Will Folks- Gay Rights Activist (spit take to follow)

A Waldo reader has dredged up the blog posts Will Folks relies on to claim he opposed the 2006 South Carolina  marriage equality amendment.


Recall his claim:

From a political standpoint, though, we are very much in favor of gay rights. In fact, we have been in favor of gay rights for years, dating back to our opposition to the SCGOP’s Get Out The Vote … err, Defense of Marriage referendum four years ago, which sought to exploit Republican distaste for homosexuals into electoral gold.

That was pretty progressive of us, right?

Turns out he's not in favor of any form of gay rights. He's against marriage equality. He's just against government regulating who can marry. Like many "libertarian" positions, it's so removed from reality as to be risible, but at the same time has a purely theoretical coherence.


(Sometimes Waldo likes to try writing like Will's imaginary friend Mande.)


Here's Folksy's resounding embrace of The Gays:

Q: Do we support gay marriages? A: No, we do not.

Q: Do we believe the Holy Scriptures specifically forbid gay marriages? A: Yes, we do.

But finally ...

Q: Do we believe a government based on individual liberty has any business telling people who they can and cannot marry? A: HELL no.

Look people, we've been to the Florida Keys. We've seen flamboyantly homosexual couples walking around together in rhinestone-studded "I'm With Him" T-Shirts and purple assless chaps.

Did we like it? No. Did we almost lose our lunches? Absolutely.

But it simply isn't our place - and it certainly isn't the government's place - to judge people because they're different or because they don't look, think or act like we do.

The great thing about America is that a neo-Nazi skinhead, a militant Black Panther, a Free Will Baptist preacher, a long-haired hippie communist, a seer-sucker suit-wearing lobbyist and a Confederate-cladGlenn McConnell can all walk down Main Street together singing "We Shall Overcome" if they want to.

We're a free country - and thousands upon thousands of Americans who subscribed to vastly divergent and often-contradictory beliefs died to keep it that way.

That's why we can wear our Swastikas, our dreadlocks, our nipple rings and our Rebel flags in public if we want to. It's why we can read what actually happened in the morning paper and not what a handful of government censors want us to believe happened. It's why we can receive a fair and speedy trial, bear arms to protect ourselves, own property free from the threat of unlawful seizure, peaceably gather to petition our government for a redress of grievances and do pretty much as we damn well please within the confines of our homes provided we are not infringing on the inalienable rights of our neighbors to get a decent night's sleep.

Simply put, we are heirs to the legacy of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan - not Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini.

But in a world of Kelo, primary seat belt enforcement, knee-jerk anti-Second Amendment laws, domestic wiretapping and yes, anti-gay marriage amendments, in which direction are we really headed as a state and as a nation?

South Carolina has one of the most aggressive anti-gay ballot initiatives in the nation. It would, in effect, deny thousands of South Carolinians certain civil rights based exclusively on their sexual orientation, which we think is wrong. Never mind the fact that there's already a law on the books in South Carolina outlawing gay marriage.

But guess what, the referendum's going to pass.

There's nothing we could write on this blog that's going to change that, and right-wing sycophants like Mitt Romney - obsessed with exploiting ignorance for their own short-term political gain - will continue issuing statements and stroking checks to the Palmetto Family Council in exchange for a stamp of approval from the so-called "moral majority."

We're just curious as to what Mr. Romney will say when the next amendments prohibit Catholic, Jewish or yes, even Mormon marriages in South Carolina?

Now some people would say we've got a bit of a libertarian streak to us. Maybe so. We believe what we believe, but you can damn sure bet that we'll defend to the death your right to keep believing whatever it is that you believe.

To us, limited government is as much about prosperity and putting more money into the economy as it is about individual liberties, but we strongly suspect that without liberty, prosperity inches ever closer to a "here today, gone tomorrow" proposition.

But that's just us crazy libertarian FITS gals for ya. When we asked Sic Willie to give us his thoughts on the subject, all he said was that he'd fight to the death for his right to watch Madonna and Britney Spears kiss each other ... again and again and again ...

Just before the 2006 election, Will Folks elaborated on his flaming support of The Gays:

........

In case anyone missed it this morning, The State newspaper "endorsed" the gay marriage ban that appears on next Tuesday's statewide ballot.


After dismissing the amendment's moral and Constitutional legitimacy, the paper's argument boiled down to the fact that it wants the issue to "go away" and that voting "Yes" on the Amendment would accomplish that objective.


Oddly enough, so would voting "No."


Unlike The State, FITS took a clear and unambiguous position on this amendment months ago, and didn't hide behind Pringles-thin logic in an attempt to sidestep what we believed in the name of popular expediency.


You can read our column on the subject here.


Our argument then - and now - is that while we believe homosexuality to be a sin, we do not believe it falls under the purview of government to regulate that sin.


You can call us libertarian if you'd like, but on this issue - like eminent domain, flag burning, primary seat belt enforcement and other issues - we'll take that label gladly.


Incidentally, Ernst Rohm, the socialist head of Hitler's brown-shirted SA death squads, was a homosexual. Also a notorious murderer, Rohm was killed by Hitler during the "Night of the Long Knives" on June 30, 1934. Like his boss, it's our belief that if anyone deserves to perpetually roast for their sins, it's Rohm.


But that's not for us to judge. The holder of that responsibility has already exercised it in Rohm's case (and in Hitler's, for that matter, eleven years later), just as one day He will exercise it with respect to each one of our lives.


Our nation justifies itself to the world as a protector of freedom. And whatever our colleagues in conservative circles may think of us, we believe this amendment to be an unlawful infringement of those freedoms.


That position may not be popular - and it will likely not be the one that prevails Tuesday - but at least we're not afraid to say it.