One of the first lessons they teach at right-wing talking-points school is to never equate [tag]gay rights[\/tag] and [tag]civil rights[\/tag]. It drives the base crazy and makes it harder to justify intolerance. Apparently, [tag]White House[\/tag] [tag]press secretary[\/tag] [tag]Tony Snow[\/tag] missed the lesson entirely.<\/p>\n
Consider, for example, this exchange<\/a> from today’s press briefing (via John Byrne<\/a>):<\/p>\n Snow: Whether [the [tag]Federal Marriage Amendment[\/tag]] passes or not, as you know, Terry, there have been a number of cases where civil rights matters have risen on a number of occasions, and they’ve been brought up for repeated consideration by the United States Senate and other legislative bodies…<\/p>\n Q: You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?<\/p>\n Snow:: Not — well, these — it —<\/p>\n Q Is this a civil right?<\/p>\n Snow:: Marriage? It actually — what we’re really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for — meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore —<\/p>\n Q And you would equate that with civil rights?<\/p>\n Snow:: No, I’m just saying that I think — well, I don’t know. How do you define civil rights?<\/p>\n Q It’s not up to me. Up to you.<\/p>\n Snow:: Okay. Well, no, it’s your question. So I — if I —<\/p>\n Q (Chuckles.)<\/p>\n Snow:: I need to get a more precise definition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n First, the right was irritated enough that Laura Bush and Dick Cheney oppose the amendment, and the president hasn’t shown any interest in it. Now, with the White House press secretary making comments like this, Karl Rove is going to have to work overtime to keep James Dobson happy.<\/p>\n