 |
| Tony Perkins |
To recap, Perkins got his clocked clean. He couldn't adequately answer the questions, particularly the one regarding how would gays being allow to marry harm his marriage. All he could manage was to revert to ridiculous talking points such as "social science proves that the best place for a child is a home with a mother and a father."
The irony of that talking point is that hours after the debate, Politifact rated Perkins' claim as false and skewered a post on FRC's webpage for having equally false talking points.
However, leave it to Perkins - and other conservatives - to manufacture a "win" out of his embarrassingly bad performance. The following is from an FRC email I received:
There was no shortage of strong opinions on last weekend's "Fox News Sunday" show, where I debated former Solicitor General Ted Olson on the fallout of redefining society's oldest institution. There was one question in particular that Ted had trouble answering -- and his non-response is getting an interesting amount of attention in places like the Washington Examiner, NRO, and CNSNews. Twice, I asked Ted what the purpose of marriage is, and twice, he dodged the question. Mona Charen, writing for the Examiner, thought this was especially interesting.
"Asked about where he would draw boundaries on who should be permitted to marry if it's 'only about love,' Olson changed the subject... 'There' no heterosexual couple, (he said), that is going to decide to get divorced or not to get married or not to raise children just because another couple next to them is treated equally and with respect and decency under our Constitution.' But it does affect the larger culture. If it didn't, there would be no need for debate. Homosexuals comprise a tiny fraction of the population (just over 2 percent according to the CDC). I wish them nothing but happiness and peace, but they are a side issue. Of course they deserve 'dignity' and 'respect,' but changing marriage is not the way to get there."
When Perkins says that Olson dodged the question, he is lying. Olson did answer the question:
"The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said 14 times," Olson replies. "It's a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty, and being with the person you love and forming a part of the community and being treated equally with the rest of society."
When given this answer, Perkins claimed that it was not true. In other words, Olson did answer Perkins' question, but Perkins simply didn't like the answer.
And that's not Olson's fault.
Nor is it Olson's fault that Mona Charen is attempting to spin some seriously super fuckery. In her piece, she claims that gays are irrelevant, but if you ask me, she is the one who is beyond irrelevant in this conversation.
She gets paid to spin and that's what she is doing. And now that she has earned her think tank salary in this situation, she should step aside, scurry to the bank, and cash her check.
And that goes for the folks from NRO and CNSNews who, while probably not cashing their checks at the same bank as Charen, most likely are getting their monies from the same wingnut sources.
The bottom line is that Perkins went on Fox and demonstrated just why his side has been losing court cases. They have no argument against marriage equality. They never had one. All they had and continue to have are slick lies, sly talking points, and shameless ways to exploit religious beliefs and fears.
And that mess only goes so far. In a court of law, we've seen that it goes nowhere.
