Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Funny stuff ...
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, December 23, 2008

I've always heard a good lawyer knows the answer to every question he's going to ask before he asks it. That's some advice certain MSNBC interviewers may wish to heed before embarking on a program of questions which end up making them look a little foolish.

Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters brings us the story of an interview with the Reverend Joseph Lowery done by David Shuster of MSNBC. Shuster does his level best to get Lowery to condemn Rick Warren and take a stand against Warren's position. As you'll see, my point about being a "good lawyer" becomes laughably evident at the end:
SHUSTER: You've spent your entire career crusading for civil rights for all Americans. In 2000, you gave a speech at the convention of the United Methodist Church in defense of gay clergy. Recently you said to Southern Voice: "I'm strongly opposed to propositions or amendments that's put into law any discrimination against citizens because of sexual orientation." So again, isn't it incumbent upon you to take a position now given that you have spoken out before?

JOSEPH LOWERY: No. That's not my job in this instance. I differ with the young pastor who's going to give the will give the [invocation]. I differ with him sharply on his position on this issue. I don't think we ought to put into law any discriminatory action against people because of race, or ethnicity or sexual orientation. I oppose that. But that doesn't stop me from being on a program with him.

SHUSTER: Fair enough. But is it incumbent upon you then, at that program, or at least elsewhere, to make those sharp differences clear? To say, you know what: I took a very different view on Proposition 8. I support gay marriage. Others do not, but it's important that my voice be heard.

LOWERY: Well, I've never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people, I have some difficulty with the term gay marriage. Because deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with man and woman. So I have a little cultural shock with that. But I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country.
By the way - the man who invited both of these reverends to participate in the inauguration shares in their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I know Joseph Lowery. I met him several years ago in Atlanta through a mutual friend who was a close confidante of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The fact that Lowery is against gay marriage is not surprising. He knows that many blacks do not like gays (black gays are partcularly hated in their communities), and that it was blacks - and Obama supporters - who voted for Proposition 8 in California.

Lowery and perhaps 99% of blacks oppose gay marriage. If the gays wish to take them on, by all means let them. It will only marginalize the gay lobby in this country and make their problems worse, not better.

BTW, I oppose gay marriage and I oppose civil unions. Both are weasel words for allowing a state to recognize what someone does in their own bedroom. If gays want to do that, fine. But they will find it harder and harder to get people to accept them when they take it out of the bedroom and into the faces of ordinary people.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Shuster is a tool I love when he gets owned

Hey am D I just started a blog and would love your advice on how to get more readers

Link- http://neosun.blog.com/
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
BTW, I oppose gay marriage and I oppose civil unions. Both are weasel words for allowing a state to recognize what someone does in their own bedroom. If gays want to do that, fine. But they will find it harder and harder to get people to accept them when they take it out of the bedroom and into the faces of ordinary people.
Ordinary people, huh? I don’t know any "ordinary" people, who are these people?

You’re not even for letting homosexual couples have civil unions??? Giving them basically POA, visitation rights, property rights etc... You really have it out for teh gays, don’t you James?

Here’s you on one of those "in your face" lesbians, Rachel Maddow,
She is ugly, she is a man hater (that’s why she is a disgusting lesbian) ...
Written By: James Marsden
Lemme guess... you had an ex-girlfriend dump you for another woman, didn’t you? Or perhaps you’re one of those Col. Frank Fitts types.

Heh. "In your face gays". You crack me up, man.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Shuster may be a tool, but Lowery doesn’t come out looking all that much better IMO. There is no earthly reason for a person who supports traditional marriage (i.e., doesn’t support the gay kind) to oppose Proposition 8. Lowery says he wants civil unions instead, with the same rights for gay couples as for married straights. Great. That’s California law now; they’re just called "domestic partnerships" instead. Prop 8 does not affect domestic partnerships (in fact, the Court of Appeal specifically ruled a few years back that the identically worded Prop 22 didn’t), so for anyone who isn’t a marriage equality purist, what’s the beef with Prop 22?

I have to revise my earlier comment slightly. When I said there was no earthly reason to support traditional marriage while opposing Proposition 8, that wasn’t quite right. In fact, I can think of two earthly reasons to hold those two mutually contradictory positions: (1) ignorance and (2) being a lying, pandering crapweasel. What I should have said is that there is no good reason to simultaneously support traditional marriage and oppose Proposition 8.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
When I said there was no earthly reason to support traditional marriage while opposing Proposition 8, that wasn’t quite right.
You under-estimate yourself.
Had it occurred to you that one reason for such a position is that government isn’t the place to deal with such questions?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Of course that looneytarian view had occurred to me, but I didn’t mention it because it’s an argument against marriage per se, and not an argument for or against Proposition 8. Nor, for that matter, is it Lowery’s stated position, thereby begging the question of why you think it is relevant to this discussion at all.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Or perhaps you’re one of those Col. Frank Fitts types.
Gotta love libs. While insisting in one breath "There’s nothing wrong with being gay!" it’s the first insult they throw with the next breath.

ROFLMAO.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://gonzosbarandgogogrill.mensnewsdaily.com
Gotta love libs. While insisting in one breath "There’s nothing wrong with being gay!" it’s the first insult they throw with the next breath.

ROFLMAO.


I’m happy you got a kick out of that. But the insult, if you could call it that, isn’t that the character of Frank Fitts turns out to be gay, but its that the character is disgusted by gays but is in fact carrying homosexual tendencies. A bit complicated I know, but you’ll get it any minute now.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Either way, Pogue, it boils down to "You’re a homophobe! What a fag!" But by all meas, keep putting lip gloss on the swine. It’s most entertaining.

I’m not surprised you can rationalize your way out of a contradiction, though. It’s the stock in trade of leftards.

 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://gonzosbarandgogogrill.mensnewsdaily.com
I’m not surprised you can rationalize your way out of a contradiction, though. It’s the stock in trade of leftards.
It is the contradiction that would be the funny part. But not the contradiction you seem to think you’ve found. Oh, and "leftard"!? How original, Gonzman. Oh, I’m sorry The Gonzman.

You have a happy holiday.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider