Anybody could have predicted this

Anybody could have predicted this December 21, 2013


CRACKER BARREL First Sponsor to Bail…

GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep…

If you are puzzled about how support for gay “marriage” can be growing while hostility to this draconian attempt to crush free speech is meeting such a backlash, it’s not very hard to figure out: most Americans prize fairness and see both gay “marriage” and free speech as fair.  When gay thought police try to smash free speech they are seen, not as champions of fairness, but as intolerant thought police (which, in fact, they are).  When people who oppose gay “marriage” try to oppose it, they are seen, not as champions of the family, but as enemies of fairness (which they are not).

Americans aren’t, of course, always really fair.  But we deeply like to think we are.

"St Faustina wrote very passionately about this. She felt an all consuming desire to be ..."

Fasting Friday: Thinking about Hell
"The alien, yes. The PBJ, no.Your comment is what I meant by my comment about ..."

Fasting Friday: Thinking about Hell
"Thank you, I needed to think about that on this dark, and rainy Monday evening.There ..."

Fasting Friday: Thinking about Hell
"When I knew I was going to become a Catholic, I found the thought of ..."

Fasting Friday: Thinking about Hell

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • texastwist

    Never watched DD. Lived in Louisiana for a time, so, you know, I got fed a lot of swamp stuff then and I kinda stay away from it now that I can. However, I am making a mean Cajun Corn Stew for the holidays with the andouille sausage shipped in from the swamps where they make it right. . .

    So, there’s this big hub-bub and even Cracker Barrel is in on it! I’m crackin’ up, Cracker Barrel! Afraid all the gay holiday travelers driving through are going to be shopping in your side stores?! And if they do, you think they’re going to be checking for the DD merchandise to see if it has Phil’s ugly mug on it or not?? Puleeze! A little sanity here, someone! Anyone? And why are we still talking about it?!

    Phil didn’t say absolutely horrible things about anyone. He gave his opinion on topics and his opinion is not equal to that of most of those crazy millions who watch his show and they don’t seem to care. Before the interview, any one of them could have told you what he would say about homosexuals and most probably thought he would say far worse. So, duh! Probably more than half the people who watch DD think it’s a comedy. The others probably think it’s about time some gen you eyen people got them a show, but most of the viewers probably think it’s a hoot. Me? I been to Monroe, LA and this is the biggest thing ever happened over there. They got them rifles ready now, yes in-deed.

    Here’s my prediction: Nothing is going to happen. This is not good for anyone and were’re going to have some bs statement from A&E because they jumped too quickly on this one and the boys are going back to normal, that is, if they don’t just all up and quit. ‘Cause they don’t need all this nonsense in their very happy simple lifestyle.

    Oh, I forgot! So now all the people who can’t get their DD support gear at Walmart can run over to Cracker Barrel and ask at the counter for the hidden stash of Phil face items! In no time flat Cracker Barrel will be out of the DD stuff too, and they won’t have to worry about it one way or the other.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I think I need that recipe. Sounds fantastic.

      • texastwist

        It is the best! I only make it once a year. It’s a lot of work and it’s not cheap either, but it is a winner. I got it in Louisiana from a friend. I’ll be happy to type it out, the scanned copy I have is a handwritten version and not easy to decipher if you don’t know the ingredients and haven’t made it before. Look for it here tomorrow. The andouille sausage is a key ingredient (along with loads of shrimp) and if you live in Louisiana you can get it there. If you live in Texas you can get sausage called andouille, but it’s not the same. That’s why I order it from Jacob’s in LaPlace, LA. (If you google andouille you’ll find Jacob’s) If, like me, you want it for Christmas time, you have to place the order before Thanksgiving because they only make so much and then it’s gone. Right now they will start shipping again in January.

  • Dave G.

    I saw Dan Savage discussing this on CNN. He made an interesting point. He said that conservatives are all up in the air about this, and yet Conservatives have had their own times wanting to ban this or punish that person for this or that view. Whether boycotts, punish with wallets, whatever. He was right. But here’s the point. Conservatives, at least in the day, never said all morality is an opinion, who’s to say what’s normal (a key part of the early Gay Rights Movement), live and let live, enlightened society of diversity where we respect each others opinions. That would be the liberals who were, among other things, using such notions to push for gay rights.

    Now it’s the conservatives running around saying ‘can’t we all just get along and learn to respect our differences.’ And it’s the liberals saying ‘if you don’t accept LGBT normality then you’re a bigot, you should be punished, companies should fire anyone who speaks out against it (mine does that FWIW), and it’s time our culture accept and mandate this singular indisputable moral absolute that demands conformity.

    Perhaps ‘let’s all get along’ is what’s said by those on the outside looking in. And ‘this is True! and you better agree or watch your bigot butt’ is the stuff of those who are on the inside looking out.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      Perhaps ‘let’s all get along’ is what’s said by those on the outside
      looking in. And ‘this is True! and you better agree or watch your bigot
      butt’ is the stuff of those who are on the inside looking out.

      Right. I think there is something to that.

      In other times in history, Catholics have found themselves on “the outside,” and instead of “looking in,” they spent their time “looking East” (i.e., for the coming of the Lord.). Maybe this is once again a time for Christians not to devote themselves to working toward worldly status and material success within the secular culture, but to seeking the Lord first, and then to study and work with with the goal of making a decent life for themselves and their families, but always trusting in the Lord first.

  • Chesire11

    This isn’t a free speech issue. The hillbilly is as free to express his views as am I, however, he has no more right to have a cable television network propagate his views than do it. In fact, I have little doubt but that he signed a contract with that network, which included explicit provision for his removal from the show should his public actions, or statements reflect poorly upon the network. The boorish manner in which he expressed his theologically unsophisticated views (to say nothing of his either willfully ignorant, or blisteringly myopic comments on race!) are legitimate grounds for his removal from the airwaves.

    That said, I have to note the irony that a network that has profited mightily by offering up a family of hillbillies for public amusement and condescension, and its condescending audience should be so offended that the objects of their amusement should take something of a judgmental attitude toward them.

    Oh well, I suppose I that even from the depths of this absurd shared knicker-twist of the left and the right, I should be grateful that at least we aren’t huffing and puffing about Santa Claus’ ethnicity.


    • Dave G.

      No, but it is an interesting issue that those who once spoke of absolute values are now saying ‘can’t we all just agree to disagree’, while those who once promised an enlightened land of tolerance, diversity, and respecting differing opinions’ are the ones saying ‘the guy deserves to get chopped for failing to conform.’ Interesting how things turn.

      BTW, I’m not sure the audience of that show has as much condescension for them as you think. I don’t know. But I actually think some of the folks who watched it did so precisely because it was a show not focused on what most shows are today.

      • gusbovona

        When someone is intolerant, like Phil was of LGBT folk, it is not intolerance to criticize. When someone like Phil does not respect another group of people, like the LGBT, it is not disrespectful to criticize that.

