DENNIS DURBAND

The Bad After-Taste of Eating Liberals' Lunch

May 26, 2005

Kenny “The Black Avenger” Hamblin, noted author (“Pick Any Country”) and conservative radio talk show host, is fond of saying he loves the taste of liberals in the afternoon. Kenny never met or read Eddie “Munster” Montini, a poison pen fixture in Phoenix who actually earns a living for hanging both his ignorance and contempt for traditional values on The Arizona Republic’s toxic clothesline of punditry. If he had read Montini, the Black Avenger would be in need of the Heimlich maneuver.

Liberals like Montini either can’t see or refuse to see the political and social tsunamis wreaking havoc on the culture. In the Revolutionary War era, Montini would have denigrated Paul Revere with the response, "The British are coming? You've got to be kidding." We'll examine whether Montini is carrying water for the liberals or if he is just plain uninformed on the issue of marriage.

Munster Montini cannot comprehend the tidal wave of judicial activism swamping family, the sanctity of life and traditional values – drowning a social order that served civilization for eons. It hasn’t occurred to him that same-sex “marriage” may be forced upon Arizona by an activist judge, as it has in Massachusetts. Why on Montini’s warped earth would we need a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage, he asks in a recent column, “Unholy marriage of politics, religion and discrimination.”

The best explanation Montini can come up with for the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative is that it “appeals to those who have strong religious convictions against homosexuality and to those who simply hate gay people.” His lite-rail rationale doesn't stop for "riders" with sensible rationale for the defense of marriage against radical social engineers.

It's clear that Montini hasn’t studied the sordid track record of homosexual marriage in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. He envisions two worldviews. One is the “anything goes” public policy preferred by benign value-less liberals. The second is characterized by homosexual-hating, right-wing, religious wacko extremist cretins who on a whim decided to oppose same-sex marriage.

What does Montini have in common with the trashy people who fight and embarrass themselves on Jerry Springer afternoon TV slugfests? He gets paid for embarrassing himself, too. Check out these losing, unenlightened arguments by Montini, who shoots from the hip and checks out the facts never:

“The problems that exist in marriages between men and women in America have nothing to do with gay people.”

No one said they did. Is there anything resembling a cogent point in this statement? Point, PMA.

“The only threat to the institution of marriage by gays may be a future comparison showing that their unions may be more committed.”

Montini will eat these crow-seasoned words. When he wrote “may be,” he wasn’t even in the factual ball park. Homosexual relationships last, on average, just 18 months, and infidelity is the rule of the day and night. If Montini had made minimal effort to do his homework, he would know that a large percentage of the 2004 Massachusetts “same-sex marriages” have already crashed and burned. Same is true in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Heterosexual marriage lasts far longer, statistically. Point, PMA.

”Amendment proponents also claim that it is necessary to prevent polygamy. But if multiple partners were the issue the amendment would define a marriage as being between ‘two people.’ The ‘one man, one woman’ part wouldn't matter. An amendment barring same-sex marriage won't prevent marriages between grown-ups and children or humans and animals, either. Because it doesn't have to. Those things already are against the law. And marriage, like any contract, involves consent. Kids and animals can't do that.”

When Montini was a schoolboy, he skipped the reading and arithmetic part in favor of writing. Now he writes whatever nonsense he can force upon a word processor. His unfortunate, deceived readers deserve to know that polygamists in Utah have cited the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to justify marriage between more than two people? Judicial activists, city and county officials in Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and California have all attempted to re-define marriage as a union between two people or party A and party B. Social change agents, interested in completely distorting the numbers and genders associated with marriage, are actively working to obliterate the number two as significant in marital unions. Again, one wonders if Montini is intentionally trying to mislead people, or if he wastes his time reading comic books all day at the expense of knowing his topics. He has perfected the art of boning down on a subject. Point, PMA.

