Tuesday, October 30, 2007



Ole Fred opposes civil unions but he's ok with dirty old rich men marrying youngsters

Yesterday I spent some time on the phone with one of the most brilliant and extraordinary candidates I have ever spoken with. Dennis Shulman is running against New Jersey rubber stamp Republican Scott Garrett in the northern and northwestern edge of New Jersey (NJ-05). He's a rabbi. He's blind. He's a drummer, a psychologist and a truly unique individual with the most positive energy I've ever encountered from anyone vying for office. He's going to be the Blue America guest at Firedoglake this Saturday at 2pm (EDT). Neither Rabbi Shulman nor I ever mentioned the words Fred Thompson (or Frederick of Hollywood) while we spoke and why should we? By the time Dennis starts debating Garrett, Thompson will be a footnote to the political history of the 2008 election campaign. But yesterday Thompson blurted something out that reminded me of an important point the rabbi made.

Yesterday Thompson was in New Hampshire unsuccessfully wooing Granite State voters. While visiting the Delta Dental Plans Association he was asked if he supports New Hampshire's new civil unions law and if he thought that would work on a federal level. Ole Fred wasn't sure what he was being asked. "Soviet Union?" he muttered. "No, civil unions," the questioner repeated clearly. "Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said. No, I'm sure he wouldn't. I mean isn't that exactly why homophobic country singer John Rich of Big & Rich said he was supporting Thompson the other day-- because he's the most anti-gay of the pathetic pygmies™?

Rabbi Shulman, on the other hand, has a very different approach to this entire Republican-manufactured "issue." "These are issues of equality under the law, not issues of sexual orientation or morality... In the traditions of Reform Judaism, the rabbis have voted to bless gay marriages. I am appalled by the idea that the federal government would intrude on my right to perform a same-sex marriage if I choose to do so. Marriage should be an issue-- as it always has been-- between the states and religious institutions. I don't see that the federal government has any rights to define who and how people should be married."

Imagine if Obama, Edwards or Hillary were making this kind of clear, straight forward sense on this fake issue that the right tries to use to divide people? Meanwhile... help a blind drummer who speaks Truth get to Congress.

Labels: , , ,


At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the corrupt Boston mayor Jim Curley was briefly Massachusetts governor in the 1930s, he threatened to prosecute any Justice of the Peace who performed a wedding, insisting that they should only be performed in religious forums. The newspapers raked him over the coals, reminding him that he wasn't Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, and that even Atheists had the right to marry in the U.S. Curley became a laughingstock and was a disaster as governor.

At 7:29 AM, Blogger Y said...

Am I getting this right? You, agree that gay should be allowed to marry, but not older and younger people. I'm not clear on such fine distinctions. My grand parents were 10 years apart. Is that OK? Where is the line, exactly? If he were a Democrat would it be alright?

Why are your prejudices any better than those we've been battling against all these years?

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Y - it's called a joke. Think, then type.


Post a Comment

<< Home