        Let’s be clear, too, on exactly what he said that was intolerant and disrespectful:

        “They’re [homosexuals] full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” (From,0,1685719.story)

        If that isn’t disrespectful, what would be?

        • chezami

          Nobody’s talking about criticizing. We’re talking about muzzling and punishing and silencing. Stop making excuses for your Stalinist cohorts.

          • Chesire11

            Stalinist? That’s getting a bit hyperbolic, don;t you think?

            Personally, I think the guy was expressing a truth in a singularly boorish, and unhelpful manner. A&E is completely within their right to withdraw their platform from him, as they appear to have done. That said, the backlash toward him is similarly boorish. Okay, a hillbilly mouthed off…get over it and stop being so gleeful about having been offended.


            • chezami

              I’ve already said as much about A&E’s right to be idiots. But you need to talk to Camille Paglia, who has this crap pegged. Gay leadership is bent on muzzling free speech when people commit ungoodthink.

              • Chesire11

                Yes, I absolutely agree. Radical activists have succeeded in creating an atmosphere in which anything short of endorsement is automatically, and incontrovertibly construed as motivated by malice and bigotry. That does not, however, give those who believe homosexual activity to be sinful either a free pass to express their views boorishly, and uncharitably, nor to somebody else’s soapbox from which to preach.

                When people declare, rather than explain, and declare in such offensive manner, they are generally less interested in convincing an audience than with impressing admirers.

                Honestly, the idea that somehow A&E has either a moral, or legal duty to continue to propagate this yahoo’s opinions by providing him with a megaphone is just as absurd as the idea that an employer should have a duty to facilitate its employees exercise of their right to contracept. In both cases the individual has the right to act or speak as they wish, but their employer has no duty at all to facilitate the exercise of those rights.

                • jroberts548

                  Exactly. An honest man should come down exactly the same way on whether hobby lobby and A&E have first amendment rights.

          • jroberts548

            No one in all of human history has ever or will ever have their free speech rights affected by another private entity choosing not to endorse their views. Many people don’t have A&E tv shows. I don’t have one. You don’t have one. Neo nazis don’t have one. The pope doesn’t doesnt have one. None of those people’s free speech rights are being hurt by A&E not giving them a show. No one has a free speech right to make a cable network give them a show. In fact, it goes the other way: A&E has a free speech right not to endorse Phil. Unless you believe entities don’t have free speech rights, in which case I look forward to your retractions concerning the hobby lobby case.

          • gusbovona

            Sorry I had to wait until today to rejoin the conversation.

            Chezami, you’re right about the criticizing. But wouldn’t you agree that the 2010 quote is intolerant and disrespectful? I think one could be against homosexuality and not accuse homosexuals of the things that Phil did.

            Also, why pigeonhole me as a Stalinist from the little I had written? I promise I won’t do the same to you if you promise the same.

        • Rosemarie


          I listened to that part of his talk in context. First of all, he is paraphrasing Romans 1:21-30 and expounding on what he believes is its relevance for our culture today.

          He says (following the order of St. Paul’s thought), that after people deny God, they then begin to worship what is not God. The next step is sexual immorality, – here is where the discussion of homosexual behavior appears in both Romans and in Robertson’s talk. He then recites the laundry list of other sins you quote above, which is drawn nearly verbatim from Romans 1:29-30.

          The entire speech is not dedicated to condemning homosexuals. In fact, that whole section is more directed at certain activists who strip naked to protest eating chicken (I think he’s talking about PETA). He only mentions homosexual activity in passing as part of a general statement about those who have rejected God. So it’s not quite what the MSM makes it out to be.

          If you want to hear everything he said in context instead of carefully-selected media sound bytes, here is the whole talk:

          It’s fifty minutes long, but if you start listening around 15:00 through 19:15 you’ll hear the controversial part in full context.

          • gusbovona

            How does the meaning of what he said change because of that context?

            • Rosemarie


              It shows that he wasn’t singling out homosexuals with that litany of sins in quite the same way the media portrays it. He was talking, like St. Paul, about the general progression and consequences of sin.

              He begins by criticizing certain animal rights activists who engage in public indecency to get people to stop eating meat. He then asks, where does their mentality come from? He believes that Romans 1 answers that question.

              In that passage, St. Paul describes the progress of sin in the human race. First humans fail to acknowledge God, then they commit idolatry, then they descend into sexual immorality and numerous other sins (the litany of sins which the news media is quoting so much).

              When the news media insert the word “homosexuals” into his quote: “They’re [homosexuals] full of murder, envy, strife…” etc., they give the impression that Robertson was applying that litany of sins only to homosexuals. Yet he doesn’t actually say that and the passage he’s quoting doesn’t do that either. It’s talking about the general effects of sin on humanity, and Robinson is applying it specifically to America today. Yet those effects do not all apply to each and every individual. Not every idolater will commit homosexual acts and not all who do the latter will be “full of murder, envy, strife…” etc.

              So yes, the overall context changes the meaning of what he said quite a bit. He’s not singling gays out as heartless, senseless, faithless murderers, etc. He’s saying that all these things result from rejecting God. In fact, he’s saying all this in the context of criticizing radical animal rights activism (he is a duck hunter, after all), so it’s all directed more at them than against gays.

              • gusbovona

                Thanks, Rosemarie. But the context supports the idea that by the word “they” in “They’re full of murder . . . .” Phil means “homosexuals.” He doesn’t say the word “homosexual” at that point, but that is what the word “they” refers to. At 18:25 or so he says “Women with women. Men with men. “They committed . . .” and continues with a long string of parallel sentences, all of which begin with “They” and which includes the passage I quoted above. The media put in “homosexuals” in parentheses correctly and accurately.

                • Rosemarie


                  Actually, “they” refers to sinners in general, since that’s what he is talking about in full context. Those who reject God, commit idolatry, engage in sexual immorality and other sins. He does not single gays out any more than the original passage he’s expounding on does.

                  If he’s singling out anyone, it’s radical animal rights activists since that’s whom he’s criticizing in context. He even implies that they are “worshipping” animals, and ties that in with Romans 1:23: “(they) exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (EDIT: I’m not too keen on that particular interpretation of the verse, BTW, but it’s his take on it.)

                  You really have to take the whole speech into account; it’s explicitly directed toward PETA types, not gays.

                  • gusbovona

                    It seems to me that the plainest reading is that a pronoun (“they”) refers more likely to an immediately preceding noun (“men” and “women”).

                    • Rosemarie


                      Or it could refer to sinners in general, if he’s talking about sinners in general. Context is everything; I’m not seeing a specific condemnation of gays so much as a general observation about the roots and effects of sin, of which homosexual activity is one form. The reference to that sin is in passing, in light of the full context.

                      In the end, everyone who views it can decide for themselves. I don’t agree with all the controversial things Robertson has said, but I strongly believe in going back to primary sources and looking at things in context rather than relying on news reports that may skew the truth. Everyone deserves a fair hearing even if we disagree with them or just don’t like their style.

