How the Right Wing Rhetoric Never Changes

Here’s a video from the late D. James Kennedy from 2003, after the Supreme Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage, where those interviewed used every argument currently being used against the marriage equality ruling.

They rant about the “out-of-control judiciary” overturning the will of “we the people” and destroying the right of states to “legislative Biblical views on the subject no matter how many people favor it.” And if we had Youtube in 1967, you could find the same people making the same arguments about Loving v Virginia. And about Brown v Board of Education. And allowing women to vote. And ending slavery.

The right wing rhetoric never changes, but in each new fight they pretend that they would never have used those arguments in all the previous battles over civil rights. Of course they would have supported those advances, they just don’t support this one. Because God wants them to (never mind that their predecessors said the same thing in all those previous disputes). In fact, those previous advances in civil rights were all their idea in the first place. It’s purely a coincidence that they’re using the same arguments.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    A right to homasekshul sodomy?!?!! But heterosexual sodomy is still verboten, right??! Thanks, Obama! Even in 2003 you were screwing us God-fearing citizens!!

  • gshelley

    I think this is the first time I have ever seen a class performing the pledge.

    It is creepy as hell

  • Sastra

    Apparently the right wing thinks Constitutional democracy is based on two main principles:

    1.) The majority rules.

    2.) Except when GOD rules.

    When human rights are grounded in supernatural versions of the transcendent, anything goes. Or rather, anything can go. A God which is “written inside every heart” doesn’t need to be rationally justified.

    One of the speakers appeared to be afraid that we would de-criminalize consensual adult sex between brother and sister. As far as I know, that isn’t criminal now. Nor should it be. In a secular society we don’t base law on nothing more substantial than moral shaming.

    Kennedy: “Are we ‘One Nation Under God?'”

    Answer: NO. “We” are not.

  • Synfandel

    What’s with the Alliance Defense Fund Attorney at 2:33 saying, “We have a court ordering essentially the murder of an innocent person”?! Does that have anything at all to do with the rest of the screed or is just a scare byte?

  • daved

    Actually, I think this video was after the decision striking down the Texas sodomy laws, not interracial marriage. I know Ed never changes his postings, but I just felt like writing this anyway.

  • Artor

    Gshelley, now imagine it with the Bellamy salute, as it was originally intended. Prepare to be creeped the-fuck out!

    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5291f5c9e4b08385d90bfb01/t/5401ed2ae4b0897ca339f09a/1409412395116/

  • Artor

    Daved, that kind of illustrates Ed’s point, doesn’t it? The rants & raves are interchangeable.

  • colnago80

    Re Artor @ #6

    Looks like the Roman salute to me.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ Zeno

    D. James Kennedy hilariously complains that “a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy” is like “a constitutional right to own slaves.” Kennedy imagines that both were unthinkable. Hardly. Was he unaware that the original constitution explicitly recognized the right to own slaves? It took a Civil War and an amendment to the constitution before slavery was banned.

  • daved

    This reminds me of all the complaints from the right wing when the black-robed tyrants struck down the will of the people in the Hobby Lobby decision. No, wait…

  • caseloweraz

    Synfandel: What’s with the Alliance Defense Fund Attorney at 2:33 saying, “We have a court ordering essentially the murder of an innocent person”?!

    Abortion. You’re right, it doesn’t belong in the video. But given how badly that’s edited, I’m surprised there aren’t more out-of-place clips.

    I think of that statement as the equivalent of “Cdesign proponentists”.

  • footface

    Well, I think the editing is the doing of the “Everything is Terrible” people. It’s meant to be jarring and/or silly.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    To be fair, if the right wing rhetoric changed they wouldn’t really be conservatives, now would they?