In his book, Secrecy and Privilege, Robert Parry quotes the late Keith Fuller, general manager of Associated Press, as saying:
""I think a nation is crying, "Enough.' A nation is saying, "We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims. We don't believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation. We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics"but most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs." (205)
Fuller was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 when he made this statement. Over the years, I have heard similar things said by Republicans who try to explain Democratic ideas. It is bad enough that they, like Fuller, claim to speak on behalf of the "nation" or the "people."
But what is worse is that they mischaracterize some points of view and flat out distort others. So I made a dialogue between this kind of Republican and me.
"We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims."
That's funny. Neither do I and neither does anyone else I know.
Maybe you are talking about the rights of defendants. I believe that a person is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the right not to be a witness against themselves, the right to counsel, the right to due process, etc.
If you want the rights of victims to take precedence over these rights, first ask yourself how you would feel if you were put under arrest.
"We don't believe the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation."
You probably have a different concept of creation than I do. That's OK. But what is not OK is a society where my wife and I have the right to marry one another and two other people are not allowed that right.
And please do not give me a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will wind up allowing people to marry animals or any other absurdity. The movement to allow same-sex marriage simply would allow two people of the same sex the same rights as a man and a woman.
"We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics."
I don't believe this, either. However, it is not what you say, but what you imply.