Playing the Catholic card AND the Gay Card?

I noticed this yesterday on Ann Althouse’s blog and I was really hoping it would just go away, that we wouldn’t have to see the Democrats and some on the left once again bring themselves to the edge of something truly ugly by playing the “gay, gay, gay” card. But I should have known better. And this time, the left is going to really out-do itself, by the way, because they’re not only going to whisper “gay,” as they do often, they’re going to do it while playing the Catholic card. That’s right, they’re trying for a two-fer.

In other words…they have nothing on John Roberts, they cannot really attack him on his qualifications or his record. So they are going to go after his religion and his wife, and while they’re at it, they’re going to start “gay” rumors, because…well…because they still think we care. As usual, they project their identity politics onto their opponents, because it is what obsesses most of them, and they can’t believe it does not obsess most of us.

From the beginning: President Bush introduces John Roberts to the press and the world. Some liberals and Democrats immediately assume that because Mrs. Roberts looks a bit anguished at the mention of their son, Jack, “he must be gay, let’s look into Jack!”. Upon learning that Jack is a four-year-old breakdance wannabe, they pull back a little, look at the blondness of these children, and begin to wonder why these blonde, “aryan” children were adopted from South America.

Then, WaPo’s Robin Givhan, who is probably paid pretty well for superficial crap like this makes withering, unnecessary and small remarks about the manner in which Mrs. Roberts dresses her children:

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. “John-John” Kennedy Jr.

Got that? The whole tone of her piece is that by dressing their children in (what I thought was) a very cute manner the Roberts are signalling either that they are climbers, or that they are hopelessly retrograde (hint: that’s code for “uncool and anti-abortion”).

Hmmm, I wonder what Ms. Givhans would have said about me back when I (still quite the raging liberal Democrat) dressed Buster like this:

Awww…I do love that shot!

Anyway, so now the Roberts not-gay-but-adopted-and-maybe-aryan-son-and-daughter have been used for about all their worth, right?

Well, no. Because John Roberts and his wife married in their forties (gasp!) and…and…they couldn’t have children of their own!!! But why not assign a simple explanation to their sad infertility, for example, the very common one that very often power couples who waited to establish their careers before settling down sometimes find themselves infertile?

Too simple, too naive, no, no…Roberts and his wife married late and adopted children because…wait for it…he must be gay! He must be gay! He must be gay! His son isn’t but he must be! GAY!

As if…you know…there is (suddenly) something wrong with that! Oh, but I forget, if a conservative is gay, like Mary Cheney or Rick Santorum’s spokesman, then there is something wrong with that, there is!

Not that I am saying Roberts is gay. Quite the contrary, I married a man who went to an all-boys Catholic school (on a scholarship) wrestled, and worked on school plays, and posed for “all guy” pictures at our wedding. Oh, and my Mother-in-Law (bless her) did dress him in atrocious plaid pants in the late 60’s and early 70’s, just like everyone else’s mother did.

As Charmaine Yoest points out:

Just a caution for my male readers: if there are any extant photos of you from the ’70’s in plaid pants, better get rid of them now. And it’s not just the evidence of questionable fashion sense. Apparently now that’s the goods on being gay.

Call it the Mary Cheney Strategy. Call it desperation. Some on the Left have started a “maybe he’s gay” whisper campaign against John Roberts…Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone’s sexual preference. It’s a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay.

Who cares?

Well, that’s just the point: they think we do.

Yup.

But wait, there’s MORE!

While the “gay” campaign is swirling its way up from the fever-swamps, Mrs. Roberts is also being hyper-scrutinzed for daring to be pro-life and, you know, not dressing right. Because, as I said just a couple days ago, not all but too many of these folks on the left – and the press – simply do not care if their words, actions or suppositions affect the families of those they do not like. They seem not to want to consider common humanity and decency as they scurry about looking for ways to undermine a man’s career.

I can’t remember ever seeing another SCOTUS nominee’s spouse being rigorously looked into, can you?

Then, of course, there is Chuck Schumer (I kick myself every day for voting for him instead of D’Amato!) who loves nothing more than to sing the “your deeply held beliefs are cause for concern” dirge. I am loath to call anyone a bigot, but I do start to wonder about Sen. Schumer. He certainly does seem to have a problem with Catholics and, as Hugh Hewitt points out, Schumer is about to mount an all out assault on the Roberts’ religious beliefs. Which is just deplorable.

But then Schumer and his pals on the committee have had a little practice on this. Recall that when Bill Pryor was put before them, Schumer and Diane Feinstein and the rest had a field day carrying on about his faith…and now that I think about it…they also used the occasion to play a gay card, albeit a homophobic one. “Tell us again why you decided not to take your children to Walt Disney World during Gay Days, Mr. Pryor…(isn’t it true it’s because you’re a hater and a homophobe????)

So, there you have it, be prepared. For some on the left (and please note how carefully I keep saying “some” on the left. I know there are folks on that side who must be appalled at all this…at least I hope there are!) the issue is already a “settled” thing. Roberts is gay, his wife is his beard, his children are the spawn of Nazis who have been hiding out in Brazil, they hate gays, they want to turn the clock back to 1950 and bring women into back alleys for abortions, oh, and….(sneer) they’re “devout Catholics” who want nothing less than to bring Pope Benedict XVI into the Congress where he can dance on the ovaries and uterai of all of those self-aborting women who will be dead by the thousands, this time next year, if John Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

That about cover it?

Also blogging on all or parts of this: Hugh Hewitt
Ann Althouse
Charmaine Yoest
Red State.org
Lorie Byrd
Dirty Harry
Closed Cafeteria
Mary Katharine Ham
Charlotte Allen
Charlotte Hays
Hoystory
Locker Room
Wuzzadem
Betsy Newmark
Michelle Malkin
Kerfuffles
Gullyborg