May1 |
 |
Fumo Says He Was Exaggerating
Okay, so Fumo. Yes, Tuesday he said that Pennsylvania state lawmakers would enact slavery if they had the chance to. (In case you never went to school or are just a moron, slavery is forbidden by an amendment to the Constitution, but whatever.) Now he’s distancing himself from those comments, saying he was “only exaggerating to make a point.” “If a majority would vote to approve slavery - as was done once in this country - that wouldn’t make it right,” he said. “I wanted people at the hearing to face the fact that denying human rights to any group, including homosexuals, at any point in our history, including in 2008, is wrong.” The governor said he would veto any slavery bill, anyway. No word if Fumo thinks slavery has enough support to override the veto. Fox 29 had the bishop who got into the exchange with Fumo; senior pastor Gilbert Coleman was there to testify against gay marriage. He’s surprisingly calm about the whole thing. I guess when you spend all your time hating gays it’s pretty easy to be calm otherwise. Redlasso clip after the jump.
|
||
|
|
C’mon, Vinny, stand by it. What have you really got to lose at this point? Reelection?
Clearly, the proposed marriage amendment would throw homosexuals into bondage and forced labor.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Fumo’s analogy is totally bogus and, some might say, insulting. A law that forbids interaction between homosexuals (like the Texas sodomy law) takes away somebody’s rights. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a group asking the government to sanction/sponsor a particular right they already have.
Dear 207: fuck you.
1. If my partner of 8 years gets horribly ill, I can’t visit him in the hospital.
2. If I die, he doesn’t get anything in my name without expensive and extensive legal documents that a marriage would make unnecessary.
3. We pay taxes as individuals and get treated as business partners on shared mortgages.
Why don’t you tell me more about rights I “already have”
Not feeling so friendly today?
Those are some good points, but I still fail to see where the slavery analogy comes in. Maybe Fumo should’ve made the points you just made, instead of saying what he did.
BTW, I viewed the video out of context, so maybe those points were made (possibly by Fumo), and just weren’t in the video. I really don’t know at this point.
You’re right, slavery isn’t a good analogy. But I think it’s funny when politicians get called out by one of their own for being backward, bigoted assholes. Even if there was a lot of hyperbole.
Sorry for being mean but it’s something I feel very strongly about and I’m tired of fat, old, white politicians getting their hands into controversies that only exist because their rural constituencies think I’m the undoing of America.
“I knew it was to take away from the focus of what we were there for.”
Yeah, like hatin’ on those gays!
“I knew it was to take away from the focus of what we were there for.”
Yeah, like hatin’ on those gays!
FWIW, his underlying point is what our nation was founded upon. We are not ‘granted’ or ‘given’ rights. We have rights based upon simply existing. The legislature may indeed pass something like this, doesn’t make it correct and doesn’t validate the opinions of many that gays don’t have the right to marry.
No problem. I can certainly understand feeling strongly about it.
I think the tone and nature of the conversation needs to change, though, before a lot of people are willing to approach this issue with an open mind. I think a lot of people who don’t currently support “gay marriage” would be more likely to support something more concrete like giving gay persons the right to visit their partner in the hospital, if they aren’t able to give verbal consent for the visit (I would definitely be willing to support the latter). There needs to be more discussion about the technical aspects of what it all means. I mean, I don’t feel like I’m fully informed about the issue.
I also think comments like Fumo’s, as much satisfaction as they might give you, probably do more harm than good. All the animosity between Philly and the rest of the state is, and has long been, counterproductive to the state’s collective wellbeing. I know people here feel that they’re right and everyone else is wrong, but everyone else feels the same way. People will only change their minds if you give them a compelling reason to, and present it in a way doesn’t feel accusatory or confrontational.
Finally, I think that many politicians would just as soon keep things just the way they are, since it serves as a very good distraction, and provides an easy way to score points with their constituents after doing very little work (and both sides of the issue benefit at the same time, I might add). It’s hard to say to what extent this is the case, but I don’t think it’ll change until people start taking a more objective, less emotional, view of the issue, and don’t let it take their attention away from other issues in government.
Ok, sorry for the rant. I’ll get off my soapbox now.
I’m actually not one of the people that believes full marriage is the only solution - though I think that is the best. I’m much more pragmatic than that.
Progress is progress, and I’m happy to have it no matter what it’s called.
“I think the tone and nature of the conversation needs to change, though, before a lot of people are willing to approach this issue with an open mind.”
Translation: If you gays weren’t so uppity and rude, we might consider treating you like an actual human being — no promises, though!
I love how it’s impossible to discuss this type of issue like adults without over-the-top accusations flying.
P.S. It might also be time to take a look at how the government currently treats heterosexual marriages. I’ve heard some allegations that some of the rules actually discourage people getting married (not everything included in government-sanctioned marriage is necessarily a good thing).
People get kind of testy when systematically denied equal rights over a period of time, and it gets exaggerated when those with nothing at stake try to paint them as hysterical.
Not saying you deserve it - you seem pretty rational - but I totally get where Stephen is coming from.
I understand. Most of my comments could just as easily be applied to the other side of the argument, and I imagine I’d also be catching flack if I posted on a site frequented by people who took a diametrically opposed view to yours.
First of all everyone who watched this obviously didnt see the entire debate between the two. Second bishop Coleman does not hate homosexuals nor does he tech hate. The point he was making is that biblically marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman and that no where does it state that it is allowed bewteen people of the same sex according to our christin beliefs. Lastly Fumo as it seems was not exaggerating his comments to make a point if you were there you would think he was serious just as well.
First of all everyone who watched this obviously didnt see the entire debate between the two. Second bishop Coleman does not hate homosexuals nor does he tech hate. The point he was making is that biblically marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman and that no where does it state that it is allowed bewteen people of the same sex according to our christin beliefs. Lastly Fumo as it seems was not exaggerating his comments to make a point if you were there you would think he was serious just as well.
It may come as news to you, but according to the Constitution religion and laws are separate things.
Bishops and other representatives of religion can say and do whatever they want, but when it comes to laws that religious and non-religious people alike have to follow, they’d better keep their hands out of it.