                    • gusbovona

                      OK, rather than going back and forth, let’s try to move on this way: *if” we read the word “they” as meaning sinners in general, then there’s no specific issue for gays; but if the word “they” *does* refer to homosexuals, then what? Surely they are not full of murder, envy, etc. That reads like *all* homosexuals are murders, etc.

                    • CatholicJames##Scott+~


                      If one reads it that way then yes, one would come to that conclusion. That’s apparently how the MSM has chosen to interpret it. Yet other interpretations are certainly possible. If he’s using the passage from Romans the way St. Paul intended it, then he’s not saying that all gays are murderers since that’s not what St. Paul is getting at.

                      Also, it doesn’t quite make sense since I’m sure Robinson knows that not all gays are murderers. That would be some incredible hyperbole. He’s also made statements to the effect that his family doesn’t judge who is going to hell; they just love everyone, including gays, and share the Gospel with them. How does that square with the worst possible interpretation of that 2010 speech?

                      When we take the context into account, he just seems to be expounding on What’s Wrong with the USA today and relating it to Scripture. I don’t think it would hurt to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

                      (EDIT: Sorry, I accidentally posted this under my husband’s account. It’s me, Rosemarie.)

        • texastwist

          You know, after reading your post I thought maybe I’d lost my mind and misread everything in the GQ interview because I never saw the bit you quoted. I read it again and searched it and didn’t come up with those words at all. Then I googled your quote (your link doesn’t work) and found it in 2010. So, is this now justifiable punishment for past sins of his or for the GQ interview? The guy is who he is. I understand not liking him or at least his opinions. I just don’t get all the nonsense going on with this. People cannot be forced to think any way. They will think what they will think, for good or evil. People who watch his show aren’t thinking he’s the second coming and taking his advice on philosophy or theology. They are being entertained. So much energy is spent on hating people who don’t agree with this side or that. What a waste of human energy and possibility.

        • Dave G.

          The brilliance of liberalism has been to redefine tolerance as something that only applies to people who conform to the moral absolutes of liberalism.

          • chezami

            Meh. The Thing that Used to be Conservatism has totally adopted the same mindset of tribalism. Screw ’em both.

            • texastwist


            • Dave G.

              Not really. Conservatives never strutted about with mottoes of ‘all morality is opinion’ or ‘who’s to say what’s normal’ or ‘let’s just all respect our different opinions.’ They’re saying it now of course. Which seems to be the point. The big switch has been that liberals, who used to proclaim ‘who’s to say what’s normal or morally true’ are the ones now smashing down those who disagree with a zealotry that would shame a KJV only fundamentalist preacher. Conservatives, best as I can tell, never promised a world in which all was relative and all truths were respect worthy opinions. Conservatives have their own issues of course. But they’re not always carbon copies.

              • chezami

                Baloney. I listened for a decade while conservatives said “Who’s to say what’s torture?” when their tribe needed to bullshit its way out of Church teaching.

                • Dave G.

                  In some ways similar, but not exactly. I’ve said in many ways conservatives are sounding like yesterday’s liberals, and liberals are sounding more and more like yesterday’s conservatives.

                  I don’t think conservatives tried ‘who’s to say what moral values are?’ as an argument for torture. They just tried to change the definition of what torture was. A bit the same, but not exactly.

                  It was liberalism that promised an age of tolerance, diversity, live and let live, and let’s all respect our differences. Of course it seemed suspect even then, since those same liberals in the day had some pretty strong opinions about people who didn’t walk the line..

                  Nonetheless, that was the promise of liberalism. Conservatives defending torture was a moment of panic, and they did what panicky people do: the inexcusable. And then they did what people do: try to excuse it. Fail.

                  But liberals laid this as a foundation, a promise. Reject the old traditions and embrace a nation of tolerance and diversity. Turn a nation of sexism, racism and bigotry that butchered Indians, owned slaves, nuked babies and oppressed women into one where all are invited to the table to be themselves and we all agree to respect and celebrate our differences. That was the promise under which gay rights was born in the first place. So the question remains, where’s that land of tolerance and diversity we were promised?

                  I know, you’re more a ”pox on both houses” fellow. I was always a team player, and prefer to look at the differences, even if I end up rejecting the conclusions in both cases. . So similar perhaps, but in this case, the differences is the main point.

                  • Chesire11

                    By definition, any society that embraces tolerance as a guiding principle, necessarily rejects intolerance as illegitimate. The problem isn’t the political and social marginalization of intolerance, it is the attempt by some to paint points of view with which they personally disagree as “intolerant” in order to delegitimize, and silence them. While I would readily join you in condemning the hypocrisy of political correctness, it is ridiculous to paint all liberals with that brush.

                    Believe it or not, not all liberals are depraved, baby-killing, blasphemers. perverts, and degenerate morons. Some of us are actually rational, sane, intelligent people of goodwill – heck, some of us even pay our taxes, love our country, and go to mass!

                    • Dave G.

                      I don’t. Nor do I portray all Conservatives this or that way. That was my point at the end. I think liberalism has good, and conservatism. And those who identify as both can be quite good. But these were the general traits. And it was the grand promise of liberalism. to have this land of acceptance and tolerance and ‘we’ll all agree to disagree.’ That’s why many went ahead and accepted things they wouldn’t have. Who want’s to be judgmental and intolerant? Now? What happened? Where’s all that tolerance and diversity we heard so much about?

                    • Chesire11

                      Then please stop tossing around blanket condemnations of liberals. Most liberals reside in the sane center in which we believe in right and wrong, and not in the looney left. Heck I’m a Massachusetts liberal, and only once in my entire life have I ever known, or met anybody who pretended to subscribe to the sort of moral relativism that your comments suggest. It gives a false impression of the otherwise fairly reasonable position your are representing.

                    • wlinden

                      Mark also makes blanket condemnations of “conservatives”. You know, how they all condone torture, and slavishly follow the word of Glenn Beck (who I never so much as head of before Mark started ranting about him.)

                    • chezami

                      I’ve never said all conservatives condone torture and slavishly follow the word of Glenn Beck.

                    • Chesire11

                      He generally condemns particular practices by some who call themselves conservative, but which are fundamentally at odds with the principles of conservatism. That’s a bit of a difference.

                    • Dave G.

                      And if one is a liberal who forever proclaimed absolute morals against which people should be judged goats or sheep, then this little observation doesn’t apply. How many different ways can I say it?

                    • wlinden

                      He keeps attributing them to “conservatives”. Apparently, you think this is fine, but object when he does it to “liberals”.

                    • Dave G.

                      I’m not. But I’m addressing liberals who said such things and now say the opposite. Shoe fitting and all. And I actually pointed out that I try to see the best in both. Truth be told most ‘conservatives’ and most ‘liberals’ are not as far as we think, and are more complex than simple labels suggest. But the idea that the moral relativism I speak of was some fluke espoused by one or two radicals? ,Go back and read and watch from the day. It was taught by professors, proclaimed by pundits, advocated by pop culture and declared by almost everyone I knew in the day who considered himself or herself a liberal. It was the grand promise that would save us from the pillars of such an intolerant, bigoted and judgmental society. Where is it now, we wonder. That’s my point.

              • Chesire11

                Please stop trading in stereotypes. I am a pro-life, Catholic liberal who has never subscribed to moral relativist gibberish, and believes that homosexual activity is sinful, and yet I find the man’s comments boorish and offensive.

                Rather than caricature and dismiss the critic, answer the criticism.

              • Chesire11

                So…your problem isn’t that liberals believe that there is such a thing as a moral absolute, its that you disagree with them on what those moral absolutes are?

                • Dave G.

                  No, my problem is that it was those who called themselves liberal who, on the whole in the day, brought forth gay rights in the first place by saying ‘Ah, who’s to say what normal is? Morals are opinions after all.’ That they are the ones now saying ‘Conform or watch your butt’ suggests something is at least amiss. Those who were more conservative never even suggested such relativism.. They said there was right and wrong and nations had a right to expect certain moral assumptions. Twas the liberal of old who said hogwash, you can’t legislate morality, it’s all personal, let’s all just agree to disagree and respect differing beliefs and opinions. How true it was then is debatable. How true they think it is today is obvious.

          • JeffreyRO55

            How dumb are you? There’s nothing intolerant about fighting prejudice against minorities, especially when you have to invoke some imagined deity to lend gravity to your prejudice.

            • Dave G.

              That’s a wonderfully absolute moral standard you use. It’s everything I’ve come to expect from the modern way. There is no tolerance for those who fail to conform to the obvious moral standards that demand conformity. If that doesn’t say an enlightened, tolerant society of diversity I don’t know what does.

              • JeffreyRO55

                No one’s asking you to conform, just to extend the same legal rights you have, to others. It’s not tolerance to advocate a public policy that denies a specific group a legal right you yourself enjoy. That’s why people like you are getting pushback from people who understand our legal system, and fairness.

                • Dave G.

                  Yes, they are. To say we’re not asking you to conform, but we will punish you within an inch if you don’t, is asking someone to conform. No, it’s demanding it. Which has been the great coup. If you don’t conform to this dogmatic definition of diversity, your butt is ours. Brilliant. I tip my hat. It would take a generation like ours to expect people to believe such a thing. And furthermore it would take a generation like ours to believe it.

                  • JeffreyRO55

                    In what way are you punished, when same-sex marriage is legal?

                    • Stu

                      That was the same line of reasoning that was used to justify no-fault divorce (another redefinition of marriage) and that experiment has had terrible side effects on society.

                      Justify why redefining marriage further won’t continue that trend.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      Redefining marriage to include gay people honors our constitutional commitment to equal treatment for all citizens, plus provides a more stable environment for children being raised by gay couples, for starters.

                    • Stu

                      There is no constitutional commitment for things that are unequal. Further, your appeal to a stable environment for children with two homosexual parents is unfounded and it assumes that males and females are interchangeable which even you don’t believe. A child has a right to a mother and father and ideally attached to his or her biological mother and father which is the public purpose for marriage.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      And how is a straight person not the equal of a gay person? I thought a citizen was a citizen, regardless of gender or race or sexual orientation.

                      Gay couples can and do raise children in all 50 states. To deny them the right to have married parents violates their right to equal protection of the law. If a child has a right to a mother and a father, we need to outlaw single parenting, don’t we?

                    • Stu

                      The people are equal, the behaviors are not.

                      Now as to your assertion that we need outlaw single
                      parenting, you are overlooking greatly where this whole experiment is taking us and that is because you overlook the public purpose of marriage which is not to
                      legally affirm who you love or who your best friend is. The purpose is to attach a mother and father to a child and to each other. That’s the ideal because scientifically, anecdotally, evolutionary it is the best
                      environment for a child to grow up in a healthy manner. That’s fact. Two men cannot compensate for a missing mother and two women cannot compensate for a missing father. Again undeniable unless you want to put forth the premise that there are not differences
                      between man and women.

                      Because of this, marriage provided what has been called the presumption of parenthood. That is
                      whomever was married, it was assumed the children produced from that marriage were from that man and woman. Not always the case but mostly true and even in cases where it wasn’t it provided the best hope for a healthy child. Now that we have distorted marriage with this notion that two men can be married or two
                      women, we are destroying that system whose primary purpose was to attach children to their parents (which children have a right to) and now by legal fiat arbitrarily assigning them to people who simply aren’t their parents. That’s criminal. We are going to shut out the biological parents in favor of random people. And this has already begun with situations where two women are “parents” on the birth certificate and the real father has absolutely no authority over his child. It’s gotten even worse in other cases where splits have happened and the non-biological “parent” gets sole custody. All to the credit of those who want to distort and redefine marriage to their pet liking.

                      So back to the single parent. While not ideal, it does not by definition distort the definition of marriage or destroy the parental-child relationship.

                    • gusbovona

                      “The purpose is to attach a mother and father to a child and to each other. That’s the ideal because scientifically, anecdotally, evolutionary it is the bestenvironment for a child to grow up in a healthy manner. ”

                      Do you have any citations to support that science concludes this is the ideal?

                    • Stu

                      There are so many studies out there affirming this, that I don’t know where to begin.

                      Here is an easy experiment for you? Go down to your local prison and ask how many of the men know their fathers?

                    • gusbovona

                      The issue isn’t two parents versus one parent, the issue is two parents of opposite sex versus two parents of the same sex. We’re talking about gay marriage here, right? That means two parents.

                    • Stu

                      Then why not three parents? If two is better, then three would certainly be fabulous wouldn’t it? Four would be even more? Why not five?

                      They studies are for the “two biological” parents or a true father and a mother. The mother and father each bring unique gifts to the child based upon their gender. Two men cannot compensate for the absence of the mother. Two women cannot compensate for the absence of the father. Full stop.

                      Unless you want to argue that there are no differences in gender.

                    • gusbovona

                      I couldn’t say if more than two parents would be better or worse, I haven’t seen any studies on that. Have you?

                      Do have any citations that show that a male and a female parent are demonstrably superior as child-rearers than two parents of the same sex? I’m not a scientist, but from what I’ve read, I understand that such studies do not exist. The evidence doesn’t show what you’re claiming. But I’m willing to be shown otherwise.

                    • Stu

                      You are serious now? You want to actually hang your case on the possibility that adding more parents to the mix is “better?”

                      The studies are are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. The only thing that gets in their way is denial. An truthfully, the onus for change falls on those calling for the change not appealing to “what could it possibly hurt?”

                      But start here:


                      And start listening to the podcasts from the Ruth Institute.

