stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Tony Perkins Warns Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Polygamist Immigrants (Video)

by David Badash on March 27, 2013

in Hate Groups,Marriage,News,Politics

Post image for Tony Perkins Warns Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Polygamist Immigrants (Video)

Tony Perkins today warned that making same-sex marriage legal will lead to an untold number of polygamists immigrating into the United States. MSNBC reporter Luke Russert took a strong position with Perkins, leading to this response from Perkins:

“As you set up this package interview, people ought to be able to marry who they love. If love becomes a definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, how do we define that going forward? What if someone wants to immigrate to this country from a country that allows multiple spouses? Right now they can’t immigrate with the spouses, but if the parameter are simply love, how do we prohibit them from coming into this country? If it’s all about just love, as it’s being used, where do we set the lines?”

Perkins, of course, is the head of the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group. Perkins has joined with his fellow radical religious right wing extremists, including Gary Bauer and Mike Huckabee, threatening that if the GOP supports same-sex marriage, evangelicals will leave and start a third party.

Igor Volsky at Think Progress, who posted the video and the transcript, adds:

Asked to defend the comparison by reporter Luke Russert, Perkins explained that he was not likening gay people to polygamists, but only warning about a slippery slope.

Three interesting notes: First, Luke Russert is often accused on social media sites like Twitter of being a poor reporter and interviewer, but in this interview he did an excellent job. Second, had MSNBC posted the full interview to their website, we would have included it here instead of the shorter Think Progress clip above — why didn’t MSNBC post the video? Finally, why does MSBC insist on hosting and offering a platform to hate groups like the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 16 comments }

barbonine March 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm

It's quite likely that multiple marriage will be the next to step up and demand the right to marry. This is a can of worms I would not want to open, if I were SCOTUS.

If consenting adults can marry each other in groups, what would keep entire towns from becoming "families?" I know that's the hyperbolic weird end of the issue; most people would probably live in smaller groups and mind their own biz, just like those guys sharing a house down the street you think are college students or brothers or something.

If three people can marry, who is to say that 30 or 300 people cannot marry? Is a puzzlement!

lunaticfringer March 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Your logic is a puzzlement.

barbonine March 27, 2013 at 9:21 pm

How so? It's pretty simple. So simple, a caveman could grok it. So what's your confusion? Think you can verbalize it instead of just launching an insult?

Huntercgo March 28, 2013 at 8:56 am

Why don't we deal with multiple marriage when it becomes an issue? Right now, we're dealing with same-sex marriage, which is not the same thing (except, maybe, in Tony Perkins' fantasies).

barbonine March 28, 2013 at 12:33 pm

I have learned that it's better to be prepared than surprised. So you run along and focus only on same sex marriage, but don't be surprised down the road when your unions get dragged into the whole 'polygamist marriage; y/n?'

People who are surprised by the obvious lack some necessary tools to deal with the future.

Huntercgo March 28, 2013 at 12:39 pm

OK, that's the funniest thing I've read in these comments ever. I'm sure interracial couples are appalled at being "dragged into" the same-sex marriage debate.

When someone presents a case for polygamy, I'll consider the arguments then, rather than making up lurid fantasies so that I can "be prepared."

barbonine March 28, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Lurid?

Son, if you think the notion that polygamous couples will be next to demand marriage equality, you don't have a clue what 'lurid' means. Run to your dictionary.com, quick!

Oh, and don't act surprised to learn that the wackos of NOM are already on this like stink on a june bug. Lookee here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/noms-bishop-

CastleRockBear March 27, 2013 at 6:37 pm

You basically sound no better than Tony Perkins…I want to marry ONE person…not 3 or 4…quit adding something that we are not asking for…it is nothing like Polygamy….it is the love between TWO consenting adults….Stop using STUPID INSANE comparisons, it is hardly the use of an educated mind!

barbonine March 27, 2013 at 9:23 pm

You will find that, once marriage equality is established, it may surprise you to know that your gay marriage is not the center of the universe. Likely polygamy will fall under "marriage equality."

It's not a comparison, you stupid mutt, it's a prediction on how this will roll once the polygamists start demanding their right to marry as well.

I wasn't talking about you and your one partner. I wasn't even addressing gay marriage, merely observing where this issue is likely to go in the not so near future.

James_M_Martin March 27, 2013 at 10:49 pm

I've never seen poor Tony look so tired. Just think of it, a guy who planned his whole life because his mother gave him the name of a now-deceased actor who passed with AIDS. School bullies made such a thing about it, he decided to strike out and convince everyone that he is totally against gays. Now, he projects his own internalized homophobia on others to make us think he is not, himself, gay. But the truth will out. He had a three-way with Ted Haggard and the boy toy who scored cocaine for Ted. All three got zonked and really went at it. It will be big news when Larry Flynt publishes the photos. Hide and watch!

Huntercgo March 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Actually, I suspect he became a professional gay-basher when white supremacy turned out not to pay so well.

BlueStapler March 6, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Tony Perkins is a long time toilet sniffer (like Sen. Craig) who heads the ANTI GAY HATE GROUP, the so called Family Research Council. His group in known for "their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc

Huntercgo March 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm

After being a professional editor for better than 25 years, I find it amusing when someone tells me to "run to my dictionary.com."

And it's as I said in my initial comment — when polygamists want to make their case, I'll consider it then. (I also find it more than a little humorous that Tony Perkins, self-styled "Christian," is making dire predictions about polygamy — a) it's a tired argument that never had much traction to begin with, and b) has he read about King Solomon lately?)

barbonine March 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm

I would think a "professional editor" would know better than to use words inappropriately. Like 'lurid,' for example. Somehow you think my prognostication that polygamy will be the next applicant for marriage equality is "lurid." Hell, I wasn't even being hyperbolic, let alone lurid. Let's see what Mister Big Book of Words says, shall we?

lu·rid
[loor-id] Show IPA
adjective
1. gruesome; horrible; revolting: the lurid details of an accident.
2. glaringly vivid or sensational; shocking: the lurid tales of pulp magazines.
3. terrible in intensity, fierce passion, or unrestraint: lurid crimes.
4. lighted or shining with an unnatural, fiery glow; wildly or garishly red: a lurid sunset.
5. wan, pallid, or ghastly in hue; livid.

Huntercgo March 29, 2013 at 6:18 am

"2. glaringly vivid or sensational;"

Bingo.

barbonine March 29, 2013 at 1:07 pm

So you think predicting that polygamous unions will demand the right to their marriage equality is "glaringly vivid or sensational?"

I disagree. I call it pragmatism. Get real, or get disappointed.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: