A Word for Anti-Gay Republicans

If you're a Republican and you're against same-sex marriage and consider homosexuality to be an abomination, here's a classic clip from The West Wing for you. I like to roll this out from time to time. Watch it.

  • Mimi Black

    All the anti-gay marriage people I keep running into are not Republicans. All the Republicans I know think that it’s none of the government’s business whether gay people get married or not, or anyone else’s. Maybe you’re referring to “Right Wing”, which is like “Left Wing”, neither represent the actual party basics. Both are all about personal opinion and trying to force others to go along with their beliefs.

  • willpen

    I can watch this over and over. In fact I can watch that whole first season over and over. I remember how giddy I felt when I realized how much this program spoke to me and my values.

  • Michael Norris

    Thank you, thank you, thank you…

  • Jeanabella

    Great reminder! Thank You.

  • Bob McIntosh

    This was great television and a damning critique of teh anti-gay crowd. At the same time, the point of this was that you do NOT disrespect the office of the president. “Toby.” (“yes, Mr. President”) “That’s how I beat him.”

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Republicans and their right wing noise machine should take heed of that in regards to President Obama. But won’t, because they’re race baiting little children.

  • joseph2004

    That’s tellin’em.

    Anyway, this morning’s talkies (that I watched – FoxNews Sunday, ABC’s ThisWeek, and CNN’s Reliable Sources) focused, when talking about same-sex marriage, on conservative/Republican opposition and reaction. Granted, they are most likely to oppose it, but then that is the point – it’s no surprise. I didn’t hear any discussion about those blocks on the Left who also tend to oppose it in significant numbers. You’d think that Obama’s “coming out” is more important with respect to those who like and support him, not those who aren’t going to vote for him no matter what his views on the subject.
    Some mention was made about Independents, who obviously matter, but Obama’s base includes a number of important groups (the Black vote, Hispanics) who are much more important than Right-wing sentiment on this subject, and least when it comes to getting their vote. Maybe it’s assumed they’re going to vote for him no matter what, but CBS News a number of days ago featured a segment that included a number of interviews with Hispanics who had voted for Obama in 2008 but who were adamant against doing so again, based on this issue. That would seem to be the more important area of concern, if you iz a Democrat.

    • mrbrink

      Your analysis is typical gutter politics, as usual. Bottom-feeding for resentment. Like DeNiro in Goodfellas egging on Tommy until he kills Spider. It’s all Willie Horton fantasy league. You should draft some decency in the first round and trade your limping logic as soon as possible.

      You resemble a “Democrats for Reagan” troll-propagandist.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Yeah, Hispanics will then turn to the Republicans, who’s policies towards immigration and border security, especially in Arizona, have been neo-facsist like.

      Get lost, trollface!

  • Tally Briggs

    Best five min from WW EVER.

  • desertflower1

    Thank you, Bob. Best Mother’s day present so far. I miss this show. America was much better when we had intelligent TV. I’ve passed this on already…

  • Victor_the_Crab

    No doubt the “doctor” was based on Laura Schlessinger, another so-called doctor. Of course if the real Schlessinger was seated there, she’d be interrupting him and screaming like a banshee at the president “DON’T YOU DARE SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT! I’M DR. LAURA AND I MAKE MILLIONS TELLING IT LIKE IT IS TO WORTHLESS LITTLE PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT! I DO WHAT I PLEASE! UNLIKE A WORTHESS LITTLE NOBODY LIKE YOU! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO TELL ME, DR, LAURA OFF LIKE THAT?!! HUH?!!!!!”

    She would then get hauled off by the Secret Service, and it would become the hot story in the right wing media.

  • Curtis Robert Tyree

    One of my favorite moments from one of my favorite series!

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Sometimes the marriage equality debate reminds me of an argument I had with my brother in 1984. I was 14 and a Jets fan, he was 12 and a Giants fan. That year the Jets moved their home games from Shea Stadium to Giants Stadium, but on December 2 the Jets were scheduled to play a home game against the Giants. This was the first time in modern NFL history that two teams sharing a stadium played each other in the regular season (the Jets and Giants did not play each other in ’75 when they shared Shea). The Jets were the designated home team, and therefore wore their home uniforms, had their season-ticket holders in the stands and the stadium decked out in Jets colors and graphics (although they left the Giants graphic in one end zone).

    My brother, however, insisted that the Giants should be the home team, because in his words, “It’s Giants Stadium.” No matter how many times I tried to explain NFL scheduling logistics to him (the NFL set the schedule, and the NFL designated the game “Giants at Jets”), and that the name of the facility was in itself irrelevant, he kept coming back and insisting that “It’s Giants Stadium,” therefore the Giants should have been the home team.

    I feel some of the same frustration when I hear the declaration that “Marriage is between one man and one woman.” Despite some valiant efforts, no one has been able to give me a sound reason to ban same-sex marriage that does not ultimately boil down to its falling outside the person’s subjective notions of How Things Are Supposed To Be™, starting — and usually ending — with the above declaration. The “reasons” I hear and read don’t always amount to anti-gay bigotry, but a lot of them do, and it’s really hard not to get to that point as the person digs himself deeper and deeper into his position without wanting to admit that there really is no sound, objective, defensible reason.

    That was all I heard on the talk shows this morning, and it’s all I ever hear from Republican politicians; marriage is X, has always been X, and can only ever be X, but when you ask why marriage is and can only ever be X they don’t have an answer for you except to repeat that marriage is and can only ever be X. We can’t change the definition of marriage because … well, because then marriage would be something different, and if marriage becomes something different then it won’t be the same anymore, so we can’t change it.

    • mrbrink

      They can’t qualify their remarks about gay marriage because they would have to preface by stating, “The Bible says…”

      A higher authority has deemed it. Debate is over, thy will be done.

      Then they would have to answer questions about what the Bible says about the economy and accumulated wealth. They’re all cowards who hide their F-grade religious knowledge and beliefs from those who most suffer for their ignorance. Preachy religious condemnations tend to turn off free people.

      I’d love to hear John Boehner defer to the Bible while in a position to craft America’s rule of law.

      Wave that freak flag high!

      • muselet

        I’d love to hear the Right explain away the differences between their preferred definition of marriage and the marriages of the biblical patriarchs (bringing us back to mistresses, courtesans and slaves). That might make for a good reality TV series, although it would have to be rated TV-MA because of all the exploding heads.


        • Bob Rutledge

          This was making the rounds on FB a couple days ago (at least in my circles)….

    • muselet

      It is frustrating to hear that argument, because it’s so very wrong.

      For much of recorded history, a marriage was in effect a corporate merger, with those being married off serving as an earnest payment. The offspring of a marriage were important primarily as the rightful inheritors of the families’ joint fortune—marriage was a stock swap, pun intended. Nowadays, that happens very seldom (in the developed world, anyway), thereby changing the definition of marriage.

      Marriage also served as a means of quelling feuds between families and wars between nations—basically, marriage as hostage-taking. That largely doesn’t happen anymore, thereby changing the definition of marriage.

      And of course marriage was restricted: for example, interracial marriage was widely prohibited in the US until very recently, the mentally disabled were prohibited from marrying, interreligious marriage was widely restricted and in some cases prohibited, and on and on. Those restrictions have mostly been eliminated, thereby changing the definition of marriage.

      (And let’s not bring the subject of mistresses, courtesans and slaves into the discussion. Not because it’s not relevant, but because this is a somewhat grouchy comment on a blog and not a historical treatise.)

      The definition of marriage the Right is so fond of, that eternal and unchanging (or, if you prefer, crabbed and unrealistic) definition of one man and one woman joining together for the purposes of procreation, hasn’t really been around all that long. Marriage has always served many purposes not covered by How Things Are Supposed To Be™, so the definition of marriage has always been in flux.

      Joseph Campbell reminded us that the primacy of romantic love only dates back to the troubadours of the Middle Ages (it obviously existed before, but it was considered an inferior type of love). If our primary definition of love can change so dramatically, why can’t our primary definition of marriage?

      The whole “what marriage is and what it’s for” argument wearies me.


      EDITED to eliminate an embarrassing misspelling.