May
1st
Fri
1st
David Limbaugh replied to my email!
David Limbaugh, or one of his staff, ladies and gentleman:
————— Forwarded message —————
From: david@davidlimbaugh.com <david@davidlimbaugh.com>
Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 at 09:35
Subject: Re: In re: Gay Tail Wagging Hetero Dog article
To: Phil Ingram <*******@gmail.com>
From: david@davidlimbaugh.com <david@davidlimbaugh.com>
Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 at 09:35
Subject: Re: In re: Gay Tail Wagging Hetero Dog article
To: Phil Ingram <*******@gmail.com>
Dear Phil: I am actually shocked, and gratified to receive your note. Yours is the first indication of disapproval I’ve seen from the left. I thought my column merely noted that no leftists had objected to it, not that none disapprove, though I have to admit that’s a fair inference and probably one I generally make myself. So it’s good to know there are fair-minded guys out there like you and I will consider your constructive criticism. Even if you are correct that the Christian right has brought the marriage issue into the forefront, I would not apologize for that, but consider it a good thing — then again, I may be missing your meaning. Thanks for your note and your quite respectful tone, which also surprised me (a generalized feeling based on an abundance of experience, LOL). Best, David
On May 1, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Phil Ingram wrote:
Mr. Limbaugh,
It’s unfair for you to make straw men out of the entire secular left, as you did in your commentary today. After all, as a queer man, I was deeply offended by Perez Hilton’s actions. His question was patently unfair, and the way in which he handled the answer was hypocritical. He’s a shallow, bitter man, hurt by the fact that a woman prettier than he is holds a differing religious belief.
I’m deeply offended by his actions because I’m on the secular left. I believe that every person has an inviolable right to his or her religious beliefs and standards - no matter how I or anyone else feel about those beliefs. Miss California was completely within her rights to explain her religious beliefs about marriage (which, no matter what anyone says, is a religious institution). The secular leftists I know are actively working against the crusade-convert mentality that dominated Perez Hilton’s response to the answer given at the pageant.
So, kindly keep in mind that it’s not “no one” on the “secular left” who thinks that Perez Hilton was completely out-of-line: My most leftist friends and I all agree on this. However, I would like to point out, with all respect, that it’s the right’s cultural warriors who have made marriage such a critically important part of American public life (one only needs to look at the debate surrounding welfare “reform” in the 1990’s to see proof of this). Misguided gay people and their allies think marriage is a human right because the religious right has made marriage the only legitimate form of relationship. If we were all committed to expanding liberty (of all religions, and of all people), then petty yet deeply disturbing arguments such as the one between Ms Prejean and the self-appointed Queen of All Media, wouldn’t even be an issue.
I enjoy your commentary a lot - it’s definitely more motivating than coffee first thing in the morning! However, keep in mind that generalizations aren’t helpful to your and my common cause of wanting people to be able to exercise and profess their religious beliefs however they choose in line with the Constitution of the United States.
Yours,
