Why do anti-marriage equality types think that this is an effective argument?

Marco Rubio:

“If pro-traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot just before the 2012 election,” Rubio, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, said in a speech about conservative family values at Catholic University.

Ralph Reed (seriously, this guy is still around?):

Saying he “can’t let that go,” Reed, an unapologetic social conservative, jumped in to disagree.

“This suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage, that they’re ipso facto intolerant – by that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago,” he said.

Is this supposed to make liberals fall to their knees, heads asploding out of sheer cognitive dissonance? “OMG HOW CAN WE CALL ANTI-GAY BIGOTS ‘BIGOTS’ WHEN OUR COMMUNIST KENYAN GOD WAS JUST LIKE THEM A SCANT TWO YEARS AGO????!?!? WHAT DO WE DO NOW????”

The answer to “arguments” like this seems pretty self-evident to me: “Yes, yes he was. But now he’s changed his views and we’ve moved on.” Just because movement conservatives feel the need to turn their political leaders into mythological figures doesn’t mean everybody does.

I guess this is why I’m not making big bucks in the right wing PR industry, because I don’t get it.

Author: DWD

writer, blogger, lover, fighter

Leave a Reply