, , , , , , , , ,

sherri shepherd, hypocrite.

so as many of you are already aware i’m rather shamefully addicted to the view and its panel of bitches squawking at eachother every day. anyway, the day after the US election took place, sherri shepherd shared a rather heartfelt story (attached below) about how the election of a black man meant that her son would now have ‘no limitations’ and how that is extraordinary. it was a lovely moment that indeed made me a little misty on first viewing and endeared sherri to me despite her often less than stellar grasp on current affairs.

a few days later, however, sherri undid all that by saying she was against gay marriage. BITCH, PLEASE! so your son has ‘no limitations’ UNLESS HE’S A FAG?!?! this kind of blatant hypocrisy drives me crazy. when minority groups can’t see that their struggles are related its really a shame for the progress of human rights as a whole. it’s this whole thing of ‘equality for some’ and ‘separate but equal.’ the state of gay rights in the US is appalling and other minority groups, ethnic or otherwise, should stand up and make a stand. both shepherd and right-wing-ringleader elisabeth hasselbeck have been squawking away about how their pastors could be locked up for not performing same-sex marriage. again, BITCHES, PLEASE! that’s a blatant misrepresentation of the law and nothing of the sort would be legal. religious freedoms are protected under the constitution and legalising gay marriage would not change that. just like it’s still perfectly legal for the KKK to spout racist nonsense, it would still be perfectly legal for small-minded assholes to rag on the gays.

another thing, both hasselbeck and shepherd are the type of woman who come out with lines like ‘i’m not homophobic, i have a gay friend-hairdresser, i’m just against changing the traditional definition of marriage.’ who are these gays friends? like if some bitch was my friend and came out with this vitriol i’d be scalding her scalp with a chi, giving her a lop-sided bowl cut and peace-ing out. and this ‘traditional definition of marriage’ they speak of, dan savage had a great point on cnn the other day: the definition of marriage has been in a state of flux for hundreds of years. for instance, it used to mean the transfer of one man’s property to another (daughter becoming wife) and in america it used to be solely between people of the same colour. also, this idea that the whole society will collapse if marriage is suddenly opened up to the gays and the floodgates of sodom and gomorrha are unleashed on the country is patently absurd. have none of these people ever been to canada?

anyway, sherri shepherd is dead to me. rant over.