Saturday, August 7, 2010

Chris Matthews vs. Wendy Wright on Gay Marriage


August 5, 2010 on MSNBC
See also: Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright
(Thanks MC)

27 comments:

  1. She CREEPS me the fuck out! Omg... and it doesn't help that Chris Matthews's grating voice is the only reprieve from her barrage of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's keep in mind this is the same empty-headed bint that thinks the world is 6,000 years old and evolution is a fantasy.


    Chris Matthews is deluded if he thinks this decision is going to be upheld by SCOTUS a la Lawrence V Texas though. He forgets about Bowers V Hardwick, an essentially identical case in the mid-80s that upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws for another decade and a half. That's EXACTLY what's going to happen here. The 9th. circuit will obviously affirm the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, it'll go to SCOTUS, they'll agree to hear it, and it'll be overturned with some bullshit excuse about strict interpretation from that fat, bigoted, Dickensian slob Scalia, who I'm sure will pen the majority decision. Thus allowing all other states to justify their anti-gay marriage constitutional statutes for another few decades until the Supreme revisits the case and says "Whoopsie! What a bad decision that was!", just like Plessy V Ferguson, just like Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the meantime, all people like me will have to go on is the hope that their own state legislatures aren't too backward and hateful and eventually legalize same sex marriage. Fortunately I'm a northerner and this may not take too long, because southerners are going to be fucked for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is Wendy Wright a woman? I mean born a woman. That's a pretty prominent adam's apple and I think she's dressing to hide some very broad shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but it appears to me that you are trying to denigrate her by saying she's transgender. Dick move, buddy. FWIW, I have never heard of a trans woman who is a self-loathing closetted case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She is afraid of the courts imposing their views on the state (imposing freedoms = yay)... while she wants to impose her views of denying equal rights and freedoms to 'gays' that by the way is way more intrusive into peoples lives than granting other women the right to 'marry' another woman. Allowing gay marriage in no way threatens christians personally while denying equal benifits to people who parter based on their gender is physically threatening.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marriage should be thrown out as an unnecsary totalitarian intrusion into peoples lives. People should forge their own legally binding contracts if they so wish. Take the power away from the state and 'churches,' over our private relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Algeron WaterschootAugust 8, 2010 at 7:01 AM

    Wendy Wright's views: "Marriage is defined as one man, one woman. This is the definition of marriage, and under this definition, same sex couple just simply can't get married."

    Wendy Wright is the opposite of progress.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We arent bigots...its simply not true. We just think that gay people are disgusting perverted abominations. Jesus said so!"

    Ah the irony of it all

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, in America you can say lituraly anything. See, it's true. I love it ! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. She should be concerned about what the bible says about women

    ReplyDelete
  11. "People are free to make their own living arrangements, they are not free to redefine marriage."

    Her rationalization for imposing her will on others.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hardly a dick move. If she's transgender, it makes the whole thing explicitly ironic. Furthermore, it makes you ask the questions "What if..?", something that she should do more often.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 0:19 - "...millions of americans voted to define marriage..."
    2:00 - "Liberty does not allow people to redefine words".

    That's zero to contradiction in 101 seconds. Fastest I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Comparing her to transgenders is a slap in the face to transgenders.   She's a bible thumping homophobic bigot.   See her interview on you tube with Prof Dawkins.   She's an airhead. 

    ReplyDelete
  15. R€LIGION Stinks of moneyAugust 8, 2010 at 3:14 PM

    Yeah saw that interview.....Richard Dawkins will cut a bitch *rofl*.

    ReplyDelete
  16. R€LIGION Stinks of moneyAugust 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM

    Hopefully that will happen one day. But people are a sucker for traditions and it takes real courage to break away from the mold. There´s privalege and status that comes with marriage, who wants to give that up. Not to mention that money or tax benefits still plays a huge role.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Three words: Christian Persecution Complex. She lays it out there at the end. Somehow allowing two loving people get married who happen to be of the same gender is going to lead to the persecution of the religious right. I'm sorry, but there's a reason we say that we're dragging the religious, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. This is the same fight they put up when they didn't want interracial couples getting married. They'll just have to let society move on without them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think mainly the social and financial benefits are reasons people marry nowadays. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever NOT to marry when you're living together and want to become a financial unity. Also, there are heritage issues which, as I understand it, are the original reason for the whole marriage-obligation within the catholic church.

    People in most (civilized) countries can create legally binding contracts dealing with most of this stuff. but these will not benefit from what the government offers to married couples. So, you don't explicitly NEED the "<span>power from the state</span>" but you might WANT to reap the benefits they offer..


    Now, you can of course argue that people living together should also be able to apply for these benefits, but that's a whole separate discussion because that has other political and economical implications (for instance: how would you track these people?)

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, uuuh... she thinks same-sex marriage is out because it opens the way  for people who discriminate to be discriminated against? What an interesting train of thought.

    So, in the same vein, this means we shouldn't call nazi-skinheads fascists because then they might be discriminated against for having a skewed world view? Or something? 

    Can someone please explain to her the concepts of paradox and irony? Or just shoot her and be done with it.. Might be easier. 

    ReplyDelete
  20. She probably likes to be a submissive tool.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is the same fight they put up when they didn't want interracial couples getting married.

    True. Same people, same ideology, same tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Was she paid by Fox news?

    ReplyDelete
  23. She clearly doesn't understand the difference between being descriminated against by individuals (happens all the time to everyone and is unavoidable) and being descriminated against by the state (where the courts, the police and all the powers of the government are being used to keep you down.)  There's a BIG difference.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, irony... it makes the world go 'round.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Her eyes are really close together.

    ReplyDelete
  26. She reminds me of Stressed Eric with that bulging carotid artery in her neck!

    ReplyDelete
  27. If your discriminationg against the people that are discriminating in the first place, I don't mind that kind of discrimination.

    ReplyDelete