Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who has spent her life campaigning against the existence of healthy, happy women, said some Christmassy words about gays the other day:
Many social conservatives, such as Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly of Ladue, refuse to believe that a majority of Americans would support gay marriage.
Always remember that “many social conservatives” also believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Cf. Phyllis’s mindnumbingly stupid spawn.
Obama’s shifting position [on marriage equality], she said, “is the story of politics: An aggressive well-funded pressure group can achieve goals contrary to what the majority of people want. I think same-sex marriage would be a terrible mistake. I don’t think there are any good arguments for it.”
As to the first part, it seems to me like the Religious Right falls more squarely into the category of “aggressive well-funded pressure groups achieving goals contrary, etc.” Meanwhile, the tide is turning toward full acceptance for LGBT people, and has been for years. As to the second part, Phyllis’s contention that she “doesn’t think” there are any good arguments for marriage equality, when squared with her lifelong crusade against women’s rights, suggest to me that perhaps she should be spending more time in her kitchen in Ladue and less time talking about grown-up stuff with strong, liberated men AND women. Don’t like that construction? Can’t have it both ways, Phyl.
Gays, she said, are already free to live together. “Nobody’s stopping them from shacking up,” she said. “The problem is they are trying to make us respect them, and that’s an interference with what we believe.”
Actually, no, you old bat, gays don’t give a damn whether or not you respect us. It’s a question of whether or not you respect the fact that you live in a society which is more secular than you will ever understand, in a nation that, despite your son’s functionally illiterate barking to the contrary, has been officially secular since its founding.
Deal with it.
Also, Schlafly lives in Ladue? If you’re not familiar with St. Louis, Ladue isn’t exactly a “socially conservative” area. I mean, it’s perfect for fundamentalist demagogues who have somehow managed to rack up millions of dollars over the years fighting for a transmogrified bastardization of Jesus and stuff [Ladue is expensive, you see], but it’s also next to Clayton, which is gay gay gay gay gay [and also expensive]. How does old Phyl manage to go out in public, surrounded as she is by reality in all four directions? And really, what would Phyllis Schlafly think of a woman making the kind of money Phyllis Schlafly has made? It’s almost like she’s a hypocritical old crank living out her golden years, watching the world regard her life’s work, laugh, and move on, never to return.
She lives in St. Louis? I’ve been here for 2 years and I never picked up on that. I have, however, been aware of a thriving gay community. I suspect everyone just ignores her and hopes she goes away.
What about her gay son?
Well, The Nerd, as I said, considering her geographical proximity to Lotta Gays, perhaps when she’s in town, she hunkers down in a basement bunker of some sort. I suppose there are trade-offs, because she certainly is a savvy businessman [OBVIOUSLY SHE IS NOT A WOMAN, AS WOMEN ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THINGS, ACCORDING TO PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY] and understands the value of a rising Ladue property value.
And Ben, her gay son, from what I know, is still under Mommy’s thumb.
While I agree with everything in this post – Was the ageism REALLY necessary?
Alonzo, really? Ageism? You know all the damage this woman has done to the GLBT community and you’re worried about ageism?
“What most people want” is irrelevant to the constitutional legitimacy of giving a minority equal protection under law.
I answered the question on the Facebook page, but will do so here as well:
It depends on whether you think her age is relevant. I, for one, do, as she is the matriarch of a dying breed, a dying breed that, incidentally, is hellbent on leaving their bigotry behind for future generations to deal with long after they have been poofed out of existence.
My experience with thinking senior citizens is that they’re no less likely to be progressive on the issue of LGBT acceptance than is a person of any other age. To throw hurtful comments about someone’s age into an argument when age has nothing to do with the point being made will simply allow your argument to be discounted.
Except, Sam, that your experience is not borne out by the facts. It is a fact that Phyllis Schlafly’s opinions about things are a reflection of her age, of a time that is, thankfully, passing away with that generation. I’m sorry, why are we upset about people being snarky toward Phyllis Schlafly for any reason?
Indeed, my point is that her age is PART of the point.
The Cryptkeeper is spewing logical fallacies and bigotry. How typical.
Buffy, you’re being aaaaaaaage-ist.
;-)
I don’t think there are any really good arguments for Phyllis, either, but she exists. This woman is just sad. Get over it, Phyllis…your time has come–and gone.
I have no doubt in my mind, she felt the same way about mixed color marriages. And said the same things about them, in that the majority didn’t and wouldn’t accept THAT either.
The older people like Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Schafly, there is no record that they supported civil rights back in the day.
Jerry Falwell was an out and out racist, until that could no longer make him money.
Shirley Phelps-Roper is a white supremacist. There is a mindset that is the same whether you’re anti gay or anti Semitic or anti people of color.
It’s the mindset of people who are cowards, and would never understand what doing right is. Nor what the legacy of equality and justice have been throughout human history.
There’s a library named after her in the Central West End of St. Louis. (In case you don’t know, that area’s pretty gay too.) I frequent there, and until recently, I didn’t know who she was. Oh! the irony!