Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!

Stupid Burns

From the Annals of Dumbfuckery:

GOP Lobbyist Pushing for Ban on Openly Gay NFL Players

Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman is pushing for legislation that would ban openly gay athletes from the National Football League, spurred on by the recent news about Michael Sam publicly coming out. He is appealing directly to Republican members of Congress to propose a bill on the issue, telling The Huffington Post that there are five House members and one senator “interested in co-sponsoring the bill” and he expects more to join on.

Burkman acknowledges that normally, conservatives don’t like the idea of imposing policy on private businesses, but says that this belief is now “trumped for reason of great urgency or necessity” and it all comes down to the NFL’s moral standing.

“I felt that if the NFL doesn’t have any morals, and people like [Commissioner] Roger Goodell, who are just go-along-get-along guys, just want to appease advertisers, appease corporate America and all that stuff… I figured, well, it is time for conservatives in Congress to step in and define morality for them.”

Burkman admitted “it would be a start” if openly gay players used different bathrooms from straight players, and Fox News’ Chad Pergram tweeted that Burkman’s proposed bill would “ban openly gay players… or require [the] league to provide separate facilities”:

Just when you think the Democrats have cornered the market on stupidity, the Republicans go and prove you wrong.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in LGBT Rights, NFL Football and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!

  1. The Klown says:
  2. The Klown says:
  3. mothy67 says:

    Surprised? Not in the least. Knew it was coming, but thought the fire would be stoked late summer/early fall. This gives the GOP a chance to distance themselves and prepare.

  4. DandyTIger says:

    A little Ikea humor:

  5. wmcb says:

    Good grief. Even many conservatives who have some issues with SSM are on Twitter going “STFU. You are not helping. You sound creepy. We don’t care about NFL bathrooms.”

  6. The Klown says:
  7. fif says:

    omg…you can’t make this stupid up. Let’s try to turn back time too.

    • The Klown says:

      I understand that change is hard, but the normalization of homosexuality is an idea whose time has come. That means full social and legal acceptance.

      • insanelysane says:

        IOW …
        Can’t we all just get bored with it already?

        I’m on board with that.

        • elliesmom says:

          Me, too. I went to my first same-sex wedding on Sunday, and you know what? It looked and felt like every other wedding I’ve ever been invited to.

        • wmcb says:

          Sounds good. And honestly, if everyone stopped aggressively agitating one way or another, it would still come within a generation or even much less. But political hay to be made, so…..

  8. DeniseVB says:

    Meanwhile, the NFL wants to ban the N word ……

    How’s that Redskins name change going ? Sigh, just another busy day in the off season 😀

    • Somebody says:

      Question is do they want to ban the N word only for certain players? The N word is considered part of the AA culture in many circles so will AA players be excused for using the word?

  9. 1539days says:

    This guy is a lobbyist. He isn’t even a legislator. Basically, he’s a guy who doesn’t like gays and calls himself a Republican.

  10. wmcb says:

    ^^THIS^^ And you know, I would have more respect for those who have genuine, sincere, non-hate-filled objection to SSM (yes, some do exist) if they acknowledged this. I understand that you think the traditional family is the cornerstone of a society. I actually don’t much disagree with that. I do believe traditional families are the ideal for child rearing, which IS the primary purpose of society. No argument from me there.

    But it’s hard to fucking take people seriously who sit by for the UTTER destruction of real “marriage sanctity” on every front, but balk at teh gays getting the same watered-down, actually-temporary, mostly-civic deal they’ve allowed to come about for themselves. Got news for ya, cupcake: the vast majority of hetero marriages in this country are not some Holy Lifelong Commitment, and everyone knows it. How about you legally “traditionalize” your OWN marriages first, heteros? Hetero marriage isn’t looking too traditional to me these days. At all.

    Want some props from me (even if I still think you’re wrong)? Lobby just as damn hard for an end to no-fault easy peasy divorce, for aggressive policies to keep fathers in the home, etc. as you do to block SSM. Make divorce hard to get. Give fathers more say over their kids. Let’s see that proposed legislation. Because that’s a bigger fecking danger to the sanctity of marriage and family than a few gays getting governmentally hitched. Be consistent on that front, and I’d be more willing to take you seriously as to your good intentions re: preserving traditional marriage.

    Want to legally preserve/encourage traditional marriage? Good. You go first.

    • 1539days says:

      Libertarians have suggested that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If you want to get married, find a church. Get divorced on your own time and leave courts out of it. If you want tax breaks, don’t look to the government. You can get a deduction if you have kids.

