"She wears little eye-patch underwear, so I can see her eye patches. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And so, we had made love Wednesday, a lot. And so she'll she's all, I am going up and down the stairs and you're dripping out of me. So messy. (laughing)"
First off, ew. That definitely just made me a little more gay.
Secondly, how awesome is it that his microphone was on during his braggadocio? It kind of makes one wish that Congress would institute a law mandating microphones on every public servant that had to be worn at all times. And hey, given the fact that we now live in a Communist Socialist Fascist Nazi state, I'm sure that's not far behind, eh?
Third, noting the hypocrisy of anti-gay politicians is relevant to the public debate surrounding marriage equality. Those opposed to LGBT rights sometimes think that moral hypocrisy is conveniently irrelevant when engaged in by those on their own side. Likewise, they think we take joy in observing their fallen heroes and that we are just Being Mean and Persecuting them again when we note it.
So, let me be clear. I most certainly don't revel in an anti-gay politician going through a difficult personal situation, even if it's one of his own making. I always find it unfortunate when yet another woman is placed in the unenviable position of being pitied and/or publicly humiliated by the actions of a selfish spouse.
Rather, I find Traditional Values Hypocrisy to be indicative of an incredibly sad state of politics. Duvall, as we have seen time and time again, is not alone in his moral values hypocrisy. In the Vitters, Craigs, and Haggards, we see that some of the most visible and adamant supporters of Traditional Values only demand other people's adherence, rather than their own, to those values.
Duvall was an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8, and via his prominent position played a role in preventing millions of others from entering into a legal institution that he himself made a very public mockery of. When a person publicly claims to revere the institution of marriage, yet simultaneously disgraces that institution and, indeed, brags to his workplace buddies about doing so, his status as "marriage defender" cannot be taken seriously and comes off as incredibly insincere.
One, in fact, is justified in suspecting ulterior motives for his Staunch Support of Traditional Values. Moral hypocrisy on the part of alleged upholders of morality supports the argument that "marriage defense" politicians don't actually give a hoot about marriage but instead use their support of traditional values in general, and "marriage defense" in particular, to drive a wedge between Americans solely for their own political gain.
It is instances of profound moral hypocrisy among "champions" of marriage that help render "marriage defense" as a concept utterly meaningless. Given the degree to which so many self-proclaimed "marriage defenders" do little more than monomanically oppose Everything Gay, the movement is absurd and of questionable benefit to society. The nation's most prominent "marriage defense" organization devotes incredible amounts of resources, not towards supporting working families, not towards encouraging low-income couples to remain married, not towards trying to get men to help parent their children, and not towards providing marital counseling to ensure that heterosexuals get and stay married, but towards ensuring that same-sex couples don't get married, a "harm" that is impossible to prove yet that is immensely appealing given the degree to which so many already dislike queers.
Feminists have known for years that the personal is political. It's a lesson that our supposedly more morally enlightened citizens have yet to learn. They often oppose government intrusion into
And on a tangential note, I may just be a dork, but WTF is "eye-patch underwear"?