                    • gusbovona

                      How can you possibly interpret “I couldn’t say if X or not-X i better” to mean “I want to hang my case on the possibility of that X is better?” In as plainly and as neutrally a way as I can possibly mean and say it, I have no idea whether 3+ parents are better or worse for a child. Please don’t shoe-horn me into whatever stereotypes you think I represent to you.

                      More later on your link.

                    • Stu

                      You shoehorn yourself with the assertion. I’m just telling you it doesn’t fit.

                    • gusbovona

                      Unfortunately, your link is not what you think it is.

                      1. The first bullet point is talking about mother-only families.

                      2. The second bullet point is talking about “single-, step or cohabiting-parent households.” No comparison to two-parent gay families there.

                      Even though that link talks about “biological parents,” there is nothing there to show that they actually controlled for whether the parents were both biological, or whether they were gay in a committed marriage. It looks like they contrast biological parents with such things as step-parents, but not gay parents.

                      3. The third bullet cites a pdf which is “404 not found,” but searching the web site reporting the 404 for the paper yields another paper that doesn’t show whether they controlled for gay versus straight parents.

                      4. The next bullet has no links, so there’s nothing to check there. It seems like the conclusions they state might well not distinguish between gay and straight parents, like everything else on your link does.

                      5. The next bullet only references two-parent households, which, as I said, is not the issue in gay vs. straight child-rearing. Again, the paper references is 404 not found.

                      6. The next bullet is a summary from an expert, but the use of the phrase “would increase” indicates that this is an opinion not based on research. If it were, then the phrase “does increase” would be accurate. There is the possibility that the scientist was just not being careful, but there’s no way to tell.

                      In sum, all of that does not add up to convincing evidence that two gay parents in a committed marriage are worse than two straight parents in a committed marriage as child-rearers.

                      More later.

                    • Stu

                      If you look at the bottom, there is a listing of studies. That was the point of the link which is exactly what I thought it was.

                      Read them and then get back to me.

                    • Stu


                      Here is another. Completely biological.

                      I can do this all day.

                      Besides, the onus is on you to change the societal/biological norm based upon your proof. It’s not for me to defend to what is the ideal.

                      Ask yourself this, if you had a design a system that would be the ideal for raising children given how they come into the world, what would it look like? Use your grasp of these studies to make your case.

                    • gusbovona

                      Stu, for your link
                      did you even read the entire article? Once again, this study does not compare gay versus straight parents; it compares one versus two parents. I can say nothing about whether gay or straight parenting is better.

                      It seems like you can not understand the logic and the science regarding the distinction between comparing gay and straight parenting with comparing one- versus two-parent parenting.

                      I thank you for the conversation, but I am now going to bow out.



                    • Stu

                      I did read it. It points to the biological parents being the ideal. That means a mother and a father. Unless, again, you are going to claim that two men can make up for the absence of a mother or two women can make up for the absence of a father you cannot claim that homosexual parenting can meet the ideal.

                      Unless, again, you are claiming that there are no differences in gender. Are you?

                      You avoid this question because the answer is obvious and damaging to your pretext.

                      The burden of proof is on the homosexualists to justify that redefining marriage will benefit society in some way. They haven’t done so. They can’t.

                    • SteveP

                      Nonsense. Prior to “gay marriage” statutes all men who did not want to marry a woman were treated equally. Now that “marriage equality” advocates have identified non-compulsory testimony as a fundamental right of a citizen, how does man who does not want to marry a woman nor enter a “gay marriage” exercise that right? Equal protection my foot.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      Your post makes no sense.

                    • SteveP

                      If that is the case than I would suggest you are not using “equal protection” in its literal meaning but more of a code for “Hey, I want what I think they have.”

                    • “Redefining” denotes a change in meaning. If that change entailed expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, then by necessity the original definition admits only of opposite-sex unions. Therefore in this case “changed” means “destroyed”, since the change altered an essential aspect of marriage.
                      We’ve only given same-sex couples equality with married couples in that marriage is now equally meaningless for everyone.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      Change doesn’t mean destroyed, since straight couples are still permitted to marry, when gay couples get the right.

                      I think marriage means what it means to the couple getting married. It’s not really for others to decide what that meaning is.

                    • I understand your position. I was even tempted to embrace it before I saw the fatal contradiction at its heart.

                      I say that lifelong fidelity and openness to procreation are definitive of marriage, and that redefining the term to include temporary and categorically sterile unions necessarily destroys the institution it describes. You object that, “Change doesn’t mean destroyed, since straight couples are still permitted to marry, when gay couples get the right.”
                      Your statement begs the question: what is it that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are being permitted to do? Defending true freedoms is praiseworthy, but the value of a freedom depends on the intrinsic worth of the good it gives access to. What intrinsic goods does marriage afford, that we should be so concerned with expanding access to it?
                      You anticipate this question by arguing that marriage has whatever meaning the couple being married give to it. In other words the meaning of marriage is relative. But follow that claim through to its logical conclusion. If a thing is of relative meaning it’s also of relative value.
                      If marriage has no intrinsic meaning–if none but the engaged couple, neither their family nor their neighbors nor their elected representatives nor the courts can decide what marriage means–then marriage is of no intrinsic value to society. If that is the case, then there is no rational or moral basis for any branch of government at any level to involve itself in marriage at all. It would also be unjustifiable to legally, economically, or socially penalize anyone for expressing any view on marriage–including couples who believe that the traditional definition is correct and normative.
                      We’ve entered a legal conflict between two mutually exclusive positions: one that defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman and another which must deny that marriage has any meaning at all. There is no substantive difference between stripping an institution of meaning and destroying it.

                    • gusbovona

                      What about, for instance, Jews in the Middle East in a few centuries before Christ. They allowed multiple wives, didn’t they? I seem to recall reading about that in some book. So much for an absolute definition of marriage that must be maintained for all time.

                    • The context of my reply was same-sex marriage. Many ancient peoples practiced polygamy. No culture in recorded history has ever regarded same-sex relationships as marriages.

                      The fact that the Hebrews–along with other ancient cultures–allowed polygamy does nothing to refute the claim that marriage has an intrinsic and non-negotiable meaning. It merely provides an example of that meaning not being clearly and immediately understood. (Although the ancient Hebrews did seem to understand, since the Old Testament features recurring implicit criticisms of polygamy, e.g. Jacob, Solomon, etc.). See Mark’s series on Catholic biblical interpretation.

                      Just because the Bible mentions a particular custom, that doesn’t make the custom normative (plenty of murder, sorcery, and sexual misconduct in there). And just because certain societies don’t grasp some aspects of the natural law perfectly at first, that doesn’t disprove the standard. (Ancient peoples also practiced slavery. That doesn’t relativize the value of human liberty.)
                      But for the sake of argument, let’s grant that marriage has no absolute definition. If that’s true, then marriage has no intrinsic meaning or value. Therefore anyone who wishes to be married–whether one’s partner is of the same or opposite sex–foolishly pursues something worthless, and arguing that same-sex couples should have a right to marry is equally foolish.
                      If on the other hand, marriage has an intrinsic meaning and value that flows from human nature, it cannot be altered by any act of government or popular will. Instead, all people have a moral obligation to discover that meaning and uphold it for the sake of the common good.

