Thursday, December 31, 2009

Karl Rove threatens the sanctity of marriage for a second time

Karl Rove, the man who planned the coast to coast assault on gay couples by ensuring same-sex marriage was on the ballot in at least eleven states -- many of them "swing" states -- is getting divorced for the second time.   The Dallas Voice is reporting that a spokesperson for Rove has asked for "privacy."

I usually try to be somewhat even tempered in this blog, but that request makes my blood boil.

Where was the privacy he denied to thousands of gay couples by masterminding a scheme to put our relationships up to a popular vote?  Where was his respect for privacy for same sex couples when TV ad after TV ad assaulted gay relationships in this country during the 2004 presidential campaign that he ran?  And for the record, Jenny Sanford, who the media is now portraying as a pillar of strength for leaving her husband, Governor Mark Sanford of Virgina, also asked for privacy in light of her divorce.  Make no mistake about it: she, like her husband, is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage and remained silent when the privacy of so many gay people was violated in all the referenda across the country.  And let's not forget the privacy that Palin family requested after Crystal gave birth out of wedlock.  Where do these people --who think nothing of leading a full assault on the privacy of other Americans-- get off?

An interesting postscript: Rove's first marriage ended a year after the wedding.  And Rove's stepfather, whom Rove considered his father, was a gay man who divorced Rove's mother in the 1960's. Rove kept a photo of him on his desk in the White House.  I was quote surprised when I learned this.  US News and World Report as well as a book about Rove, The Architect, confirms the story.

As the Dallas Voice notes, "The judge should never have granted the divorce. He should have told him that in Biblical times, a divorce could only be granted by a religious panel and that there was no such thing as an “amiable” divorce."  This would be a suitable response for the man who erroneously preached that marriage hadn't changed since Biblical times in order to deny the civil rights of other Americans.

No comments:

Post a Comment