      • wmcb says:

        That would have been the preferable way to set it up from the beginning. Marriage as a church/private community thing, period. Kids and their support separate issue.

        Look, I have a GREAT deal of sympathy for people who look at the complete moral degradation, empty promiscuity, loss of community, reduced family role, etc in modern society and are very very VERY concerned that we are losing our moorings. I get it. I’m concerned too. I just think that looking at gay marriage as the penultimate expression of that breakdown is off-focus. It’s too easy a scapegoat. And that some Prog gays and other activist Progs truly WOULD like to destroy traditional mores and structures (yeah, those crackpots exist too, and yes, the Left denies that they do) doesn’t do anything but muddy the waters.

        But I don’t think that the breakdown of marriage and family is going to be affected one way or another by **most** gay people. The progs and the majoriity of heteros are the problem, not really gays.

      • The Klown says:

        If the government were to quit granting legal recognition of marriage there are societal ramifications that need to be considered. The biggest problem with getting government out of the marriage business is community property and spousal support.

        We are still a society with stay-at-home wives and mothers. Current laws protect them in the event of divorce or death of their spouses. Marriage also gives them standing to sue in the event of a wrongful death, disability or loss of consortium.

        • wmcb says:

          Honestly? I think about half the problem is over the fucking name. I know, I know, that’s stupid, but people ARE stupid. Gay peeps don’t want to have civil unions, even if the benefits are exactly the same, because it’s “not the same name as what you give theirs, so unfair.” Heteros don’t want the NAME “marriage” given to gay unions, because sacred. They are hung up on the freaking WORD.

          Both these groups are being ridiculous, IMO. But you could keep the same benefits, same laws, and call ALL govt recognition a “civil union”. Doesn’t matter. Hetero or gay. They are ALL civil unions. All of them. Whether it’s a “blessed” marriage or not is up to your Church or whatever.

          Would some still fight it tooth and nail? Yeah, the die hards. But you could knock out a sizable chunk of the opposition, IMO, just by compromising on semantics.

          • Somebody says:

            I’ve always felt it was a name thing too. I agree with calling it all a civil union and if you want to go the extra mile find a church and join your partner in holy matrimony. If there is a church that wants to join same sex partners in holy matrimony well fine and good that’s none of the government’s business, separation of church and state. Same goes in reverse if a church refuses, none of the government’s business.

            Technically my husband and I have a civil union. We didn’t marry in the church. We eloped and jumped the border into Georgia where you can get a quicky marriage in 30 minutes or less including blood tests. No I wasn’t pregnant, we didn’t have kids for a couple of years. We eloped because my mom was driving me nuts, my wedding was more HER wedding than mine. In fact there was NOTHING in our wedding plans that I had picked out she vetoed everything, including colors and I’d had enough. We were married by a judge and technically it is a civil union, but we’re just as married and have been for 32 years. People that get hung up on the name really have no business making such a commitment because that’s the bottom line is that it is a lifelong commitment. It doesn’t matter what you call it, what matters is where your heart is.

          • wmcb says:

            Exactly, Somebody. I’m a big believer in the whole idea of “the spirit of the law”. I’m not too horribly picky about the letter, so long as people get the point of what the law/norm tries to accomplish. Stable families, stable marriages, communal structure in a society – not just a “whatever the hell feels good today” free-for-all.

            Licentiousness is not really an outmoded concept, despite that it’s a lamentably prudish-sounding word. It is not psychologically healthy for society or for humans for everyone to just be constantly led around by whatever passion, whether it be anger, lust, greed, whatever. Doesn’t mean it’s bad to ever be angry or have lust or make a profit. It’s about some judicious self-control.

            You marriage is about your conscious commitment, not about “felt like the thing to do today” whether you uttered a particular vow or not. You got the point.

        • insanelysane says:

          Common Law?

    • insanelysane says:

      Honk, damn it…HONK !

    • votermom says:

      Want to legally preserve/encourage traditional marriage? Good. You go first.

      I say we either ban divorce or make it mandatory. Otherwise there is too much marriage length inequality.

      • wmcb says:

        Nah, I wouldn’t ban divorce. But honestly? I’d make it more difficult to get. I’d make it need at least some serious cause again. Not nigh-impossible to get, but harder. Would that sometimes be unfair to some rare exceptions of some individuals? Probably. But I sincerely think that it would put a little “glue” back into society, for the good of the whole. I think we went a bit far and need to back up – not to the starting point, but some.

        The problem with us is that we think we can have all the benefits we like from traditonal structures (and there ARE big benefits) with NONE of the real responsibilities of those structures.

        We need to end that farce, and get real.

