Sex with ducks

Chris Lowe

The "arguments," such as they are, against marriage equality and other civil rights protections for LGBTQ people may be irrational, they may be expressed on terms of grossly bigoted and sometimes violent hostility, and they may be ridiculous. These forms can be separate, but are recombinant. The unburdened hostile ridiculousness of the Reverend Pat Robertson, among the acknowledged masters of the form, includes assertions that LGBTQ legal equality will lead to "everything we hold abhorrent," including that favorite of idiot slippery slopers, bestiality.

A few weeks ago, the Rev'd Pat interestingly revealed just where his mind goes when he thinks about bestiality:

Pat's excursion in hip-waders into the swamps of absurdity inspired a musical response of minor genius. Performed by a duo known as Garfunkel & Oates, who deserve to be more famous than they are as yet, the opus is entitled "Sex with Ducks."

Here are two versions. The first has more explanation; it is less produced, but I like the singing better. The second "music video" version adds some visual interest.

And then of course there's the Oregon angle: What does Pat Robertson have against the hundreds of thousand of lovers and spouses of current and former university students in Eugene?

Comments

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Er, hate to have to mention this, but Obama's Justice Dept. has filed a brief in DEFENSE of the Clintonian Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

    Just last year candidate Obama said he was going to try to get the DOMA repealed.

    Treachery.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bummer. Dang. Now it's time to get to work on the next phase. Any of us who follow the Four Directions Altar path, or the Red Road (indigenous spirituality) know that every medicine person is also a human. So we follow example and seek their guidance; and also hold ourselves and them accountable.

    So it is with this much-admired figure of distinction and tasty brainy brain: time to hold him and his accountable. Now we begin the hard work of Democracy and Republic - and I hope we do it like mature and evolving people. We are this nation's best hope - not Obama. It's OUR job to do this well and right. As much as his.

    Don't ya think?

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rw: what Obama's Justice Dept. did on 6/12/09 is an endorsement of Calif. Prop. 8. I would think any and all polling would have shown Dem/Obama voters to be solidly against that measure. So, Obama knows the score but he's not listening to his base. So, how in the heck do we hold him accountable for having instructed Justice to file this brief?

    It could be suggested that a vote for another candidate in '12 would be appropriate, but Obama will have the power of incumbency.

    What to do?

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In keeping with the flavor of this thread, here's an URL which relates how the brief contains references to incest and pederasty:

    www.americablog.com/2009/06/mormon-bush-holdover-filed-anti-gay.html

    Seems it was authored by a Bush Justice holdover, although two other Obama Justice officials (incl. the Assistant Attorney General) are also listed as having filed the brief.

    "Reaching out across the aisle"

  • (Show?)

    The official position regarding the brief in the DOMA case, as stated by the White House, is that the government is bound to defend statutes already on the books. That, of course, is both a technician's response and nonsense. Filing that brief was not mandated by law; it was a voluntary administrative act.

    I do not think the brief was written or filed at the behest of the leadership within the administration or even AG Holder. Like the moron at DoD who said no one in the Pentagon was considering the end of DADT, I think this Bush holdover Solicitor General acted on her own.

    However, it's up to us to send the message to Obama and Holder that briefs like that have to be withdrawn. The DADT statement at Pentagon was retracted in less than 24 hours; the brief has to be withdrawn. Who is the "us" who ought to write or phone the WH on this? Well, for starters, all the Stonewall Democrats in Oregon. Not that we in the membership have heard a thing about this from the SD leadership here in Oregon. Naturally, I would ask any Oregonian, let alone all Democrats to protest.

    So, Frank, Laura, Leo, Kristin, where are you?

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We cannot get discouraged by the lack of action from the Obama administration in regard to equal rights for all Americans. The fact is that each day that goes by the opposition to equality fades just a little more. If not for Prop 8 in California, progress towards equal rights and an end to discrimination this past year would have been stunning. Pat Robertson isn't changing any minds either.

  • (Show?)

    Well, sorry, the Bush-holdover attorney on the brief wasn't a her.

  • Ten Bears (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As long as it's sex with Oregon Ducks, what's the problem?

  • (Show?)

    As is the case with a lot of civil liberties and civil rights issues, I think that the Big Dog himself is tamping it all down until the end of the year at the earliest.

    It does make me cranky but I beleive that they don't wanna fight any culture wars until they get healthcare and energy passed. It's all about Blue Dogs and a crossover or two in the senate.

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From my quote bag

    Obama is clearly a deft politician, which, coupled with real political courage, might make him a truly great President. I am still waiting to see the political courage part. by andrewj54 on Sat May 16, 2009 at 07:42:42 PM PDT (dkos)
  • Boats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Homosexuals are entitled to tolerance for their deviations to a point, but they are not entitled to normative acceptance, which is what the sham of "marriage equality" is really about.

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Boats is in disagreement with Dick Cheney; too bad that the Obama Justice Dept. also does not stand with Cheney (on this issue).

    Pat Ryan: not sure about this "keeping powder dry" argument. Are there members of Congress who are so easily fooled that they wouldn't suspect a change as regards DOMA if a change were really forthcoming?

  • Rulial (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Boats, it's not about "normative acceptance"--it's about equal treatment under the law, to which every citizen is entitled.

    Homosexuals don't need the government to gain "normative acceptance". Society is moving that direction on its own. As the daughter of Iowa's senate majority leader said, "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care." To many of us under 30, the opposition to same-sex marriage is silly. Any party or politicians that insist on fighting the "normative acceptance" of homosexuality are going to appear increasingly archaic and outdated to young people. Laws like Prop 8 might pass today, but those days are soon coming to an end.

  • (Show?)

    Lee Coleman wrote: "Not that we in the membership have heard a thing about this from the SD leadership here in Oregon"

    Please read the StonewallOregon.org blog, Lee. Sorry we didn't have time to give you a personal call when we learned of this in the past 72 hours. It's Pride weekend, we're working the parade and booth. Things have been quite busy.

    Personally, I am very disappointed by the DOJ. I would like to see the Obama administration continue putting its pre-election words into action. At the same time, I am conscious of how Republicans and their agents will use issues like this to try to divide our community, when in reality there is tremendous positive momentum towards equality in this Democratic administration. As a recovering lawyer, I am also aware that not all lawsuits are equivalent vehicles, and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that this particular legal challenge to DOMA may not have been ripe. Last, current political realities are that we must fight for our rights primarily at the ballot box. The days when Federal judges had the courage to stand on principle are over, after 30 years of Republican court appointments.

    My question: how does the GLBT Community push for continued change, without dividing upon ourselves over the rate of change?

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rulial, good post.

  • Old Ducker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Crap, I thought this post was going to be about...oh nevermind.

  • (Show?)

    Stephen,

    Not arguing for, or excusing the Obama position re civil rights and civil liberties. Just saying that this is what I believe is behind the Obama team intransigence, based on my reading.

  • Martin Luger (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have to witness!!!

    "Jesus loves me, this I know; For my asshole tells me so. His little dick is weak and limp; His mother's a whore and he's a pimp.

    Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes, Jesus loves us, Yes, Jesus loves me, My butthole tells me so!"

    Support gay rights as devotion to the author of all butt screwing!

  • (Show?)

    The excuses and rationalizations of Robertson and his ilk are nothing more than undisguised attempts at obfuscation coupled with a transparent attempt to incite the prejudices (and apparently the sexual fantasies) of their base.

    A duck can't give informed consent.

    As for "Boats" argument... "Acceptance" couldn't be more irrelevant. Precious few seemed to "accept" Spears and Federline being together and yet that had zero bearing on whether they could legally marry each other. Ditto for Michael Jackson and that woman he married back in the 90s. It didn't matter one whit whether society was accepting or those marriages or not.

  • (Show?)

    Marriage equity is just one of many fronts on which it is increasingly disappointing to see Democratic majorities and their executive leaders at many levels of government wasting their one-in-a-lifetime dominance. It's a crying shame, mostly shame.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Luger, lay off that shit. It's counterproductive. If you are serious, then I am really sorry for you. And if you believe you are joking or laying out some kind of elegant political punditry via joking, stop. You've failed.

    Signed, A Red-Blooded Pagan who does NOT hate Christians

  • Old Ducker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with Kevin. Americans have an unlimited right of contract (well, pre-Obama anyway). Just get rid of the State's interest (the license). Society should reflect the mores of the people, regardless of what any particular individual or groups think about whatever emerges within it.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Pre-Obama"?

    What? Ducker, you attack Obama ridiculously. He took no rights from gays etc. He took nothing from them. We continue to fight that same fight we fought before he came along.

    Get honest.

  • Bumser (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I love the last video

  • (Show?)

    Ducker,

    Nonsense. There are huge numbers and kinds of contracts you can't make, or at least can't get legally enforced, and a good number of those you could also get prosecuted and punished, sometimes severely, for trying or purporting to make.