                    • gusbovona

                      Brian, I appreciate your willingness to grant no absolute definition to marriage for the sake of argument. We could have another conversation on that point easily, but let’s continue with your track.

                      I still see meaning and value, even if it is not intrinsic, to marriage if marriage in general has no absolute definition. Certainly I see great value and meaning in my marriage, and I don’t believe in an absolute definition of marriage.

                      (I’m not sure “intrinsic” is really the word you want to use, because I do see value and meaning that is “belonging to a thing [my marriage] by its very nature.” [Random House College Dictionary] Perhaps the idea of an absolute definition of marriage covers the same ground as you were trying to cover with the word “intrinsic” anyway?)

                      My marriage has given me the greatest value and meaning that nearly anything has in my life, but its value and meaning have nothing to do with whoever else is married to whoever else.

                    • Thanks for your appreciation and thought-provoking comment. Also, congratulations on your marriage. I’m glad for the joy and purpose it gives you (and, I hope, your spouse). That is what I’m committed to defending.

                      Your conjecture about my use of the term “intrinsic” is correct. But I’m not sure you understand the full implications of saying that you value your marriage by its very nature. Value is the proper response to something based on its nature, and nature is simply what something is.

                      It’s impossible to really believe that the meaning of marriage varies among couples and that any marriage has value by its very nature, because to say that something has only particular meaning and no general meaning is to deny that it even has a nature.

                      Definitions aren’t creative fictions. They’re declarations about the nature of the realities that terms describe. You use the term “my marriage” expecting me to know what it means generally; not just what it means to you. Your statement takes the existence of an absolute definition of marriage for granted. If there were none you’d have to explain the concept every time.

                      In other words, the meaning of marriage is objective; not subjective. If we’re all free to define marriage as we see fit, then I can define it in a way that directly contradicts your definition. We would then in fact be speaking of entirely different things when we say “marriage”. This isn’t equality. It’s linguistic degradation.

                    • gusbovona

                      Brian, I was saying that *my* marriage has meaning and value for me because of the very nature of *my* marriage. Others may get married for different reasons, feel differently about it, and thus get different meaning and value from *their* marriages. I’m not sure what objective value and meaning marriage in general could have beyond some statistical analysis of what marriage means for a group of individuals.

                      Let’s look at the situation before any gay marriage was legal in this country. At that time, marriage could be defined in a certain way, yet the meaning and value of it would still vary from couple to couple even as it had important similarities among most all couples. Surely many married couples treasure the trust, the intimacy, the sharing, and just getting through each day, etc. But probably not all, and not all the time, either. So what? The same situation will hold if gays can marry.

                    • Here’s the difficulty we’re running into: before you can speak of *your* marriage, you have to define what *marriage* is. Claiming that *someone else’s* marriage can have a different nature than *your* marriage is equivalent to stating that these two relationships you’re calling “marriages” are not the same thing. It’s absurd to describe different things with the same word in the same sense.

                      If *my* dog has meaning and value to me based on his nature, and I see that other dog owners’ relationships with their dogs differ from mine, I don’t jump to the conclusion that “dog” has no objective definition. It’s also equally absurd, seeing that dogs and cats have different natures, to call cats dogs. Even if some misguided person treated a cat like a dog in all respects, it would not turn the cat into a dog. If Congress decreed that cats were to be referred to as dogs in all government documents, dogs and cats would remain two separate species.

                      Surveys only reveal subjective opinions. An “objective definition” is a reality prior to and independent of how anyone feels about it, regardless of whether or not everyone knows it perfectly. That’s what I’m asking you for. You say that *your* X has value based on its nature. Define X.

                    • gusbovona

                      Brian, the definition of marriage is in the dictionary, which definition is currently being expanded to include couples of the same sex.

                      I’m not sure the word “nature” when applied to marriage means much beyond what is already covered by the definition of the word in the dictionary, what it means legally, and what value and meaning people individually ascribe to it, including their own.

                      I’m not jumping the conclusion that the words “dog” and marriage don’t have a definition. I just checked my dictionary.

                      I’m not sure where all this is going.

                    • I know these things can be complicated. Thanks for sticking with me. I’ll try to sum up here.
                      I asked you to define marriage. You replied that marriage has a definition, but it’s changing. That’s a circular argument which doesn’t answer what I asked. Once again, what is it that’s being changed? What does your dictionary say right now?
                      I stated before that value is a correct response to nature. I think you’ve reversed my definition to read, “nature is determined by how people view something.” Consider the absurdity (and potential danger) of that statement.
                      As I’ve used it in this discussion, “nature” refers to what something is; its essential “what-ness”. It isn’t something that humans invent or are in a position to change. Instead, we’re morally bound to discover the truth about realities that exists independently of us.
                      The word “dog” relates to “marriage” in that a dog is a really existing being with intrinsic qualities that define it, just as marriage is a concrete reality with certain essential attributes. Some qualities are superficial (e.g. a dog’s coat color). You can change them without risking harm. The sexual complementarity requirement in marriage is not one of these. It is so necessary that any attempt to alter it will result in something that is not marriage.

                    • gusbovona

                      Brian, that a definition might change is not a circular argument. In fact, definitions of words *in general* change throughout time. That is a standard idea for those who make dictionaries. If society decides that it’s better to have SSM, the mere definition of the word “marriage” should not stop it. Dictionaries are changed relatively easily. What’s the problem? Remember, are we talking about the word, or the institution (of marriage)?

                      I am not saying that nature is determined by how people view something. In fact, I’ve already said that the word “nature” isn’t adding much to the conversation beyond what some other, more easily understood concepts, contribute.

                      Marriage doesn’t have a nature beyond what we decide that it does. It doesn’t exist in nature like a dog does; that’s the difference. How did marriage and dogs come into existence? Dogs existed in the natural world, but marriage is a human construct. The earliest marriages anyone can find are 5000 years old, in Sumeria (

                      Marriage – demonstrably, given what we know about history, with evidence – is a human construct.

                      If you disagree with that because your god tells you differently, then we’re off into a conversation that will take far too png to resolve, I think.

                    • chezami

                      Translation: “Marriage” means whatever I want it to mean for me. This is excellent narcissism, but poor philosophy. If “marrage” means whatever you say it means, that’s another way of saying “marriage” is a meaningless word. To drain “marriage” of all meaning is not a way to say that marriage is meaningful. It’s merely a way of trying to beat people over the head and pretend that your relationship is a marriage. It’s not.

                    • gusbovona

                      chezami, you’re confusing the word and the thing itself. The word “marriage” has a meaning, it’s in the dictionary. What any marriage *itself* (not the word, the thing the describes itself) means may be different for different people.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      People who marry are being allowed to create a legal relationship that is moderately protected by law, and privileged in law, for whatever reasons they may have personally for getting married. Society benefits when people commit to creating stable family units, and care for each other and any children they are raising. This is as true of gay couples as of straight couples.

                      I see what you want: marriage as a compulsory institution for couples in certain circumstances. But if you really want that, then you’ll have to redefine marriage to be about procreation, and prohibit non-procreative couples from marrying, including gay couples, sterile straight couples, elderly couples.

                      As many of us have stated all along, there is no state interest in seeing straight people have privileged relationships. What would the purpose be, since you seem to be advocating it.

        • “When someone is intolerant…it is not intolerance to criticize.”
          When did we start bandying tolerance about like it’s a moral absolute? To tolerate something is to give it grudging sufferance only because objecting to it would violate an actual moral absolute.
          If we based moral judgments on pure tolerance, we couldn’t criticize anything at all for lack of an objective standard. Attempting to denounce others’ statements or actions by calling them “intolerant” is akin to denouncing them on grounds of bad taste. Neither claim in itself explains why the behavior is wrong or why objecting to it is right.
          All that appealing to tolerance does is give people an excuse to denigrate those who disagree with them while claiming unearned moral superiority. Such hypocrisy manages to combine begging the question, special pleading, and setting up a brazen double standard all at once. It’s a rhetorical vice the world would be well rid of.

      • Chesire11

        Actually, I find it rather unremarkable that human beings are more tolerant of those with whom they agree, and intolerant of those with whom they disagree. The only way to avoid that hypocrisy would seem to be by ignoring the speck in my brother’s eye, and…

  • The Next to Last Samurai

    Proud Americans rush to Wamart to buy useless duck junk made by Chinese slave labor. Film at 11.

    • LSpinelli

      Big. Mistake. People want to buy DD stuff in support of Phil, they should buy it from the Duck Commander site. (Did that myself just hours ago.) Don’t forget that half of the profit from Wal-Mart junk goes to A&E.

      Or go to your nearest Cabela’s or Bass Pro Shops and buy their American-made duck calls.

  • wlinden

    I don’t care what they say they “can reveal”. I do not regard the Enemy of the Anglican Race as a reliable source, period.

    • texastwist

      Um. Just wondering, what is the Anglican Race and who is its enemy?

      • capaxdei

        Perhaps it’s the Choir Boys’ Hundred Yards Handicap, for a pewter mug presented by the vicar—open to all whose voices have not broken before the second Sunday in Epiphany. Its enemy is a bird of considerable enterprise and vast riches named Steggles.

  • billhauk

    So, Americans are flocking to WalMart to buy A&E-licensed merchandise? Somebody’s laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    The Robertsons aren’t hillbillies, unless that is an all-purpose term of abuse for rural folks in flyover country. Now, my wife’s ancestors were hillbillies: dirt farmers from the high-up East Tennessee hills. When Tennessee seceded, they joined the Union Army and marched through Georgia with Sherman.

    This strange urge to convert any personal reminiscence into a general statement about an entire group is puzzling. I once wrote a story that involved a scientist investigating the survival of the soul after death. He was partly motivated by the death of his twin brother. Wouldn’t you know it: I received a letter chiding me because I had presented “death researchers” as being “psychologically troubled.” But of course, I had depicted only a particular individual in a particular situation, not an Eternal Truth.

    • Dave G.

      It is puzzling. And yet it seems very ‘now’ when you think about our modern ways.

    • SteveP

      “This strange urge to convert any personal reminiscence into a general statement about an entire group is puzzling.”
      I agree and would add it strikes me as a very self-destructive urge.

  • Elmwood

    one thing is for sure, gay marriage looks ridiculous and will always be ugly because it opposes the natural order. try as the homosex brownshirts might, they will never make what is contrary to natural law and reason into something better or equal to what is natural and good: marriage between a man and woman.

    there will never be much beloved fairy tales, books or movies between the romance of same sex couples. gay marriage can only appear to survive by being forced down people’s throats.

    only a few percent of the total population is homosexual and even fewer of those would ever want to be married. gay marriage is really all hype and no substance.

  • jroberts548

    This is not a free speech issue.

    Phil has a free speech right to say whatever he wants in an interview. Gq has a free speech rigt to publish it. A&E has a free speech right to not endorse Phil by putting him on tv. Duck dynasty fans have a free speech right to tell A&E they disagree. No one at any point in this whole kerfluffle has done anything that infringes on anyone’s free speech rights. The only one who has come close has been bobby jindle, who, as governor of Louisiana tweeted about what sort of speech he thinks an entity doing business in Louisiana ought to support.

    If you think A&E is engaging in a draconian attempt to crunch free speech, then you should also be stupid enough to believe that A&E’s critics are engaging in a draconian attempt to crush free speech by criticizing A&E for its exercise of its free speech rights.

    • Dave G.

      If only someone could have made that point to the old time liberals of the 70s and 80s. If some radio station said they wouldn’t play the Stones, or a TV station didn’t want to show Madonna. Oh, the cries of censorship, fascism and Big Brother that ensued. And of course liberalism had some good points. In a Democracy, it’s just as likely that tyranny comes from the grass roots as the top down. And liberalism made headway, changing our national morality and narrative and getting Americans to accept what once would have been unacceptable, rather than be accused of tactics more at home in the USSR or Nazi Germany. So alas. If only folks could have been there to say ‘this is not a free speech issue all you liberal types’, who knows how different our country might look today. Especially since it’s the liberals of today that seem to be so at home with the notion that such things were never about free speech.

      • wlinden

        And for those who assert “It didn’t happen, you’re making it up,…”


        • jroberts548

          And anyone who thought that CBS’ censorship of Seeger infringed his free speech rights was an idiot. Anyone who thought the Dixie Chicks’ free speech rights were restricted was an idiot. Anyone who thought the Dixie Chicks’ free speech rights weren’t crushed, but thinks that Phil robertson’s are, is a dishonest idiot.

          • Dave G.

            Once more, from the top. You know the words, let’s sing it together! Conservatives never strutted about with promises of ‘a nation where we all respect our differing opinions.’ A great many liberals, many who are now cheering on A&E’s choice, once proudly proclaimed such a paradise. That’s the issue. That’s the point. That’s the observation.

            • jroberts548

              I respect Phil’s differing opinion. I respect A&E’s differing opinion. Why should respecting Phil’s right to voice his opinion mean A&E loses the right to voice theirs?

              • Benjamin2.0

                Which conservative, where, asked for legal action? This discussion conflates legal and social standards. Why does A&E’s right to voice their opinion mean we lose the right to voice ours with our e-mails and money? We could be activists, too.
                And considerably more well-mannered ones to boot.

          • wlinden

            Then there were a LOT of idiots on the left. (Which of course, is hardly surprising.)

      • jroberts548


        There’s nothing that could have happened in the 70s and 80s that transforms this into something that offends free speech rights.

