So this GOP State Senator James Forrester who is supposedly a medical doctor (fortunately the sick in his town he’s retired). The batshittery is beyond belief and goes on and on as this blow hard is caught in lie after lie as he tries to hide the animus on which the anti-gay hate bill was based. He was the primary sponsor.[youtube:http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIqYJcLC4I]
Let’s take a look at what he based it all on:
- He says in a town hall it’s because gay men die 20 years sooner because of AIDS…blah, blah, blah. OK, so how does keeping gay people from marrying and encouraging monogamous relationships add to that problem?
- When called out on it, he first claims he got the info from the CDC. He assumed, because of his medical license I assume, that Michael would just accept that. When he didn’t, the doctor (lower case “d” is on purpose) then tries to say it’s based on his experience as a practitioner. It appears he did have one patient with AIDS at some point. Then he claims he got it out of a book by Frank Turek, a known homophobe who has no medical or scientific background.
- At one point he tries to claim he didn’t say it at all, and that it had nothing to do with the Bill, but Michael plays him the tape from his town hall (oops).
- Then he gets upset because Signorile is “trying to trip him up.”
- Next he claims that he’s just trying to preserve marriage between one man and one woman for over 5,000 years. Well, I guess he can be forgiven since he was a doctor and not a historian. Obviously in many societies men were permitted multiple wives, and for most of that 5,000 years which the doctor seems to remember so fondly, women were not equal parties in the marriage, but property. I’d call that a pretty big change to his “traditional marriage,” but he’d probably like to see it rolled back a hundred years or so anyway.
- Then he says he just wants people to vote on it so it can’t be decided by some federal judge (and he does say federal). Well, again, I guess he was too busy dissecting his cadaver to bother reading the Constitution, but if a federal judge rules, it’s lights out for his amendment anyway.
- Signorile points out how gay marriage in Massachusetts hasn’t negatively affected marriage, and the doctor’s response to all that is that he’s not an expert on all these things (never mind he presented himself as such during town halls and debates on the topic), and so he can’t answer Michael’s questions because they are biased.
- In the end, he claimed he introduced the bill to protect marriage, but when Michael asks him out right, how does it harm marriage, he admits he doesn’t know. Signorile calls him irresponsible…I would call him much worse.
Then despite being the primary sponsor of the Bill, our good doctor ends the conversation by inviting Michael to call someone else and ask them.