MORE

Rightbloggers Not Really Enjoying This New York Gay Marriage Thing

Gay marriage has been passed in the New York state legislature, and Governor Andrew Cuomo's signature will make the Empire State the sixth state to allow same-sex couples to wed.

You can imagine how rightbloggers feel about this. A few say they don't mind, but the majority fulsomely display one or more of the classic stages of grief -- with "anger" being by far the most popular.

We really shouldn't rub it in, but how often do we get the chance? Let's listen to some of their growls, hisses, and spits:

With the assembly long on board, the state senate had been the gay marriage stumbling block; but, with the help of business supporters and carefully crafted religious exemptions, Governor Andrew Cuomo and supporters finally got four Republicans to join 29 Democrats and pass the marriage equality bill 33-29.

That was Friday night. Several of the top rightbloggers have been quiet on the subject. Perhaps they plan stemwinders for later in the week, or are still trying to get their wind back, or feel that discretion is the better part of valor. (Shame we can leave out of our considerations.)

At this writing, Michelle Malkin hasn't spoken to the subject. Nor has Power Line. Andrew Breitbart's Big Government has only a few links to outside stories like "New Jersey's Christie 'Not a Fan' of Gay Marriage, Won't Follow New York," though Breitbart's Big Hollywood copped a Hollywood Reporter story about all the awful Hollywood liberals who supported the bill ("'Marriage equality.... vote yes,' added Alec Baldwin").

RedState has only a short, gloomy pre-vote plea that "people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences" of the law, for which the poster was threatened by management ("you're using our site as nothing more than a billboard"). NewsBusters reports, "New York Sportswriter Attacked Black NFL Star as Brainless for Opposing Gay Marriage."

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit mainly agitated for what he portrayed as the next civil rights battleground, universal gun suffrage.

The lesser brethren were less restrained.

Shame on you, despoiler of families!
Shame on you, despoiler of families!

The Last Tradition just let all the stops out. "Fag marriage legal in New York State," he cried. "It's a happy day for rump wranglers and cock suckers of every shape and color." (Hear, hear!) "This is an extremely sad day in the history of New York which has become the new Sodom and Gomorrah." (TLT seems a little late to that party. Don't they have cable where he lives?)

HolyCoast was deeply wounded by New York's unnecessary display of civil liberties. "There are several states within a relatively short drive of New York that allow gay marriage," they sulked, "so it's not like they had to pass the law to protect anyone's 'rights.'" Well, you know New Yorkers -- so pushy.

Red Meat Conservative reacted in the rhetorical manner of Slip Mahoney of the Bowery Boys: "It is truly a tragic day when such radical imprecations to our country's moral founding are propagated by the supposed moral party." Leave us regurgitate!

Catholic blogger Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia shrugged and made homeopathy out of homosexuality: "Despite the loss, however," he wrote, "it was a notable sign of the church's clout in the debate leading up to the final vote that two of the three senators who rose to explain their support for the bill cited their own Catholic roots as a key point of tension in their respective paths toward approving the move." Words fail us.

Mark Noonan of Blogs for Victory cited Constitutional precedent: "Human rights are individual rights," Noonan expostulated. "You can only have a right to something which you can - at least in theory - do entirely on your own... But as soon as a second human being is brought in to the picture, we are no longer dealing with rights, but with privileges to be assigned by one means or another."

Well, so much for the right to peaceably assemble. (Maybe it's a gay thing?) In case his scholarly disquisition was unconvincing, Noonan added some ooga-booga: "When you propose to alter marriage you are proposing to alter family -- and thus you are tinkering with the basis of our civilization... this is serious business; the life of our civilization is hanging by a thread... we're not more than a few steps away from dissolution and death." Thank God we're on the verge to civilizational death at last -- the suspense has been killing us!

Perhaps our favorite headline is John Guardiano's at the American Spectator: "Why Gay 'Marriage Equality' Is Bad for America and Hurts Children." As the title suggests, Guardiano went scare-quote-happy. In his lede, he referred to "last night's 'historic" vote for 'gay marriage' in New York." (These so-called "married" gays and their so-called "history"!)

Upset that Jeffrey Goldberg, a "'progressive,'" had mocked conservative terror that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage, Guardiano sputtered, "Goldberg's marriage isn't under threat, but the institution of marriage is -- so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed." Also up was fatherlessness, which Guardiano asserted (following a reliable rightwing schtick) causes poverty.

Eventually Guardiano addressed the question normal people would have been asking throughout: "But what does this have to do with gay 'marriage'?"

"Everything," he answered. "Sure, this breakdown in the family has occurred independent of the push for 'marriage equality.' But it is still part and parcel of an overarching effort to undermine and deprecate traditional marriage and the traditional family."

Once upon a time, when men wore hats and opened doors for ladies, the "principal purpose" of marriage was "the care and raising of children," explained Guardiano. But now, thanks to "misplaced notions of 'equality' and 'rights,'" marriage is "mainly about personal self-fulfillment," which has led to the horrors of baby-daddies and "family 'assistance,'" because "when our new and more modern 'families' fail, the state must intervene."

To recap: When people began marrying for love instead of by parental arrangement, that was the thin end of the wedge; now, as if that noxious innovation hadn't done enough harm, the demons who visited it upon us invite same-sex couples to join the pandemonium. Soon, when America is filled with ruined "married" people, we will regret the day impoverished farmers stopped trading daughters for cows.

 

At National Review, a few writers were able to summon sympathy to gay marriage -- perhaps in the same way some New York Republican senators were able to vote for the gay marriage bill. Others just kept their head down or pursued perennial rightwing themes such as Al Gore is Fat.

Some National Review authors lowered like dark clouds over the Republic. "Normal rules of debate were waived, the session was extended," muttered William C. Duncan of the vote, suggesting that what appeared to be the judgment of the people's representatives was actually a fix in which "many legislators were complicit," and that "the public's ability to weigh the proposals" had been "short-circuited" -- an interesting read, considering how strongly the New York polling data runs in favor of gay marriage.

Duncan was having none of that. He actually attributed to gay marriage supporters Malcolm X's "by any means necessary," and closed, "what remains to be seen now is whether the people of New York will look kindly on the legislators who ignored them, listening instead to the Hollywood stars and other glitterati who became lobbyists for this fashionable cause," as if the citizens of New York were at that moment huddled in revival tents, handling snakes and wondering how God had allowed sodomy to become the law of the land.

"Same-Sex Marriage Comes to New York, for Now" was Duncan's threatening headline. Similarly slit-eyed and retributive was Maggie Gallagher, longtime crusader against gay marriage, who told National Review readers that "The GOP Will Pay a Grave Price" for the four Republican apostates' betrayal. "Consequences to be continued," she closed, as thunder sheets waggled in the background.

To be fair, some of the brethren saw the change as benign. But even then, they had to find to find some way the turn the event to their purposes.

neo-neocon, for example, found it "far better than legislation by court rulings, and far better than a federal law" and said she was "more or less a libertarian on this issue." Nonetheless, she felt compelled to add that "I cannot say whether this law a slippery slope, as some opponents fear. I sometimes think our entire culture and society is on a slippery slope in its jettisoning of customs that have long been its foundation..." She also attacked "gay marriage proponents such as Justin Driver... who dearly love to make a comparison with interracial marriage." We bet neo-neocon was really whooping it up at the Pride Parade.

Oh well, there's always Alabama.
Oh well, there's always Alabama.

Susan Duclos of Wake Up America wrote sympathetically of the four Republican senators who voted for the bill, then blasted the "gay activists cheering and almost every news article written making it clear that it was a 'Republican controlled' Senate that passed this bill." Given her solicitude, you might wonder why she was so mad others had noticed this Republican involvement. Those activists, she later explained, "must feel like they are in the Twilight Zone, having to hail the actions of a Republican controlled Senate while ripping into a Democratic President over a gay rights issue."

Ah yes, Obama: Those for whom he is an obsession remained true to form, focusing not on the vote but on the political side-stepping Obama has been obliged as President to practice on an issue for which they never showed much passion otherwise.

"New York's Gay Marriage Vote Obscures the Fact that Obama Punted the Issue," said Left Coast Rebel -- though it would seem the fact wasn't very obscured, as LCR claimed that "the issue has made everyone -- including the left -- forget that Obama can't even stand by the gay constituency." LCR even managed to stick in an "under the bus" reference, for which he receives extra points.

Pejman Yousefzadeh thought the vote was all about "the intellectual cowardice of the incumbent President of the United States"; GayPatriot said, "note that it passed with Republican votes -- and in a legislative chamber run by the GOP" (again, the yea vote included 29 Democrats and four Republicans).

"If Obama's reelected, how long into his second term will it be before he finally 'evolves' to endorse gay marriage?" asked Allahpundit at Hot Air. "Over/under is four months." Allahpundit had previously clucked, "Obama punts on gay marriage at NY LGBT fundraiser"; in March he wrote, "If you've been wondering when The One [wingnut for Obama] will finally have his long-awaited 'epiphany' about gay marriage, the answer is -- soon." In December 2010, Allahpundit accused Obama of "lying about his true position" on gay marriage. Back during the Prop 8 fight in 2008, Allahpundit said he would have voted against the anti-gay-marriage bill, then went on to attack... Nancy Pelosi. Allahpundit's view on gay marriage would seem to be Vote Republican.

In closing, though we don't usually bother with the comments on rightwing blogs, we'll drop a few here just to show you how the hoi polloi were feeling it:

"What do you expect from liberal New York? It's the way of all the liberl queer loving populace..." -- Patriot Update

"They just spit on Christ." "Welcome to the GAY APPLE, folks. Everything Guliani did to clean up the city is now going to be undone over time." "They don't call it 'Screw York' for nothin'." -- Free Republic

"wait and see what they do with those rights when all the divorces and money and property settlements hit the court system. Gay men change partners like most people change their underwear." -- Conservative Byte

"Fags are fags, but gay is festive." -- Reason.

Such comments may explain why rightblogger responses to this issue have been so stunted, twisted, and weird. While rightbloggers have to at least pretend to be housebroken, so that some big media outlet might someday give them a job, they still have to appeal to their current readers, who often behave like spectators pushing to the front row of a lynching. So it may be that they're trying to split the difference: Behaving like halfway normal persons living in 2011 while throwing broad winks and high-signs to the homo-hatin' mouth-breathers in their audience. The strain tells.


Sponsor Content