Musician John Rich, of country duo Big and Rich, said on the Steve Gill radio show (loooong MP3 clip here) that he supported Fred Thompson for president because he agreed with him on issues like gay marriage. Rich said of the institution:"I think if you legalize that, you've got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory. You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can't marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can't get married, but something else that's unnatural can happen?"
Ah, yes, the "it will lead to incest and/or bestiality" anti-gay marriage argument. It's been a while since that old chestnut was trotted out.
Rich later issued this statement: "My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don't reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views. I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected."
Despite his furious back-tracking, he did call homosexuality "unnatural" and compare it to incest, and we're thinking Big & Rich's gay and gay-friendly fans (we know some!) aren't going to forget this.
And yet, we also have a feeling he's not going to feel a quarter the blow-back the Dixie Chicks did for questioning the President . . .
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. Ignorance is more tolerable than homosexuality..how disgusting. Apologies always come after the real thought hits the public...whats the matter John, you think this apology will bring back your gay fans? Not. At least take a side...you sound like all the other politicians who sit on the fence.
"Gina" at 3:51PM on Oct 29th 2007
2. Gay marriages should not be a problem. But letting them adopt kids of their same sex should be a problem. If we can give mexicans coming into the U.S. citizenship,rights then we should give all gays the rights they want. But never same sex adoptions.
William at 3:55PM on Oct 29th 2007
3. ZOMG rednecks don't like fags
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
J at 3:59PM on Oct 29th 2007
4. the gentleman is absolutely correct. he should be complimented for daring to indicate his beliefs when they obviously fly into the faces of those in the liberal community. hate the sin not the sinner!
john p mclaughlin at 4:13PM on Oct 29th 2007
5. "I think if you legalize that, you've got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory. You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can't marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can't get married, but something else that's unnatural can happen?"
Actually, it’s not at all difficult for people who are related to marry. An aunt and a nephew with different last names can go to City Hall and get a marriage license. There is no DNA testing to prove that they aren’t related, nor is there any investigation.
As for the “unnatural” comment, it’s meaningless. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. I seriously doubt that gay penguins picked it up from watching Will & Grace.
“I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman.”
I support same-sex marriage because my mother brought me up to believe that everyone deserves love.
Marriage is a CIVIL issue and therefore should not be defined by religion. If you don’t want gay people to marry in your church, that’s fine. That’s your right. Just don’t try to define the civil procedure with your Bible.
A lesbian couple I know got married a couple of years ago, and…guess what? It didn’t affect my marriage to my husband in the least.
Tatiana at 4:14PM on Oct 29th 2007
6. Errrmm, I don't think he was backtracking so much as elaborating, on his position that is. Actually, he articulates the position of a lot of people, including myself: marriage is for 1 man and one woman, but the government has no right to tell a person who he/she can sleep with, apart from protecting minors and others incapable of making that sort of decision themselves. And why is it a "chestnut" to argue that if the definition of marriage is broadened, it can/will only be broadened to include same-sex couples? What's to stop it from going beyond, apart from the same cultural resistance being faced by the gay and lesbian community right now?
Jay at 4:17PM on Oct 29th 2007
7. Responding to Tatiana (5):
If the man or woman next door abuses his spouse and/or children, am I to ignore it? After all, it will not affect my marriage! Is that your threshold for involvement? Only when it hurts me?
How pathetic!
If it is wrong, then, it is wrong and we should not be compelled to stay quiet. If you think it is right or acceptable, then say so. But, do not justify it by saying that it does not hurt you! That is a pathetic reason for tolerance.
ray at 4:26PM on Oct 29th 2007
8. It is either Right or it is Wrong....
We are not Animals we are Human Beings and are above the Animals with the ability to determine right from wrong with conscience.
One can clearly observe the mechanics of a Man and a Woman and see what normal is. Anything else is self serving rationalizing....
Whether our conduct "hurts" others or not.....
KrautKnabe at 4:52PM on Oct 29th 2007
9. # 7. -- Ray:
“If the man or woman next door abuses his spouse and/or children, am I to ignore it? After all, it will not affect my marriage! Is that your threshold for involvement? Only when it hurts me?”
Illogical argument. The spouse and children are being hurt, so of course, you shouldn’t ignore it. How is someone else’s marriage hurting anyone? What part of “consensual” don’t you understand?
“If it is wrong, then, it is wrong and we should not be compelled to stay quiet.”
Nobody is telling you to stay quiet. Obviously you have a right to make your opinion known, and you’re doing that in this forum. You thinking it’s “wrong,” based on your holy book and not the value of the individual, shouldn’t be used to make civil law.
By the way, I noticed that you skipped right over most of my post, giving my reasons for thinking same-sex marriage and acted as though not hurting me was my only justification.
That *is* pathetic.
Tatiana at 5:00PM on Oct 29th 2007
10. Ray said: "If the man or woman next door abuses his spouse and/or children, am I to ignore it? After all, it will not affect my marriage! Is that your threshold for involvement? Only when it hurts me?"
_________________________
So you are equating the love between two same sex lovers with abuse? Your argument is ludicrous. What people do in the sanctity of their home is THEIR BUSINESS.
Linda at 5:07PM on Oct 29th 2007
11. You rock, Tatiana!
Linda at 5:09PM on Oct 29th 2007
12. # 8 - KrautKnabe
"We are not Animals we are Human Beings"
Human beings are animals. That's a scientific fact.
"with the ability to determine right from wrong with conscience."
My conscience tells me that not letting two people who love each other have the same legal committment as other couples because your book of tales says that it's naughty.
"One can clearly observe the mechanics of a Man and a Woman and see what normal is. Anything else is self serving rationalizing...."
I've got news for you. There isn't anything that gay couples do that straight couples don't.
Tatiana at 5:11PM on Oct 29th 2007
13. William said: "Gay marriages should not be a problem. But letting them adopt kids of their same sex should be a problem"
------------------------------------
What? Why not. These kids grow up in a loving family. Do you honestly think that gay people force their offspring to be gay? You must not know many gay people.
Linda at 5:18PM on Oct 29th 2007
14. #2 -- William:
"But letting them adopt kids of their same sex should be a problem."
Why? There is no proof that children of gay parents fare any worse than children of straight parents. The most important thing is that children are loved.
Tatiana at 5:19PM on Oct 29th 2007
15. Maybe you're reading the guy wrong.
Maybe he's saying that homosexuality is no worse than incest so it's not such a big deal. If he comes from a southern state, a lot of kids have parents that are still related AFTER the divorce.
You know, what's a banjo player call his ex-wife?
Cuz....
Sorry. The devil obviously made me do that.
Clif Kuplen at 7:48PM on Oct 29th 2007