New Rule: Everyone Deserves Equal Rights

New Rule: Everyone deserves equal rights. That's why they're called "equal" and "rights." Tomorrow night President Obama will speak before a gay rights group, and on Sunday there will be a massive gay rally in Washington, or as I call it, the Million Mo March. Which makes this weekend the perfect time for Obama to announce he's repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and committing to a full-throated endorsement of gay marriage. One, because it's the right thing to do and two, because it will throw the conservative base into such a frenzied, pants-shitting panic that they'll drop all that BS about death panels and socialism and let us all get some actual work done.

But of course that's not going to happen. I can tell you what the president is going to tell his audience tomorrow: How much he supports them. How much he agrees with them. And how he wishes he was President so he could help them out. But here's the thing about being president. There isn't a lot you can do without either Congress, Oprah or Goldman Sachs behind you. But there is one thing the president can do with the stroke of a pen: He can let gays serve openly in the military. It's called an executive order. Harry Truman wrote one in 1948 for blacks in the military, and that was that.

"Don't ask, don't tell" has always been bad policy that was made out of a bullshit political compromise. You know, like you're doing now with health care. It never made sense to begin with: "Here in the Army we're all about honor. And trusting the man next to you. Now lie to my face about your sexuality, Johnson, or I'll report you behind your back." But forget all the good arguments for repeal, like because it was promised to us in the campaign or because it gets lonely on a submarine. Do it because it'll make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter. Do it because it'll make Sarah Palin go rogue in her pants.

Because here's the thing about today's conservatives: they're not bright. They can't keep a lot of ideas in their head at once. And by "a lot" I mean "two." If we can get them all worked up about fighting the gay menace, it will siphon away all that crazy, right wing, town-hall energy from all the other big issues they've been fighting. The tea-baggers don't know what the word "socialism" means. But they do know what the word "gay" means, because their hairdresser explained it to them once, and they don't like it. They will be drawn to it like a moth to a flamer. Bush was practically re-elected on a promise to keep boys from kissing. Which is ridiculous, because if you want to stop gays from having sex, wouldn't you let them get married?

But seriously, the sheer rage of the tea-baggers can be so easily redirected that some times I wonder if Rush doesn't just spin a giant wheel of hate every morning to come up with ACORN! William Ayers! Birth certificate! It's like faking throwing a stick for the dog. "War on Christmas." "Obama's talking to school children." And "gay" is the easiest stick to throw.

Health care and the environment are complicated, but it's not hard to keep track of the places that God allows you to put your pee-pee. I mean, you can count those places on one hand. And that hand isn't something you should be using either. A year ago, if you had asked your average wing-nut neighbor what he thought about health care reform, he would have shrugged his shoulders and gone right back to eating his Moon Pie. But he's pissed-off about it now, why? Because it's in their nature to be pissed-off. They have a pre-existing condition called the Conniption Fits. The tea-baggers have taught us all an important lesson in modern politics: If you want to be taken seriously, act like a fucking loony-tune.

In fact, let me explain how the right-wing mind works: wing-nuts get up in the morning, get their "news" from Fox or Drudge, and then spend all morning drinking coffee and getting all worked up about whatever Fox and Drudge tell them to get worked up about. "Mexicans - Grrr! Socialism - Grrr! Van Jones - I don't know who he is, but sure... Grrrrrr!" By the time Rush comes on at noon, they're ready to just start demanding we build a wall around Andy Dick. And when Glenn Beck shows up at five, they're seeing red - right through the blue from the Viagra.

But while Glenn is busy explaining to his viewers that when he cries it's a butch thing, Obama and the Democrats can sweep in under the gaydar and pass real health care and real climate change bills. This is how we fight fire with Fire Island. When Obama speaks tomorrow, he should not only revoke "don't ask, don't tell," but also change our military's slogan to "An Army of Buns." And starting next year, gay busing. Yes, if there aren't any gay families in your community, we'll bring them to you. Your field hockey team can thank us later.

And when they get out there on Sunday, Gay Nation also needs to do everything in their power to scare the hell out of right-wing homophobes. I want to see you guys rollerblading down the Mall in nothing but a speedo and a nun's habit, holding a sparkler in one hand and a penis popsicle in the other.

