Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Via Atrios: The opening invocation of the Republican National Convention was given by a woman named Sheri Dew, the charming and thoroughly deluded woman behind this bizarre speech where she says that supporting gay marriage is tantamount to supporting Hitler. No, really, she says that. Out loud. In public. And presumably, since it was at a conference organized by religious right foes of gay marriage, no one had the good sense to tell her how stunningly idiotic it was. Her actual words:

Also, while I was peddling away, I found myself reading the latest edition of one of the nation’s most popular news magazines. One of the major articles was about gay “marriage.” There were several statements that stood out for me in a dramatic and terrifying way, but one of the most sobering features of the entire article was a picture of two handsome, young men, getting “married.” What distressed me most was the fact that they were both holding an infant “daughter”-twin girls they had adopted. I was, frankly, heartsick. What kind of chance do those girls have being raised in that kind of setting? What will their understanding of men and women, marriage and families be? Is there any chance that, as adults, they could expect to marry and enjoy a healthy relationship with a man, including rearing children together? In addition, there were alarming concepts about “family” presented throughout the article-concepts that even questioned the validity of heterosexual families.

To say I found the entire article sobering would be a grand understatement. And I found myself thinking, “Talk about influence. Imagine the influence of that one magazine in presenting ideas about the family that are totally in opposition to God’s plan and will for His children.”

Lining Up With Hitler or Against Him

This escalating situation reminds me of a statement of a World War II journalist by the name of Dorothy Thompson who wrote for the Saturday Evening Post in Europe during the pre-World War II years when Hitler was building up his armies and starting to take ground. In an address she delivered in Toronto in 1941 she said this: “Before this epic is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up with Hitler or against him. Every living human being either will have opposed this onslaught or supported it, for if he tries to make no choice that in itself will be a choice. If he takes no side, he is on Hitler’s side. If he does not act, that is an act–for Hitler.”

May I take the liberty of reading this statement again and changing just a few words, applying it to what I fear we face today? “Before this era is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up in support of the family or against it. Every living human being will have either opposed the onslaught against the family or supported it, for if he tries to make no choice that in itself will be a choice. If we do not act in behalf of the family, that is itself an act of opposition to the family.”

At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family–but maybe not. I just turned 50 years old, and I have never married. That was not my intention, and it has not been my choice. When someone asks me why I have never married, the simple and truthful answer is that nobody has ever asked me. Nonetheless, when I speak about the family, I have a deep, profound and abiding belief that the family is absolutely ordained of God, that it is part of His plan for His children, that marriage is supposed to be between a male and a female, and that children deserve to be born to and raised by two parents, father and mother. That is the ideal.

Well Sheri, of course you may take the liberty of comparing support for gay marriage to support for Hitler. May I take the liberty of pointing out what an utter moron you are?

Comments

#1 carpundit
August 31, 2004

>>>When someone asks me why I have never married, the simple and truthful answer is that nobody has ever asked me.<

Gosh, THAT’S a surprise.
#2 Jason Kuznicki
August 31, 2004

Rhetorically, she isn’t comparing gay marriage with Hitler. Strictly speaking, she is comparing families with Hitler. Though I doubt she did it on purpose. Compare the parallel structures:

“Before this epic is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up with Hitler or against him.”

“Before this era is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up in support of the family or against it.”

It’s all the proof we need: The religious right is out to destroy the family.
#3 ~DS~
September 1, 2004

FYI-Many thanks to Ed Brayton and PZ Myers who have both agreed to act as one of my communication points if Frances does hit close to us here in Florida. I’ll be blogging on the event and both gentlemen have agreed to stay up that evening and relay my report if need by (AND Ed had a gread sense of humor when I pretended I was a long lost son looking for my dad who I only knew as Ed AKA SlappyKincade)
#4 Bill Ware
September 1, 2004

Hmmm
How about this historic analogy from the Viet Nam era:

“We have to save the village by destroying it.”

In neocon speak:

“We have to save marriage by destroying it.”

There’s a grain of truth that this is what they are doing. Then again not really.
#5 Lynn
September 1, 2004

I wish you luck ~DS~
I know where you live and it is close to the area they believe hurricane Frances will hit.
Hopefully it will take a turn away from Florida and head out into the middle of the Atlantic.
I am watching Frances closely myself.
#6 ~DS~
September 1, 2004

Thank you Lynn. I appreciate your thoughts.
#7 Chris Krolczyk
September 1, 2004

Interesting choice for IOTM this time around, Ed, but consider the following material straight from the horse’s mouth:

I just turned 50 years old, and I have never married. That was not my intention, and it has not been my choice. When someone asks me why I have never married, the simple and truthful answer is that nobody has ever asked me.

Gee, I wonder why? She seems to be such a catch…
#8 Chris Krolczyk
September 1, 2004

Oops. Look like carpundit beat me to the punch.

Still, you’ve gotta wonder – of all the men out there who Sheri could dazzle with her gargantuan intellect (snicker), why didn’t one of them propose? After all, there’s been tons of situations in which nobody can figure out why Person X got attracted to Person Y or how they actually ended up married in the long run, so the two choices are this:

The easy answer is that she’s just that repugnant.

The more difficult one is that it isn’t just men who scare women out of being attracted to them by the craziness in their eyes. All you have to do is witness the public actions of Frauleins Coulter, Ingraham and Malkin in the last few years to realize this. Those three would make a long-term sufferer of Satyriasis wilt to the size of a Vienna Boy’s Choir castrato in a matter of seconds.

In other words, it is no longer an overriding male prerogative to be a scary wingnut in America.

Long live the sexual revolution.
#9 Ed Brayton
September 2, 2004

I find Laura Ingraham to be easily the most attractive of the three pundits you mentioned, and also the least obnoxious, so perhaps there is a connection. Coulter looks like Skeletor with a sex change. Malkin is much cuter in pictures than on video, but she’s attractive. My buddy Don refers to Coulter as a “hate crime in high heels”.
#10 Chris Krolczyk
September 2, 2004

Ed: granted, Ingraham is the most attractive of the three, even to me. She’s still a pain in the tuchus for the most part, though.

I’ve read that Coulter comment before, and if Ms. Horse (“no sir, I don’t like Lib’ruls, don’t like ‘em at all”) manages to get fired from every print or electronic media source in America (likely), she’s got a future as a model for female cartoon characters. She could even use some of her own screed in the scripts!

As to Malkin: ah, the perfect example of the
Crazed Look phenomenon in action. Oliver Willis stuck up some of the more nutzoid head-shots of some of her appearances on various talking-head shows, and they were pretty damn frightening. I saw a more sedate photo of her elsewhere, but the expression on her face reminded me more of a demonically possessed china doll than an ostensibly human media pundit. And this was the sedate photo. Go figure.

(Granted, someone at that same blog inferred that Malkin might be suffering from some thyroid disease. No problem with that, but is it contagious? Maybe that explains Zell Miller…)
#11 TikiGod666
September 3, 2004

Sheri sez:

“At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family–but maybe not.”

Ooohh, nice logic! Let me try:

“At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between Sheri Dew and yard waste, in terms of her being about as smart as dried sticks and rotting vegetation, and my desire to feed her into a wood chipper–but maybe not.”

See, that works really well.
#12 Steve
September 13, 2004

This whole year, only two or three things have made me laugh as much as “Coulter looks like Skeletor with a sex change.”