”Putting a marriage amendment on the ballot is simply a way to get constituents to the polls. You scare them by saying that they are under siege by ‘activist judges,’ which is only a catchphrase for anyone on the bench who follows the law rather than the precepts of a particular religion.”

Voters will actually have a smorgasboard of reasons to vote in 2006. They'll be able to cast votes against Janet "Veto" Napolitano, support conservative candidates and vote against radical liberals -- all in addition to supporting PMA.

Furthermore, Montini's argument won’t wash with his liberal brethren in the 18 states in which Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Independents and … gasp, religious people … have stormed the polling gates to vote against homosexual marriage.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, a fundraiser and hired gun for the homosexual agenda, created law when she declared the same-sex “marriage” games open May 18, 2004. Seven U.S. Supreme Court created constitutional rights to abortion in January 1973. Federal Judge Joseph Battaillon created homosexual rights when he torched Nebraska's state marriage amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court invented a "wall of separation of church and state" in the 1947 Everson decision. The list of judicially-created law goes on an on, as readers well know.

To liberal comic book readers and leftist policy wonks, anyone who doesn’t support partial-birth abortion or amnesty for teen killers is basing their view on religious extremism and tilting at windmills of imagined judicial activism. Point, PMA.

”Child molesters can marry. Nazis, wife beaters, murderers and thieves can marry. Even liberals can marry. Why a constitutional amendment only against gays?”

Correction: Male child molesters can marry female child molesters; male Nazi’s can marry female Nazi’s, male wife beaters, murderers and thieves can marry females. Judicial law creationists are not denying their rights to marry. Point, PMA.

”Another argument has it that we must have an amendment against same-sex marriage to protect children. If that were true, we would have passed a constitutional prohibition against idiots getting married. And bigots, enablers, egotists and old-fashioned bums. These are the people who abuse children. But instead of barring them from marriage they'll be encouraged to cast votes against gays.”

At last check, it was not the "bigots, enablers, egotists and old-fashioned bums" who had opened offices, created advocacy websites, formed PACs to support homosexual-friendly political candidates, raised millions of dollars and appeared on radio and television debate programs to argue for homosexualizing the culture and the K-12 curriculum, as well as lowering the age of consent. Among the organizations for whom some or all of those categories fit include the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), GLSEN, the Human Rights Watch, the Log Cabin Republicans and others. Another organization, the ACLU is defending two New England men, both NAMBLA supporters, for the sodomy-rape-murder of a 10-year-old boy. The National Education Association and Planned Parenthood -- not bums -- are campaigning for homosexual K-12 curriculum. The homosexual haven in Sacramento (read homosexual legislators) have accomplished the homosexualization of public schools in California. The late Jesse Dirkhising never lived to see his 14th birthday because he was sodomized and murdered by two homosexuals in Arkansas. Those pedophiles in Goofy and Mickey Mouse costumes at Disney theme parks, the ones with their hands all over the kiddies, are not bigots and idiots; they are homosexuals. There are undoubtedly homosexual home-makers who treat children well, and there are also those who treat children as sexual pawns.

Homosexuals make up two percent of the U.S. population, and they commit the astounding rate of 33 percent of the nation’s acts of pedophilia. Children living in the home of homosexual couples are 46 times more susceptible to pedophilia than children in the homes of married heterosexuals. Point, PMA.

How does Montini’s mulch get past an editor? Don’t editors check facts any more? Not at Newsweak and the Republic.

None of Montini's arguments stand up to scrutiny. It’s game, set, match, victory for Protect Marriage Arizona … and the Heimlich maneuver for the Black Avenger. Sometimes even an easy victory over liberals still leaves an avenger with a bad, lingering taste.

Dennis Durband is publisher and editor of The Arizona Conservative, is also a freelance writer and webmaster and a longtime journalist. He is willing to speak at The Humanist Public University at Tucson for a slice of strawberry pie, after the address rather than a whipped cream pie like that "given" to Ann Coulter.

Dennis Durband's Archives: