The Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock

Big Mo Trendy

July 3, 2003

Maureen Dowd’s new piece is called “Next Up, the Gay Divorcee” and it is her attempt to accomplish two things.  First, Ms. Dowd showcases her prize winning PC credentials by championing the hottest new bit of political correctness, which is the need for gay marriage.  Second, she simultaneously attempts to denigrate Dr. Frist, who is a VIP of the Republican Congressional leadership.  Such a “twofer” may well give her special consideration with her masters at the New York Times in their search for a new editor.

Dowd is forever referring to people by moronic little nicknames so I’ve decided to offer the authoress one for herself.  I am rather fond of  “Big Mo Trendy.”  She loves whatever is “in,” and if gay marriage is in, and on the lips of counter-cultural Mahareshi’s, then it will grace her column until it’s officially “out.”  For all we know, she may one day write a piece on the wearing bowties resulting in fascism depending on whether or not the idea graces enough leftist opinion columns. 

She begins by telling us that Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, while at medical school, used to take home stray cats and dissect them.  Ms. Dowd does this to alert her readers that Dr. Frist is a contemptible person.  This assumes that they are part of the “real men admit they love cats movement.”  Speaking from the position of a man whose nose runs and eyes water whenever I’m in the same room with a cat, I was left unmoved. 

Then she refers to a story in Newsweek and that Dr. Frist won’t “let any sentiments about those cute lesbians on the new cover” stand in the way of his promotion of a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.  Why would he?  Just because Maureen was stirred by a photo of two cute lesbians doesn’t mean the rest of us let our sentiments interfere with rational judgment. 

By the way, maybe she should start spending more time with those lesbians as “cute” is something I believe she’d never say about a heterosexual man.  They can have her!  But I think it would be unfair for me to pretend that anything woman born could tolerate Big Mo Trendy.  How often could someone put up with requests like, “I say, Lulu, let’s Ulysses our way over to the wine shoppe and get some beatific Beaujolais.   It’s just meandered across the pond with perfumed flourish from Normandy.”  Anyone would wonder, “where did I buy this piece of work and what is the store’s official return policy?”

This is all an academic discussion anyway, as two beautiful “lipstick lesbians” are about as common a sighting as the Loch Ness Monster in your neighbor’s swimming pool.  Lesbians that look like that are rarely seen within society.   The Chicago Gay Pride Parade on Sunday revealed to me, for the five thousandth time, that lipstick lesbians are not indicative of the greater whole.  They are the massive minority within that population. 

One must remember that to radical feminists, “fat is a feminist issue,” while to the rest of us, “fat is a cardiovascular issue.”  If Newsweek were interested in the truth they’d show two roly-poly beasts with brush cuts fondling Snickers bars instead of two fetching young things in an embrace.  Hey, but they probably figured the big lie worked just fine for Goebbels.

Oh yeah, the column!  She then quotes Dr. Frist as believing that marriage is a sacrament.  Her response to such a view is: “Yeah, love [read: hate] those Western values, from Socrates to Michelangelo to the Catholic Church. And what is a politician doing talking about sacraments anyway? Religion is in the business of deciding what is holy, not government.”

Certainly deciding what is holy is the business of religion but marriage is the legal validation of this (originally) religious sacrament.   The legal basis of marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  Gays can marry just as easily as I can, provided they marry a member of the opposite sex.  Marriage is something done between heterosexuals.  That’s our thing.  If they want to think up something for them to do that’s fine with me but don’t co-opt our practices. 

What about the slippery slope anyway?  Where does it all end?  In her last column Big Mo had no idea.  How soon before she asks for a woman to have the legal right to marry her favorite ottoman or hair curler?  How could legal distinctions be created?  Answer: they can’t.

Dowd states that Republicans “were whacked by the Supreme Court and Congress in a capital they're supposed to be dominating.”  Well, that’s the rub isn’t it?  When the Supreme Court decides to make our laws then there is little more the legislature or executive branch can do than advocate for a constitutional amendment. 

A constitutional amendment will let the people speak, which is exactly what terrifies Ms. Dowd.  The court battles are the only way anti-liberals can change the world.  The judiciary allows them to do things that are unpopular with the masses and are thus, undemocratic.  They’re afraid of states or municipalities making laws for themselves.  Only a sweaty, hyperactive judicial branch can twist the world into the obscene place that most liberals desire.

She follows this up with more Dowdian historical distortions, “President Bush dumped Senator Lott in favor of Dr. Frist, who has cared for AIDS patients in Africa, so conservatives could have a more compassionate face.”  Did she get that from Dr. Frist, Senator Lott or President Bush?  Answer: none of the above.  She has no sources.  Why does she forget to mention Clinton’s all-talk/no-performance work on AIDS in Africa.  Bob Geldof mentioned it and complimented President Bush. 

Then the nefarious James Carville is mentioned.  He “thinks the G.O.P. is pushing its culture war, playing up ‘the ick factor,’ as Newsweek calls it, that gay couplings conjure up for many Americans, even moderates.” 

Ick factor?  My friend sent me this report from a gay website.   It states: “In one of the largest national studies of its kind, just 22 percent of 4,295 sexually active gay men said they only engage in protected oral and anal sex. Nearly half of the men, who were all HIV-negative, reported that they had recently had unprotected receptive anal intercourse.”

Nearly half of the men reported they had recent unprotected anal intercourse!  After all the propaganda with which they’ve been barraged!  That’s completely insane.  Oh yeah, Mr. Carville, it’s icky as well.  

Yet by mentioning Carville, Dowd tacitly acknowledges that most Americans do not support the idea of gay marriage.  To the ideologues at the NYT  it is insane the way citizens stick to their principles despite fashionable counter-trends. 

Many average Americans cow before PC in public but the most resist it at the ballot box, and that’s what gives the NYT and Carville night terrors.

Carville whines that the Democrats may actually be forced to be accountable for what they say: "…the Republicans will use this to divide the Democrats and reduce us to an accumulation of interest groups — a woman's right to choose, a kid's right to education, a transgender's right to whatever."  Or as Grover Norquist says, they are all “competing parasites and coercive utopians.”  Their relationships with one another are barely cordial.  How could anyone get along with a self-righteous leftist?  The Democratic party consists of islands united under a woman’s right to murder, a kid’s mandatory acceptance of failing government schools, and a transgender’s right to be on the cover of TV Guide and also to have their nails done at a Medicaid reimbursed salon.

Dowd gives us yet another conclusion that reflects how little she knows about conservatives.  “Maybe the right's spending too much time worrying about the thorny issue of gay marriage. Wait until it has to wrestle with gay divorce.”  It won’t be us having to worry about it, Ms. Dowd.  It will be you trying to explain to all your friends how, in the face of gay marriages that turn over like the engine in a new Ford, homosexuals are in some way superior to heterosexuals.  

Bernard Chapin