        • votermom says:

          How about this – marriage comes either fixed term renewable or literally until death.
          When you get married you decide if it will be a 5 year, 10 year, 20 year or until death commitment.
          In all cases if you break the contract before the term is up it is painful and messy.

          • wmcb says:

            That might work. Gives some social glue, but not overly intrusive. And of course, if your own faith is a “lifelong sacrament” one, that’s between you and your church.

          • wmcb says:

            I just think that in our marriage, child, and social policies and norms, we have fallen too far down the rabbit hole of selfish individualism. Pursuing the next “freedom” and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. It becomes a destructive process if you just keep going, forever. God knows I’m an individualist – y’all know that. But social structure is still needed. Stability is not always oppressive decay. Sometimes it’s just….um….. STABILITY. Derp.

            And if we totally lose all stability, ain’t nobody exercising any freedoms in reality, no matter what the paper says. It becomes a total anarchism not of govt, but of community and relationships, if that makes sense.

            Stability. Flex. Need both.

  11. DeniseVB says:

    At least it wasn’t a photo of Obama watching Ghostbusters …..

  12. helenk3 says:

    with all that is going on in this country and around the world do we really give a damn about some football players sex life? I don’t and really do not know too many people that do.

    sometimes I think that the republican party is just there to encourage the democrats. Don’t have discussions on real issues and just rubber stamp the stealing and erosion of freedom and provide stupid distraction

    • wmcb says:

      The only people who benefit from stirring up CONSTANT controversy on this stuff is the two-headed GOP/Dem hydra. And I think both sides stir that pot very very strategically and cynically. I don’t think most of the GOP gives a flying shit about values, and I don’t think most of the Dems give a flying shit about gay people.

  13. The Klown says:
  14. wmcb says:

    HAHA! I like making people uncomfortable who think they already have me neatly pegged. Had been chatting lately with some traditionalist/anarcho/neoreactionary ppl on Twitter, because I like exploring intersting ideas, and they DO have some good points as far as breaking out some problems w/current setup. Plus like arguing real theology.

    They (I should say some, not all, are fairly diverse) are trying to convince me my gay views are wrong, is BIG THREAT. I said nope, sorry, disagree. Now I think are trying to decide where to slot me all over again.

    Good Lord, I am too old to be latching onto any ideology or pipe dream wholesale. Been around too long, observed too many human beings for that.

    • wmcb says:

      I truly think most of the people on this board enjoy being “un-peggable”. It’s why I like you guys. I like people who DO think things through, and adhere to logic, explore the parameters of ideas, yet are not at all uncomfortable saying out loud, “I dunno. Been pondering. No fooking clue yet. Get back to me in 5 years, or tomorrow if I get some insight between now and then.”

      LIfe is messy. Politics are messy. Govts are messy – yes even whatever idealized form of either today or yesteryear that you’re currently hepped on. That includes even our own Republic past here in the USA. Does broad Truth exist? Absolutely. I’m no existentialist. But my goodness we are so fucking flawed. All of us. And a lot depends on what sort of folks you are talking about governing.

      • DandyTIger says:

        It’s also just plain fun to be an enigma to people. Just saying you’re not in a tribe makes them very confused. We have what seems to be the beginnings of a civil war, drummed up by both parties and the media for short term gain. So it’s getting more and more important for people to pick sides and scope out what side you’re on. I’m noticing people getting more angry by the year that I’m not on a side. Makes me worry. Then again, sometimes I don’t give a crap.

        • wmcb says:

          I know. It’s so weird. It’s like you can see them salivating over reeling in “one more for their tribe”. And it’s like,

          “Okay, she agrees 50%, ok, ok….aw yeah, dude, we got 60%…. go for 70%….wait, wait…WHAT? Noooooooooooooo!!! Foiled!!!! GIVE US THE OTHER 30% so we can peg you as ours or theirs!!!!!!!! Damn you! GIVE US THE 30%!!”

          And then I’m all, “Fuck you. My brain and emotions are my own, thanks. Trigger me all you want, I’m gonna be making a pop tart, all bemused and shit.”

  15. angienc says:

    Well, if you use the left’s dismal of people who lost their plans (that they were told they could keep) under Obamacare as “just 5%” of the population — a number so small that it was nothing to worry about, then you have to say that since gays only make up “just 5%” of the population, then it’s nothing to worry about either.

    (I’m not advocating that logic btw, — I think the people who lost their insurance AND gay rights are BOTH important, despite the fact that “only a small % of the population falls into either category — but I’d like a little consistency from both sides).