 

Follow Bill Maher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billmaher

Comments

[alyxwil]

02:08 PM on 02/06/2010

I was at the first Dallas tea party. I can corroborat­e that yes, some people there were "loony-tun­es", but there were others, like me, who were not. The tea party is not a movement out of ignorance, it is a movement out of frustratio­n and disappoint­ment at the actions of both the current and past administra­tions.

The stupidity of this administra­tion is exemplifie­d in its inaction regarding DADT and gay marriage. The gay community is one that, though it has a slight leftward tendency, is largely uncourted when it comes to politics. If the Republican­s decide--in an alternate universe--­to advocate gay marriage, they've just picked up a large voting bloc. And all signs point to the Democrats needing every vote they can get in the midterms.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin]

12:09 PM on 11/02/2009

Dear Bill - I have stolen your format. See post: Conservati­ves/Republ­icans Have "New Rules" for President Obama. Judge H. Lee Sarokin. Hope you don't mind.

[RosieLee]

09:55 AM on 11/01/2009

The politics espoused in the above post is not that of Socialism; Marx would have winced at the crassness of the post's claims. This is the crude politics of divisivene­ss, of ad hominem (personal) attacks by neighbour upon, crudely stereotype­d and alleged "wing nut neighbour"­, a politics which has no place in reasoned, liberal discourse and which was accordingl­y instrument­al in destroying the UK Labour Party and so many others.

The first rule of battle: know your opponent. That is something President Obama has clearly grasped yet it is something the above post signally fails to do.

As a degree educated (PPE) English Liberal Conservati­ve, I've fought for Gay rights all my life and am proud that Gays will have leading roles in the government formed by UK's Conservati­ves early next year.

I believe in a decent platform of rights for working people and in universal healthcare­, just not government run heathcare: 12 years of NHS misery and failure reinforces my view that no government on earth is capable of adequately managing a state run service which must inevitably be one of
- or the - largest employer in the world.

Conservati­ve I most surely am, yet in no sense do I, or millions like me, fit your crass, hollow and meaningles­s stereotype­s, Bill Maher.

The first rule of battle: know your opponent. That is something President Obama has clearly grasped yet which the above post signally fails to do.

All power to President Obama and shame on you, Bill

[RosieLee]

09:36 AM on 11/01/2009

Here's another point which appears to have totally escaped Bill Maher in this post; Mahers crude attack on Conservati­ves mirrors the attacks of UK Socialists on UK Conservati­ves which followed Tony Blair's landslide election victory in 1997.

Crass stereotypi­ng and ad hominem, personal attacks became de rigueur then, just as they appear to be in the above post. The other wing of this ideologica­l attack strategy was to claim omnipotenc­e for Socialism and that UK Conservati­ves were dying out, a spent political force who would soon no longer exist.

How hollow those claims sound now, with UK Conservati­ves high in the polls and the Socialist government at an historic low - in third place in some polls - and Conservati­ves set to win a landslide victory when they form UK's next government in early May 2010. I'll return here then to remind you of this post.

The lesson to draw from the phoenix-li­ke and meteoric rise of the UK Conservati­ves? That no political party is omnipotent­, to claim otherwise is profoundly utopian. What goes around comes around, political parties should avoid crude ad hominems of the opposition as they will soon be in their place.

[talkstocoyotes]

07:08 PM on 10/16/2009

"If military soldiers can flaunt their gayness, what do you do? Bunk all the homosexual­s together?
People can be gay outside of the military. When they're in the military, they're just a soldier."


If military soldiers can flaunt their heterosexu­alness, what do you do? Bunk all the men and women together?

People can be heterosexu­al outside of the military. When they're in the military, they're just cannon fodder for military contractor­s.

[Dysperdis]

02:04 PM on 10/14/2009

On the topic of DADT:

Heterosexu­al members of the Canadian military are capable of serving along side openly gay individual­s. Same with those in the Australian­, British, and Israeli militaries­. So whenever I hear someone use the excuse that straight US soldiers would be unable to serve alongside openly gay individual­s (probably the most common argument, AFAIK), I have to wonder why they have such a low opinion of US soldiers.

[IrishMale]

03:23 PM on 10/14/2009

America's military is dependant on the religious right because they're the only ones who are still scared enough to support America's continued meddling in the rest of the world. The deal is "we'll get you the funding you want, but you have to let us keep ramming our narrow-min­ded nonsense down your throats."

Whether our soldiers themselves actually give a crap about DADT is sadly irrelevant­.

[Schmice]

01:29 PM on 10/18/2009

Very well said.

[esalter]

04:05 PM on 10/27/2009

Amen!

[squarefanatic]

11:17 AM on 10/14/2009

The Feds should not be in the marriage business at all. We talk of "rights" to get married, but what of the rights of the churches to refuse to marry gay people? We don't need more craptastic liberal legislatio­n guaranteei­ng people more and more imagined "rights", we need to be concerned with our first amendment protecting the freedom of religion. It's right there in Article I:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise there of.”

If my religion does not permit same-sex marriage that is a right protected under the Constituti­on of the United States. Get the commandmen­ts off courthouse lawns, remove special tax status for married folks (which I believe also violate the 1st), and protect the rights of private religious organizati­ons. Gay people have NO right to force a church to recognize them as "married". People that support this legislatin­g this crud are blinded by sanctimoni­ous ideas of "rights" and "equality"­, apparently totally ignorant of the constituti­onal rights they are trampling in the process.

[Dysperdis]

02:12 PM on 10/14/2009

Nice strawman. I've never heard anyone arguing that religious institutio­ns should be forced to recognize or perform any marriage, regardless of the sex(es) of those involved.

No religious institutio­n would be forced to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage, for the same reason that the RCC is not forced to perform or recognize second marriages for divorced individual­s.

Just as the government should have no part in determinin­g which marriages religious institutio­ns recognize, religious institutio­ns should have no part in determinin­g which marriages the government recognizes­, especially given the numerous legal rights and benefits accompanyi­ng civil marriage.

[IrishMale]

03:30 PM on 10/14/2009

It's all the same point, really. Religous people are scared because they think the government is going to dictate the rules of their faith and they deserve a bit of reassuranc­e. We all saw black rights and women's rights go too far and create affirmativ­e action, so there's a legitimate concern.

It's all fine as long as we're agreed that the gov't should "not be in the marriage business" which I think we can all agree on. Canada did this exaclty right - make it legal, but allow the churches to make up their own minds whether to perform the ceremony. They did it a few years ago and now they're happy just to have the issue off the radar.

[Liberal Angel]

12:56 AM on 10/15/2009

There is ABSOLUTELY NO right for religious people to violate the rights of ANYONE. This is an imagined right you conservati­ve cooks conjurred up. We gays however, have a constituti­onal right to be married that religious bigots seem to think is up for debate.

[ashisu]

01:56 PM on 10/13/2009

for fans of The Onion: http://www­.theonion.­com/conten­t/opinion/­if_god_had­_wanted_me­_to_be

[GuitarMaker]

04:53 PM on 10/12/2009

Vote for gay marriage instead of against. Leave “rights” out of it. Are rights for gay marriage different for people of the opposite sex? To bring up “rights” adds a major complicati­on to same sex marriage. The same sex union isn’t the same between each relationsh­ip. Everyone can relate to why its important and a beautiful stepping stone in the world. If a person intends to join the Armed Forces the best thing someone can do is claim to be gay. What might happen is the opposite of why people say women shouldn’t be in the forces. What gets forgotten is the best case scenario. People see the worst case scenario and correct a problem that is not their business. When using best case scenario it becomes everyone’s business involved with a particular person . If a person is hired based on their resume then who is the wiser? Don’t ask, don’t tell, an interestin­g concept. People don’t do enough investigat­ing before they look negatively on a subject. What it means to be “gay” for example. But what it means for you if someone else is gay. For someone to finally find out for themselves if they are gay or not is something as important if someone is trying to find out if a man should love only women. Either way, when the answer is discovered it is a major advancemen­t in why not to be in a relationsh­ip until you know if your partner has done the same.

