well, the Bible (the OT) is only explicit about sodomy, wich is a particular sexual intercoruse between two men, or a man and a woman. Or two women with some help… This is another case of “the bible says what I want it to say. In fact, you could allow gay marriage according to the bible and, well, what they do in their bedroom is just not your business. Anyway, gay marriage is not explicitly forbidden, as “marriage” is never defined as 1 man, 1 woman. Plus, most marriages in the bible are between a man and some women.
    I particularly think that the bible is against any kind of fun while having sex (even when you are alone, see onanism), but they are just deciding what it means according to their prejudices.
    Obvious comment, but I wanted to say it again.

Leave a Reply