News Flash: Knucklehead Manages to Bang Out Column with Forehead

Michael Medved, Townhall's biggest pinhead, has written one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

No, seriously. It's that dumb.

See, he's trying to raise the old, tired "gay marriage = special rights" canard, but his efforts are so sloppy and senseless, you almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

He does some hand wringing over Ted Haggard and others that have been caught indulging their taste for that same-sex forbidden fruit. He spouts some "no one would be as ready to forgive these people if it were a heterosexual affair they were involved in" ridiculousness. Apparently, people like it when media figures have gay gay gay affairs... it's those damn hetero affairs that are verboten!

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same sex attraction—giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression– coming to terms with “who they really are.”

Yeah, all those closeted, self-hating gays get all the breaks! They never get publicly humiliated or lose their jobs! Meanwhile, poor Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani had all kinds of affairs, and they never hear the end of it! Why, they don't dare show their faces in public! And poor Jimmy Swaggart... his apology fell on deaf ears!

...ahem.

Spinning wildly, Medved then burbles:

One of the most common arguments for gay marriage also carries with it the implicit assumption that gay relationships count as inherently superior, more durable and more meaningful than their straight counterparts. Andrew Sullivan and many others advocate governmental endorsement of same sex marriage as a means of encouraging more responsible, monogamous behavior on the part of gay males, with their acknowledged tendencies toward promiscuity as part of the notorious and dysfunctional “bath house-and-leather bars” culture. In other words, all that homosexual guys need in order to give up lives of often reckless recreational sex is the right to a wedding license and a traditional marriage.

Yeah, advocates of gay marriage are always pushing that "inherently superior" meme when they ask for "equality." Because the definition of "equality" is "we get more than you." Hey, wait... he used the "special rights," the "all gay men engage in reckless sex lives" and the "all gay men go to bath houses" clichés in just one paragraph. Wow. He hit the trifecta. Someone should give Medved a medal. A really old, used up one.

Then he grabs the wheel, slams it to the right, and heads right into wackyland:

But the advocates of same-sex matrimony fail to explain why the institutions and practices which they believe will work so well in solidifying relationships in their community have failed to function with similar effectiveness for heterosexuals. Gay rights advocates find themselves in the odd position of arguing that legally sanctioned marriage will work better at improving and enhancing homosexual intimacy than it has in strengthening the straight partnerships for which it was designed. In fact, champions of marital redefinition love citing the baleful example of Britney Spears, asking why the pop star should be entitled to two brief, failed, ill-considered marriages, while more responsible and mature gay people can’t win approval for even one. Critics of the status quo also deride those of us who say we’re trying to defend traditional marriage –pointing out that the high divorce and infidelity rate makes it questionable whether this old concept of matrimony is even worth defending.

Yet these same gay rights activists continue to claim that the same institution that has failed to uplift or preserve the relationships of so many heterosexuals, will work magically to enrich the lives of gays. The assumption behind these contradictory arguments seems to be that homosexual relationships are somehow inherently more worthy, conscious, generous, mature and capable of refinement by marital institutions than their unthinking, straight equivalents.

So.

Medved is actually arguing that gay marriage with never work, because straight people can't make it work. And when a homosexual says "hey, I'd like the same rights that you have, after all, why should one person be allowed to go through marriages like potato chips and we're not even allowed a chance," what they're really saying is, "I'm better than you, straight person!"

He then throws a little more gasoline on the fire by sputtering some more tired old crap; you've heard it all before... equating gay marriage to nymphomania or porno addiction... "Man on Dog" Santorum would be proud. But really, he can't top that paragraph above.

We can't make it work, so why should you be allowed to, faggot? Quit getting so uppity!

As the national argument continues to rage regarding the proper social and governmental response to homosexuality, some of the advocates for radical change have unobtrusively but unmistakably shifted their campaign from a request for equal treatment to an assertion of innate superiority. They demand for gay impulses not the same treatment accorded to heterosexual desires, but far greater latitude and acceptance, along with uniquely privileged social sanction and legal endorsement.

Wow. My hat's off to you, sir. You are the Grand Poobah of Duh.

(Via Sadly, No!, who shortened Medved's "column" to:

"Advocates for gay marriage say it would encourage homosexuals to be monogamous, but why hasn’t it worked for heterosexuals? Wait – that’s not what I meant! Homosexuals think they’re better than you!"

As the kids say, Heh, indeed.)

(I'll be amazed if I'm able to cross-post. Blogger is teh suck.)