Creep of the Week: Rick Perry

103

So how about that Gov. Rick Perry, eh? Awesome alert! Am I right?

“I wish Rick Perry was my daddy and/or boyfriend,” say gays everywhere, obviously.

Not that Perry is gay. In fact, he recently pinkie swore he wasn’t gay by telling a group of conservatives, “I can assure you that there is nothing in my life that will embarrass you if you decide to support me for president.”

Not that folks aren’t trying to dig stuff up. “Rick is a closet homo” rumors have been flying for years, but nothing has stuck.

Of course, Perry can’t be gay. After all, he is “a marriage champion,” according to National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown. And if there’s one thing gays want to destroy, it’s marriage.

Brown made his declaration after Perry signed a NOM-sponsored pledge that he would do everything in his power to keep marriage out of the clutches of the queers.

“Perry makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay marriage is going to be [an] even bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008,” Brown said about Perry’s pledge, “because the difference between the GOP nominee and President Obama is going to be large and clear.”

I would like to comment that the people of America have far more important things to worry about in 2012 than ladies marrying ladies and guys marrying guys, but no doubt this is a big concern for folks who really need to pull their heads out of their NOM-holes long enough to take a good look around.

Still, no matter who gets the Republican nomination, I guarantee the difference between them and Obama will be pretty obvious. Marriage pledge or no.

By signing the pledge, Perry has vowed to support an antigay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, defend the DOMA in court, support the overturning of Washington, D.C.’s marriage-equality law and, most bizarrely, to round up a posse to “investigate harassment of traditional-marriage supporters.” Because that’s a problem so big it needs to be handled at the executive-branch level.

The ACLU’s Ian Thompson hit the nail on the head when he declared that NOM’s marriage pledge was nothing more than a wish list for a group seeking “a free hand to attack the legitimacy of gay and lesbian couples and their relationships through the spread of fear and disinformation while remaining free from public scrutiny, accountability or even active, organized opposition.”

Myself, I think we should be concerned about a presidential candidate who pledges to personally get involved in the squabbles that arise from uncivilized discourse. Yes, comments on all sides of the marriage debate can be ugly. But that’s not a national emergency worthy of a president’s attention. Plus, NOM’s assertion of constant harassment isn’t based in reality.

“While organizations like NOM would like to have people believe that their supporters face systematic harassment and intimidation because of their antigay views, the reality is quite different,” Thompson added. “Any incidents of actual harassment or political violence employed as part of a political campaign is entirely unacceptable, but … this is not the same thing as constitutionally protected disagreement, criticism and advocacy.”

Thick skin doesn’t seem to be NOM’s strong point. Being criticized, lampooned or even called names isn’t the same thing as systemic harassment worthy of national attention. Now if they were constantly compared to pedophiles, or denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital because they “aren’t family,” or were fired from their jobs simply for being in a relationship with someone of the same sex, well, that would be something to worry about.

D’Anne Witkowski is a Detroit-based freelance writer and poet (believe it!).