Ok, so there's a small to-do going on about the fact that Laura Bush has made it clear that gay families will be welcome to participate in the annual White House Easter Egg Roll. Yay. Egalia of the TGW feels this is proof that "the wrong gender is in charge of the country."
Yes, because Laura Bush is, automatically, much better than the man she married, because she has eggs. The fact that she's just standing by her man like a good little housewife should while a drunk drives his country off a cliff doesn't matter at all.
But hey, women goooooooood. Men baaaaaaaaad.
My broader question is, if you're a gay family, why the fuck would you want to go to George W. Bush's White House? (Other than to toss a few eggs in some well-directed places, perhaps)
I'm just trying to imagine what any self-respecting gay family could possibly be thinking...
"What's that, Mr. President? You say you want to make it unconstitutional for us to get married? You say you think we're a threat to marriage? You won't hesitate to "out" a gay reporter if he reports information that makes you look bad, you say? You say you actually pay anti-gay commentators? You say you refuse to formally recognize Gay Pride Month?
Oh, but if we wear ties and nice dresses we can still be used as political tools, you say? Oh, well, ok then! Dum de dum de dum de dumb..."
I say, let fools, whoops, excuse me I mean gay Republicans like Andrew Sullivan who've already twisted into pretzels trying to convince themselves Bush thinks they're human beings go. Let Matt Drudge and "Jeff Gannon" go, they're used to being used as Republican tools. And clearly intellectual honesty is not a problem for them, they don't have any.
Other than that, I can't think of one good reason why any gay family with a lick of pride would.
4 comments:
I agree, even on the big about "women goooooooood. Men baaaaaaaaad." It's one of the biggest problems I had with the whole feminist movement. We're not separate, we're equal, and that goes for gay families, too.
Which brings up another good point. If the Bush White House sees gays as a threat to marriage, etc., how can they dare to be so hypocritical to their own beliefs as to call them "families?" If a "proper" family has one man, one woman and a bunch of kids, surely these homosexual groups cannot be called "families" in the first place, right? So why bother acknowledging them in this way? (For the record, I believe they are families, because families are formed by bonds not necessarily made by blood)
And I can't imagine any person, gay, straight or Martian who would support a public figure who doesn't think their unit is a family. I would wish they would stay home in droves.
"I agree, even on the big about "women goooooooood. Men baaaaaaaaad." It's one of the biggest problems I had with the whole feminist movement."
Do you also have a problem with the fact that you can actually vote because of the stinkin' feminist movement?
Forget, "goooood" "baaaaad", the fact is people with penises continue to rule the church, the state, the corporation, ETC., and the world is a friggin mess. Both fairness and sanity suggest the world might be a better/warmer/saner place if people with vaginas get their turn.
Okay, but what if those people with vaginas are Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter?
By your "fairness and sanity" such a ticket would be more deserving of your vote than a Gore/Kerry matchup.
They do, after all, have vaginas, which makes them *automatically*-by your "fairness and sanity"-better/saner/warmer than those who do not.
I'm gonna go out a limb here and say something really bold: What's between someone's ears is more important than what's between their legs.
Post a Comment