When will politicians learn that running on personal values is a non-starter, particularly since most voters don’t care? But more importantly, how is it that the most sanctimonious pricks are usually the ones who turn up in compromising positions with those they hate on?
I don’t care what a person does behind doors. Really, I don’t. Plushies, fisting, or sex with park benches, it’s all good with me. By the same token, if you don’t like something, I’m OK with that too as long as you don’t try to force others to embrace your kookie, holier than the holiest of holies blather. But when a lout like Carl Palidino screams about the evils of the “homosexual life style” and is then caught emailing “awesome lesbian porn” (BTW Carl, lesbians are homosexuals) it’s rank, “large H” hypocrisy.
However, I expect a some “little H” hypocrisy, even though it too is wrong. There are a variety of reasons for candidates to change positions – from legitimate conversions of opinion to taking a slightly different spin on an issue to placate a particularly important constituency. But, there is something different about ignoring what you preach, particularly when you scream it at the top of your sinning-assed lungs.
And, here’s the difference.
When a candidate changes position on, for example, whether the Department of Education should be abolished, most voters – if they notice at all – forget about it within days. Most wouldn’t vote based on that single issue anyway.
But when a sanctimonious ass cake preaches the evils of homosexuality and is then found in bed with hookers or shipping porn spam around like a Nigerian Viagra dealer, values voters never seem angry about the breach of faith. In fact, they often scapegoat others, from the media to some innocent party, to protect the “sinner”. Values voters are much more likely to care less that a soldier who was never asked and never told was discharged than the sin of the anti-gay, red-handed jackwad pulling his pud over lesbian porn.
And values voters do often vote purely on values issues. They seem to have an attitude of hating the sin but loving the sinner only when the sinner is one of their own – even if the sinner has compounded their original sin with the sin of lying about it – repeatedly.
It’s also different in another important way.
If someone is elected and succeeds in abolishing, say, the Department of Education, the Republic may suffer from a stupid decision, but it’s unlikely to perish. However, if values voters continue to ignore and defend the transparent imbeciles like Palidino and nibble away at constitutional protections because someone is gay or Muslim or black or just different in some way, the Republic will perish.
If you think the worst thing that can happen is the repeal of DADT or gay marriage, you ain’t seen nothing like a country turned into group-belief theocracy.
Especially if you’re not a member of the theocratic elite.
- Are Anti-Gay Christians Responsible for the Suicide Trend? (friendlyatheist.com)
- Are Lesbians Only For Porn? Google Instant Thinks So (gayrights.change.org)
- Misleading Poll Released By Military Group Opposed To DADT Repeal (lezgetreal.com)
- Carl Paladino Releases An Apology (perezhilton.com)
- Do Atheists ‘Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin’? (friendlyatheist.com)
- Denouncing Homosexuality, In New York? (plastic.com)
- Andrew “I’m Sorry” Marin Lurvs Peter “Porno Pete” LaBarbera (slog.thestranger.com)
- Michele Somerville: Homophobia in the Church: What Catholics Are Doing About It, and What Still Needs to Be Done (huffingtonpost.com)
- A God of Love (slog.thestranger.com)
- Mark Olmsted: O’Donnell and Gays: What Kind of Hypocrite Is She? (huffingtonpost.com)
- Love and Let Love or Bully and Let Bully (zackfordblogs.com)