January 15, 2006
-- by Gary Boatwright
Hat tip to bryan over at MyDD, Hackett Calls It Like He Sees It:
With succinct coherence, Hackett said: "I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-gayrights, I'm pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they're all based on the same principle and that is we don't need government dictating to us how we live our private lives." Asked to define being pro-gayrights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?
"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American. They've got to accept that. It's absolutely un-American."
Simple, straight forward and to the point. I'd like to see a Republican or DLC Democrat try that.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
So is denying consenting adults the right to engage in polygamy or polyandry un-American? I'd like to hear his views on that.
Posted by: Pericles at January 15, 2006 10:18 AM
Paul Hackett for President!
Posted by: Gwendolyn Carter at January 15, 2006 12:20 PM
Poor Pericles. Attempting to justify equal rights to a common practice like marriage by bringing in illegal/immoral acts that are putatively proscribed to all.
For example, if gays are granted equal rights to hospital visitation rights with loved ones, it does not mean they are entitled to practice euthenasia. Euthenasia is an entirely separate issue that can be debated separately, but has nothing to do with equal rights to hospital visitation.
The idea of equal rights means that gays are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Any privilege granted to one citizen is equally granted to all citizens. End of discussion. What part of "all men are created equal" do conservatives have trouble understanding?
See why I love this guy..He gives as good as he gets..hackett for gov..
Posted by: pal at January 16, 2006 7:41 PM
I know this kind of self-promotion should be used sparingly, but I wrote a lengthy post on "Pro-war" Democrats and the 2006 Elections that may be worth everyone's time.
In the post, I briefly discuss the Democratic strategy of putting forward Iraq war vets like Hackett to run against chickenhawk Republicans.
Most importantly, I suggest a way to forward an anti-war message in the face of proven Republican electoral tactics that attempt to make Dems look like flip-flopping wimps.
Posted by: Rodger at January 17, 2006 7:58 AM
How amusing... Pericles must have been reading Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard... his post is evidence of the desperation of the radical right... they've realized they can't win the "culture war" on the merits of their arguments against "gay rights", so they've resorted to red herrings and straw men.
... and I hope that, if asked, Paul Hackett would say something sensible, like, "You know, that's another issue entirely... our legal system is built around the idea of two persons joining together... no one has the slightest clue what the implications of changing that are, it is a totally different discussion, and vastly more complicated."
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at January 18, 2006 7:57 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)