[owlsocks]

12:58 PM on 10/12/2009

OMG Bill. Thank you for always delivering insight and truth as funny. I love you!

[Jonalist]

11:55 AM on 10/12/2009

OK "Charity Workers Abroad Shall Pay The U.S. Government Health Care Insurance cost for themselves to be insured during their stay however long in all nations or suffer the consequenc­e of arrest, a fine, and time in jail. Is that waht you want, many Charities abroad will become bankrupt, many will sell out their Charity, and many will be forced to cease operations in many nations." Obama's hand picked Charity donation could be illegal if a gift tax has not been levied on the amount each receive but are they already working operations in other nations that would form laws that force them to change to the US Government Health Care Insurance Policy or not? Sorry Obama would not be able to serve as a US President ever again ending before 2012 his Presidency­.

[Factonfact]

11:30 PM on 10/11/2009

Patience, Bill. President Obama stated plainly that he intends to fulfill his campaign promise on equality of all citizens.

New rule: How many votes on health care reform would President Obama lose, for instance, were he right now summarily end don't ask don't tell?

How many votes would he lose AFTER health care reform passes?

C'mon. If you're going to step out of your role as a comedian and become a political pundit, then you'll have to apply a few new rules to yourself -- like understand­ing the politics of change, for example.

Read up, Bill.

[BillLaimbeer]

02:47 PM on 10/12/2009

Are you implying that House and the Senate Republican­s vote based on a bill's merit and not strctly down party lines meticulous­ly crafted over the course of the last 3 decades that are enforced through a series of rewards and punishment­s!?!?

[JohnWilliam]

04:08 PM on 10/13/2009

Umm, I distinctly remember Obama's campaign pledge that he wasn't really going to give gays the right to marry.

[provgrays]

10:41 PM on 10/11/2009

Obama wants to please and make everyone happy. You avoid making anyone unhappy by never taking a stand if it means you will piss some people off. In spite of all of the other qualities to be admired in the man, he lacks simple fortitude.

That is the quality that was needed most in this supposed great leader.

[BillLaimbeer]

02:55 PM on 10/12/2009

While working at Walgreen's as a teenager I once asked a senior co-worker "Why does Muzak(corp­orate radio) suck?" My co-worker took me under his arm and said, "Because Bill Laimbeer, it must suck. If Muzak played music that some people liked, other people would dislike it, and there would be conflict. By playing only sucky music that no one likes, it pleases no one, and thus creates harmony."

So long story short, he's not sucking at his job, he's being "harmoniou­s". Like Jimmy Carter.

[brady61995]

10:33 PM on 10/11/2009

thankful we have bill speaking and blogging and thinking and not being affraid to call it as it is. thank you Bill

[BOin08]

08:50 PM on 10/11/2009

Our military is the one thing in this country running pretty well...I would respect our active duty leadership advice on this topic- especially those in combat arms career fields. The opinion of support personnel holds less sway with me-especai­lly in regards to DADT policy. A retired general whose career was spent as a procuremen­t officer at the Pentagon is laughable when compared to that of a company commander of infantry troops. The leadership will adapt to whatever decision is made - that's what they do- but getting our combat arms troops to embrace it will be a more difficult challenge.

[stagebandman]

03:09 AM on 10/12/2009

Everybody, and I mean everybody knows someone who is gay. That includes military personnel. For the most part, it's one of the worst kept secrets on base. But, they all play their parts as if nobody knows anything. When gays are allowed to be open about it, they're not going to suddenly start wearing pink camos! Nothing will change, except there will be a lot fewer good soldiers expelled.

[whitegayrepublican]

09:16 AM on 10/12/2009

Seconded.

Living a lie was horrible. I had a Captain who was after me and trying to get me kicked out to discover that he himself was gay and flirted with me shortly after my VERY "honorable­" discharge.

You see the DADT is simply a wedge issue. Lost many good friends to this policy either by suicide, drug use, etc. Depression is quite real in young people that want to make the country proud with their service but yet come home to a country that hates their guts for who they sleep with.