Tuesday, December 9. 2008You Suck Rufus Wainright The Self-Involved Bourgeois Airhead Award for December 2008 goes to Rufus Wainright. The decision is unanimous and he certainly deserves it. In an interview with the right leaning New York Press this week he said:“Oddly enough, I’m actually not a huge gay marriage supporter. I personally don’t want to get married but I think that any law or amendment to the constitution that deals with sex and love should just be banned in general. I don’t think any government should encroach on what goes on in the bedroom at all. Frankly, if you want to marry a dog, why don’t you go ahead and marry a dog, I don’t care. I’m a complete libertarian and so I really disagree with it.”Oddly enough I am not married to my American partner because the law here currently forbids it, Rufus. Oddly enough, as a foreign national (like you Rufus, because I’ve just remembered you’re Canadian, but you’re also – crucially – famous and rich) I can see the value of it. It would have saved me tens of thousands of dollars I could ill afford in legal fees to immigration attorneys. I could have used that money to do other things. I might have bought a nice pair of Ray Bans or an opera ticket. I mean did you even know that heterosexual couples in bi-national relationships can pay $30 and get hitched in city hall – immigration’s usually a snap for them – but homosexual couples face stiff lawyers fees, uncertainty, discrimination, and chance. Every day. We don’t even have the luxury of idle speculation about man on dog hypothetical nuptials because we’re – I dunno – so busy fighting for our fucking lives. You say you personally don’t want to get married and so you personally haven’t given the matter any, you know, thought. Isn’t that nice for you. I wish I could just not care too. Maybe on your coin I wouldn’t have to. You call yourself a libertarian, too. Do you advocate for no Federal government Rufus?
Oh and what the hell is up with your man-on-dog right wing talking points? That’s slippery slopism, Rufus. You just gave Bill O’Reilly a boner. But you haven’t helped that sensitive gay boy out in Utah who’s trying to convince his neighbors that he has as much right to life and liberty as anyone else. Wake up, Spoiled Child, the riffraff rainbow waving flyover gay trash can't walk between the raindrops in their shiny Prada shoes with the nonchalance that you do. So you might, you know, consult them, someday, maybe, about their reality, before you open your mouth, I’m just saying. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
It's not a 'right-wing talking point'. He's saying that because he's a libertarian he does not believe the government has the right to tell anybody whether or not they can marry anybody else. He's saying that he supports the fundamental right of all people (including gays) to marry anyone they want -- he simply doesn't recognise the authority of the state.
Most libertarians represent a huge ally to the queer community. Even the ones who disagree with homosexuality on a personal level believe strongly that it is immoral for the government to act as a gate-keeper for social issues like gay marriage and sex re-assignment and so on. They also do not 'advocate for no federal government'. Libertarians expressly support the idea of government, they just believe its duties should be relegated to absolutely essential services like courts and police. What you are apparently thinking of is an anarchist.
#1
on
2008-12-11 11:49
I think the right-wing talking point that Fastlad is referring to is not the ability to marry anyBODY they want, but the well documented accusation that right-wingers fling at queers that gay marriage is a slipperly slope that will lead to bestiality.
#1.1
on
2008-12-15 22:24
Wainwright's "why don't you go ahead and marry a dog" suggestion is a signature right wing talking point. It's a talking point that is consistently used to frame and justify withholding a right they take for granted (for themselves). Wainright is naive to parrot the sentiment without comment.
It's a stretch, I think, to suggest that Wainright is a committed libertarian. His tone is one of indifference to the plight of less fortunate GLTB lives. They don't seem to exist for him, because he certainly isn't giving them any thought. His argument comes down to: "I don't personally want it, therefor I'm not a huge fan." Great, Rufus. Thanks for that. Selfishness hasn't yet attained the full stature of a political creed, although I know many are trying. Frankly it would be completely irrational for any GLTB person to refuse to "recognize the authority of the state," particularly at this historical juncture. We won't win our rights by pretending that the state had no authority to grant or take them. Plainly, it does, and it will.
#1.2
on
2008-12-16 01:05
> Wainwright's "why don't you go ahead and marry a dog" suggestion is a signature right wing talking point.
He is not invoking the bestiality argument, he's turning it on its head by mocking its significance. Whereas a conservative might say that gay marriage could lead to people marrying dogs, Wainright is basically neutering the argument by saying 'so what if it does? who cares?' > His argument comes down to: "I don't personally want it, therefor I'm not a huge fan." No, that isn't what he's saying at all. The fact that he doesn't personally want to get married is tangential to his statement that he doesn't believe the government should regulate social issues ('sex and love', as he put it). > Frankly it would be completely irrational for any GLTB person to refuse to "recognize the authority of the state," particularly at this historical juncture. When you look back on the course of human history, can you think of a single instance of oppression that wasn't supported by a government? Slavery? Segregation? Miscegenation? Internment camps? Apartheid? Women's voting rights? The Holocaust? The Red Scare? And now gay-marriage and gay-adoption bans? What power would bigots really have had in all of these cases if the government hadn't institutionalised their discrimination? Is it really so irrational that a member of a persecuted minority could come to this philosophy? PS: http://www.rufuswainwright.com/news/default.aspx?nid=19788
#1.2.1
on
2008-12-17 22:51
Couldn't have put it better myself. What a smug, self involved twat.
well said
#1.3
on
2008-12-24 00:15
I can't read Wainright's mind, I can only respond to what he actually said, rather than infer his true intentions or extrapolate from there.
I'm glad he's clarified his glib comments. I'm glad he saw the need to (and BTW, I thought his tone was rather more terse than apologetic). The fact that he doesn't want to get married himself isn't "tangential" to his original statement, it clearly informed it. Either way, he could have paused to acknowledge the legal import of marriage equality to the lives of hundreds of thousands of GLTB Americans. Again, after the outcry, I'm glad he finally did so. I think it's a particularly bad idea to refuse to recognize the authority (or the abuses) of the state until you (magically?) achieve the outcome you desire. Elected governments, as you say, often institutionalize bigotry; but they also legislate equality and human rights.
#2
on
2008-12-18 11:49
if he doesnt like it he doesnt have to get one but he shouldnt say he is not for it
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
#3
on
2009-01-15 21:01
|
SupportersLinks We LikeBen Yee Public Advocate NYC
Rey Pamatmat Playwright Bart's Trabaca Chroma Queer Literary Journal Desperate Kingdoms Doug Ireland Immigration Equality The Lesbian and Gay Foundation UK Little Yellow Different My Porch Blog Pam's House Blend play rey play Queer Podcasting Directory Queer Day The Republic of T YVY Mag Ad Links The Maneuver - film about the man behind Heimlich Maneuver Web Usability Consultants Holiday Promotional Products & Business Gifts SponsorsSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationBlog Directories  |
About Big Queer |