  • Old Ducker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rw, in case you missed it, the Chrysler/GM deals, along with other moves has destroyed contract law. Shame on the SC for not ruling on it. Rule of Law is dead. We're a fascist state now. This is not ideological or political..just the facts.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is not the GM thread. It is the gay marriage or civil union thread. I did not miss that part.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Love Garfield and Oates....if you haven't already, watch "Self Esteem" and "Pregnant Women Are Smug"...you'll fall off your chair laughing!

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oops....typing/brain fail...meant "Garfunkel and Oates" of course.

  • Old Ducker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rw, the subject is contracts. Marriage is one form of that, gay or otherwise.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I see. So the Rancid Right is ranting against breaking up GM? AH how progressive their thorny old hearts.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wonderful interview documentary on GLBT hx on OPB right now, 11:11 pm. I do not see much of anywhere a report by historians, sociologists, anthropologists, social workers or other key informants that a contractual ability to be mated to the person of your heart's desire includes GLBT. So: not sure where this topic turned into Obama being an evil genius who immediately upon being elected abrogated all gains via Prop 8 and later, immediate actions... I'm not blindly all for him; but I fail to see how we can attach the doings of incumbent actors to a man barely seated in the White House and battling our collapsed economy day and night!

  • (Show?)

    Mel,

    I completely agree.

    Old D.,

    Actually this began as the mocking ridiculous arguments thread, particularly those so ludicrous as to be nearly self-mocking, so in that sense you are still at least in the ballpark.

    I am curious whether you had the same solicitude about legislative rewriting of Oregon public workers' negotiated pension contracts a few years ago? No? Don't think it made Ted K. and Ted F. Tweedle-Fuhrer and Tweedle-Duce? Thought not.

    Of course rw is right that the specific subject referent of the thread was hostile ridiculous arguments about LGBTQ civil rights including marriage and not anything particularly about contracts -- even the marriage part is much more than a contract.

    Unfortunately the timing of my posting coincided with the immediate aftermath of a decision by the Obama Justice Department to defend DOMA in court of which I had not been aware, and not just that, but to do so drawing on some similar hostile ridiculous arguments, which sidetracked the mockery & humor in the immediate seriousness of the moment, for quite sufficient reasons.

    And that, rw, would be my response to your most recent -- the issue is not just that the admin took the arguably conventional stance of defending extant law just because it is extant law (though even that is debatable as a political choice, since there have been exceptions to the conventional practice), but the way it is defending the law and the choice of arguments made to defend it.

    If the Admin believes what it is arguing, how is this brief not going to come back to bite them if/when they do bring it up for attempted legislative repeal? If they believe the nonsense they are averring, why would they even bring it up for repeal at all? And if they don't believe it, what kind of incompetence leads them to be so arguing?

    Obama has been in six months and getting worse by the day, especially the last two months. Six months is not barely seated. It is long enough for the internal debates to be getting settled and it appears increasingly clear that the forces for big money interests over ordinary people and unnecessary compromise with social reactionaries & for imperial militarism are winning the day pretty handily.

    Not sure I quite understand your reference to anthropologists etc., or even what point you are making there, but I commend to you E. J. Graff's book, What is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution.

  • (Show?)

    Leo Schuman asks "how does the GLBT Community push for continued change, without dividing upon ourselves over the rate of change?"

    As I see it, the answer is summed up in a single concept: leadership. The chair of Oregon's Stonewall Democrats tells me that the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued statements with no call for action. National Stonewall Democrats did not issue a statement or a call to action. Basic Rights Oregon did not issue a statement or a call to action on this particular issue.

    Well, that's what's wrong with gay (GLBT) Democrats today. Too damn timid for their own good and for our own good. The time is now to hold Obama's feet to the fire on rogue elements in both Justice and DoD.

    A leader would do that. My job is to do just that. I'm not alone in this. Lambda Legal and John Aravosis are leading on this one. The others are just simply missing in action.

    Leo adds: "current political realities are that we must fight for our rights primarily at the ballot box. The days when Federal judges had the courage to stand on principle are over, after 30 years of Republican court appointments." Leo's certainly right on both points. But still, it is up to us -- registered Democrats -- to take leadership in voicing to the powerful our view that rogue elements in the administrative superstructure must be reined in and in this instance that the brief must be withdrawn.

  • sohbet (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I love the last video

  • (Show?)

    Lee Coleman write: "Well, that's what's wrong with gay (GLBT) Democrats today. Too damn timid for their own good and for our own good."

    As a long-serving leader of Oregon's gay Republicans, Lee, you do indeed have experience criticizing Democrats, even if you did jump ships a few years back. I'll give you that. However, given the current political makeup of our State and Federal governments, you'll forgive me if I believe Democratic leaders, including LGBT leaders, are leading more effectively than you seem to believe.

    Leadership involves cooperation, partnership, trust, communication, education, listening, relationship building, voter organization, fund-raising, and the coordination of a number of other commonly recognized elements of effective political organizing ... as well as the occasional, well-timed full throated roar.

    You are correct. HRC, NGLTF, and the majority of our nation's LGBT political leadership are not roaring alongside you on this one. The Obama Administration and our Democratic Congress are moving forward with the most positive LGBT agenda in American history. Change is underway on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, Hate Crimes, and more.

    Yes, the DOJ chose poor language in this recent matter. Speaking personally, it pisses me off to hear that my rights must go in the back seat for fear of anti-gay States being forced to subsidize my equality, when the reality is that GLBT couples pay disproportionately higher taxes (no joint filing) and therefore subsidize every straight marriage in the nation.

    However, to throw the Obama Administration on the trash heap over this issue, as you suggest a "leader" would do, strikes me as ... poorly considered, to say the least ... when taken in context of the much larger picture. So, speaking for myself, we'll just have to agree to disagree on our respective theories of GLBT political leadership.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fascinating discussion. I vote we keep on track with the actual meaning of Chris' post rather than the PERS/GM contract issue.

    BTW, I'm for same sex marriage, understand the conundrum Obama's Justice dept is in when it comes to DOMA AND was against the PERS takeaway in 2003-2004 exactly on contract grounds.

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Second video very funny.

    I hadn't necessarily meant to attempt to sabotage Chris Lowe's purpose in posting this video but had just read an account of the DoJ brief.

    Pat Ryan: I wasn't trying to ascribe to you that you think "keeping the powder dry" is a smart strategy; was just thinking about why it isn't.

  • (Show?)

    Quoting Leo: "to throw the Obama Administration on the trash heap over this issue, as you suggest a "leader" would do, strikes me as ... poorly considered, to say the least ... when taken in context of the much larger picture. So, speaking for myself, we'll just have to agree to disagree on our respective theories of GLBT political leadership."

    We actually do not disagree -- and that's news! I was not suggesting that we throw the Obama admin to the trash heap; I was suggesting that a massive message to the admin that we want the brief withdrawn would be the responsible thing for all Democrats, and especially the GLBT ones, to do. I am for kicking certain leaders of the Oregon Stonewall Democrats to the curb if they cannot see their way to leadership in this direction.

    The larger picture is that we are too timid for our own good. This goes for prosecuting war criminals like Cheney, prosecuting war profiteers like Halliburton, prosecuting mortgage frauds of all kinds and master manipulators in the banks. It also goes for dealing with rogue elements in DoD and Justice who insist on discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans as a matter of course.

    I'm mad as hell and won't take it any more. I hope you are in the same mode.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kurt, thanks. I hate being attacked "just because" when I ask what that hell the sidebar has to do with the trial...

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And, as usual, Leo: I hope you will fire up on behalf of the issues of those nearest and dearest to me, on occassion. I'm here supporting you and expect to get attacked if I utter a word, a single word about context.

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The idea that people would have sex with Ducks or that Ducks might be reproducing and multiplying is disgusting.

    Go Huskies.

  • (Show?)

    Steve, no worries.

    Leo & Lee, thanks both of you for giving depth to the discussion, lots to chew over.

    rw, not sure if I've contributed to your feeling attacked for raising context, but if so, I apologize, not my intent. If it's just Ducker, well, remember, it's just Ducker ;->.

    Anyway, Kurt is right to back you up & I shouldn't have taken the bait.

  • Old Ducker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Greg D, it warms my heart to find a progressive who is also a Fuskie fan. I hope there are many more like you out there.

    PS, sex with ducks is pretty good, at least that's what Ive been told. :)

    But to return to the gay topic, I am reminded of an epigram from 2007 that applies to another hated regime:

    "Our Dixon, your Booty"

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nope, Chris - I'm only peeved we don't conversate, so to speak. Nope... I'm waiting for Leo to rage at me if I am not a straight down the line talker on this point (so his backseat is more painful than that of anyone else's? And I don't really see him stepping up and getting THAT worked up over anyone else's issues - just for his own, that's just my perception, possibly totally whacked), and of course Ducker.... yes. Quack.

  • (Show?)

    A request to the BlueOregon community: please clearly distinguish "Leo" and "Lee". We are not the same person.

    rw, if you're concerned that I (Leo) am sitting in the backseat on issues near and dear to you, please let me know offline (leo dot schuman at flexorial dot com).

  • 哈尔滨seo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    reads

  • (Show?)

    When a building is demolished, the demolition experts don't just set one huge blast in the building's dead center. It's done with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of coordinated blasts, which directs the rubble to collapse in it's own footprint, and leaves no portion of the edifice remaining.

    While politics is a heck of a lot less coordinated, we can never underestimate the little blasts that are occurring all over the nation. While the DC action - or inaction - is about as painful as watching paint cure, especially when they pontificate about not doing a damn thing, it's heartening to see changes at a local and state levels.

    ... and yes, I will toot the local horn. The Multnomah Dems are the first Democratic County Party in the state to pass a resolution supporting the repeal of Oregon's ban on same-gender marriage (Constitutional Amendment: Art XV, Sec 5a - Measure 36, 2004)... and we sure won't be the only one.

    These local efforts ARE important because we can jump start the conversations with our friends and neighbors about how laws directly effect real Oregonians. DC seems light years away to many, but folks get it when they begin to understand that their daughter, neighbor or co-worker is affected by inequality.

    Changing the Oregon Constitution alone won't influence DOMA. Dumping DOMA will not erase anti-marriage equality laws/amendments passed in Oregon and so many states.

    ... but they are also part of that explosive demolition of many charges. So is that conversation you have with your neighbor.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yep, Leo, there is a distinct difference between you and Lee. I am simply making note that I've been blasted by you, sandpapered indeed, more than once as somehow not being one of you for the fact of my differently-nuanced takes and commentaries on this issue. And wish not to experience it again, as, in my life, I've learned that I MUST have others of my ilk, who are not exactly like me, to make a really good thing go. I can only see so much on my own, and I need others to see around different corners for me. LIkewise, I am traveling a spectrum of being, not just the exact same ideologue/blowhard I was ten years ago, but will surely be again. So sometimes I live in anxiety of being misperceived or shallowly categorized simply for having to choose just ONE of the thousand threads of experience I carry. My views truly are NOT monolithic, but my expressions of whatever particular piece I'm trying to communicate... are often pungeant enough to make one think this is the only thought in my consciousness.

    It is only that lately I do not have the patience to sit and craft a really subtle pievce.... and then others would bitch that I was too dense-pack, too much content... can't please many, so don't try to please any.

    :)... tell you what, next time my heart is aching in rage and pain about something I care deeply for, I'll call for you. And ask you to say if you have thoughts. Many of my particular "issues" are TOTALLY related to those things spoken up here, but they seem, apparently, to be just outside the mainstream here enough to raise very little comment, or not enough to indicate any growth in consideration and awareness. I'm always talking on behalfl of the absolutely voiceless. Homeless, DVIS, elderlies, culture groups ignored by the polarities of our quasi-political discourse.

    Also, I've found, on the lbgt stuff, because I'm not quoting the lbgt bible slogans, I'm mistaken for "not one of us" and so lambasted... kinda like I'm not a hater of christ, but mainstream or fundagelical xians will NEVER claim me as their own b/c I cannot bring myself to sloganeer straight out of the bible. My encounters with that christ guy and my own particular journey as Called to the natural way/red road... well, those need to be real, live ME-words, not a quote from any damned where. Likewise, my gender, sexual, and other identity thoughts and expressions. So there are times you cannot identify me as one of this group or that, since I just cannto make myself spout an appropriate identity slogan.

  • (Show?)

    Leo wrote something I need to explain about my life experience as a gay man in Oregon. Leo noted "As a long-serving leader of Oregon's gay Republicans, Lee, you do indeed have experience criticizing Democrats..."

    Yes, I organized Log Cabin in Oregon. That eventually led to my being the only out gay man who ever penetrated the Oregon Republican Party's state central committee. My experience in that capacity was far, far less about criticicizing Democrats than Taliban Republicans.

    I was the only gay man preaching equal rights for gay people to the grand sachems of the Oregon Republican Party (and once at an RNC meeting). I ALONE was the gay man who did anything at all about trying to keep the Oregon Rs from endorsing the OCA's ballot measures. I ALONE was the gay man in this state to stand up to some of the worst bigots in Oregon at Republican gatherings OR to defend equality in direct conversations with leading "more moderate" Republicans. I am the only gay man to talk Gordon Smith out of using the term "special rights."

    As to right now: I am the only formerly Repblican gay man to "jump ships" as you put it Leo and to become a Democrat. But I am a firmly convinced Democrat for a myriad of reasons and I do not criticize Democrats unless they deserve it -- and the problem is that a few do deserve it. The upside of that is that sometimes some of those few do actually turn around and begin to do right.

connect with blueoregon