    • SHV says:

      ” “just 5%” of the population — a number so small that it was nothing to worry about”
      That 5% was more Obama misleading Bullshit. They took the number of people who lost their insurance and divided by the population of the US; not many children, vets, or over 65s buying individual policies. The real percentage was, IIRC, 12-15% and that was before the employer based policies that are going to get hammered this year.

      • angienc says:

        Oh I know that 5% is bullshit; I’m talking about their logic — it’s OK that Obama lied to that # of people; yet something that affects that same % of a different group? OUTRAGEOUS! IT CANNOT BE BORNE!! It’s the selective, totally hypocritical outrage that literally says one group of people are more important than another that is pissing me off.

  16. The Klown says:
  17. votermom says:

    I think my give a damn’s busted on gay rights. Same with a whole lot of other “civil rights causes of our times!!!!!!”
    Whatever. People losing their jobs, their healthcare, their freedoms … I don’t really care about any sports player or celebrity.

  18. wmcb says:

  19. wmcb says:

  20. westcoaster says:

    OT, did anyone watch the closing ceremonies in Sochi? Other than the crying bear and the broken ring joke, I noticed that Lipinskaya had a straight face the whole time, until a certain song was being played, when she teared up.,0,73778.story?track=rss

  21. mothy67 says:

    The hubris of the proggies is what annoys me most. Had they not entirely taken over studies of human sexuality in academia perhaps we could get some real thoughtful discussion. Completely shutting down the opponents viewpoint by name calling is infantile. The science is done. Boom. Deal with it. I remember picking up a used book for sale on the streets of New York called the Homosexual Neurotic, Written before WWII and before Kinsey the author postulated that the potential for same sex attraction existed within the majority of the people, but as one desire was rewarded and the other punished the individual choice to be homosexual was actually a manifestation of neurosis. it was a fascinating read. Good ole Adolph had all of his research destroyed during the war, I think the author’s name was Hirschfield but it has been about 25 years since I read it. My copy burned in a fire. A search of the title yields nothing relevant. Years later I read that the APA actually removed the diagnosis from the DSM not because they were in agreement that homosexuality was not an illness but because its inclusion created more problems than it solved.
    Annoys me that the progs think of themselves as some sort of salvation for the human race. Yeah folks everybody before you was dumb as a post and those around you now are Neanderthals in need of your brilliance. Were it that they were like the delusional(stoned) flower children of the 60’s hanging out and singing kumbaya or buying the world a coke I could stomach them, but they are vile and dismissive.
    For the record I don’t think homosexuality is an illness. How one acts out his/her sexuality can be. (Sadistic rapists don’t stop when imprisoned).

    • wmcb says:

      For the record I don’t think homosexuality is an illness. How one acts out his/her sexuality can be.

      Exactly. And being gay doesn’t give you immunity from being massively effed up sexually, or mentally, any more than it would a hetero. I also think that just as a truly gay person can get pressured into hetero sex and end up with damage from that, a hetero young person getting pressured the other way can fuck them up too. Those “My 4 year old is transgendered” parents creep me out. (Unless there is MEDICAL hermaphroditism or something.) Sorry, that’s child abuse.

      We really need to all realize that messing with sexuality is messing with powerful forces and deep juju. You don’t just play and tinker with that shit. We all need some Hippocratic Oath, here. “First, do no harm.” Back off. Let people be.

      • mothy67 says:

        I think the parents of those children need to go through a whole battery of exams. Seems unfathomable anyone would subject a child to that.
        Wish the world were open enough to allow a true hermaphrodite to arrive at his/her own determination. Can one live an entire life without doing so?
        I watched Brokeback Mountain with a mixed group of friends in the theater when it came out and one woman got very upset when we were talking about it afterwards. She called the Jack(Gylenhall) character a predator and said Ennis(Ledger) would have been fine and had a better life if he had been left alone. Led to a rather heated discussion and I can’t say I completely disagreed with her. All actors and that ilk of people. I enjoyed the passion of the argument and relish watching people squirm when their “correct” way of thinking is challenged. Zero debate skills. Allow far too much emotion into any discourse. You’d think some of that Shakespeare would rub off on them after awhile. Not a chance even the friend who made the assertion was visibly shaken. Remember thinking me lady doth protest too much. And then I met her former fiancée.

      • The Klown says:

        I cannot imagine the stress of being gay in a society where homosexuality was considered a crime, mental disorder and a mortal sin. Having to repress who you are or face disgrace, imprisonment and/or death?

        If that don’t fuck with your head nothing will.

    • The Klown says:

      The DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.

Comments are closed.