        • Chesire11

          I wonder where all the outrage was when Phil Donahue was cancelled by MSNBC for saying that invading Iraq might not be a very smart thing to do.

          • Dave G.

            Probably nowhere, since conservatives never really said we needed a country where everyone was free to express themselves and everyone else just needed to celebrate a land of diversity and tolerance. The ones who said those things are the ones who are now saying that people who agree with our good Mr. Duck should be banished from such open forums. Strange old world we live in.

            • jroberts548

              If by “banished from open forums” you mean “have their views printed in major magazines and repeated on cable news and the Internet,” you’d be correct.

              • Dave G.

                I mean treated like liberals of old called fascism and censorship. Pretty easy to understand. Of course as so many have demonstrated on this and other threads, so easy to deny.

                • jroberts548

                  Phil, founder and president of a forty million dollar company, is going to lose 200 grand per episode, for maybe a few episodes. He still has millions of dollars, and no shortage of ways to get his inarticulately grunted message out. He also still has his millions of dollars. I would love to be the victim of such fascism.

                  • Dave G.

                    When radio stations didn’t play a Stones song, or companies endorse Madonna, or Phil Donahue lost sponsors over the content of his show, nobody mentioned how much the multi-million dollar artists would lose. It was the principle of intolerance vs. enlightened diversity. Of a free country vs. a country ripe for tyranny. The country that was vs. the country that liberalism promised. Back in the day. A long, long, long time ago.

            • Chesire11

              Ummm…they just did…about the Duck Dynasty dude.

        • Dave G,

          Except for the overwhelming promise of liberalism in the 70s and 80s that said we would get over being a society that treated people this way for holding differing views, you’re right.

          • jroberts548

            That still doesn’t give anyone a free speech right in being on a tv show.

            • Dave G.

              In 2013, no. You’re right. Few people have any right to be on TV, or work in corporation, or teach, or do anything who don’t accept values as advocated by the Left. In 1983? Why, that was Big Brother censorship and oppression of liberty and the First Amendment. From the POV of, well, the Left. Fun stuff.

              • jroberts548

                And what does a position taken by the profoundly mentally incompetent in 1983 have to do with anything today?

                • Dave G.

                  It’s called peddling a BS lie. Of course, in hindsight, everyone should have seen it was BS. After all, the ones screaming ‘we must all be tolerant’ had no problem calling names, accusing, and calling for punishment of those who didn’t accept various darlings of the Left in those days. But in fairness, yes. You’re right. Concepts like tolerance, open mindedness, and respecting diverse opinions have long fallen out of the progressive lexicon. That’s what happens when someone gets power. As I’ve said elsewhere, things like that are said when you’re on the outside looking in at power. When you have it? Well, that’s where proclamations of indisputable moral absolutes that demand “conformity or else” come into play.

                  • jroberts548

                    I get it gramps. You’re mad about something from the 70s and 80s. Some liberals said some stuff 3 or 4 decades ago, and you’re annoyed.

                    That had literally nothing at all to do with Phil Robertson’s free speech rights. There is no amount of liberal hypocrisy that gives Phil a free speech right to a cable show. Is your sole insight that some baby boomers are hypocrites? So?

                    • Literally every day liberals demand that we accept odious statements It never ended. Free speech obligations as a cultural construct exist and are wider than the political right. That the political and cultural forms of free speech use the same terminology is somewhat confusing. Do try to keep up though.

                    • jroberts548

                      And under what culutral, non-legal set of free speech principle does Phil Robertson have a free speech right to a tv shoe, and how is that right greater than A&E’s free speech right to choose what speech it engaged in?

                    • wlinden

                      How did the Dixie Chicks’ desire to sell albums amount to a “free speech right” trumping people’s desire to choose what to listen to?

    • It’s not a political free speech issue. It’s a cultural free speech issue. At what point does your expression go beyond honest differences and into the arena of so far beyond the pale that you get fired for it.

      Nobody’s pushing legislation to fix this but free speech isn’t purely a political issue. How wrong do you have to be before you’re beyond the pale? That’s a cultural issue expressed mostly via economic means.

      • jroberts548

        I have as much cultural free speech right to a cable show as I do a legal one.

        Under what cultural, moral, or any other principle does Phil Robertson have a right to a tv show?

        • Benjamin2.0

          If you have a standard in mind, would it affect a homosexual who calls plain expressions of Christianity
          “hate speech” or “homophobia” in the same way? Could he be fired for this under the same standard? Somehow I don’t think this shoe would fit the other foot at all. The shrieking activism would rupture the ear drums of the whole of humanity. No, no, the side which measures employment levels and wealth distribution rather than hiring methods and enrollment standards (that is, they call for equal results rather than equal opportunities) would cry “discrimination”. The comparison kinda’ makes the current outrage seem not only tame, but like something they’ve been asking for.

          • Benjamin2.0

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this is a legal standard. But GLAAD deserves every microliter of the backlash its getting now, and it’s been a long time coming. The modus opperandi of the political correctors isn’t to demand an equal standard but to level society by the application of unequal ones. I find the sudden awakening to this offense of principle (or, consequentialism, if I may use one of our host’s favorite terms) somewhat hopeful.

        • You don’t get it. A&E knew who Phil Robertson was and then fired him for being who they wanted him to be. They did this for social status reasons, in shorthand they wanted to get laid. So the question is are they heroes or toads? Is their social play a success or did they transgress?

          Whether anybody has a right to a show is so far removed from the actual issues at play makes me wonder if you are commenting from your mother’s basement.

      • $2346491

        No one has the right to a TV show. Phil had a contract that probably discussed these sorts of things and was apparently warned by the network about his language on this issue.

        • Probably had a contract clause is bending over backwards in favor of A&E. I strongly doubt an explicit clause like you posit even exists. Why wouldn’t they cite the clause chapter and verse if it is in there? I’ll say that the norm should be that a reality star is assumed genuine and should not be fired for really being like the character the execs want on TV. If you want a southern crusty white trash Christian and you get one then this is what you paid for. Suck it up.

  • JeffreyRO55

    This isn’t a free speech issue. Robertson can say, and did say, whatever he felt like. He also has to deal with the consequences of what his network feels about what he said and how it reflects on them.

  • balbulican

    I can’t find the part of the article that provides any evidence that Wallmart is “selling out” of Ducks’ merchandise.

    • UAWildcatx2

      I don’t know if it was updated since you visited the page, but there are quite a few images that show the wal-mart website.

  • texastwist

    Money talks.

    “Yesterday it was revealed one company, Cracker Barrel had dropped the Louisiana family. But after threats of a boycott they almost immediately reversed their decision, releasing a statement, saying:

    ‘You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores. And, we apologize for offending you.’

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • Stu

    Since we are talking about speech.

    If “homophobia” is the chosen term by the homosexualists for anyone who simply doesn’t support their lifestyle or pushing their agenda, does that mean calling them simply “homos” is acceptable?