What the Hell is Wrong with Dan Fagan?

“These folks on the left… They’re so driven… It’s just ironic that they use the word hate. Because I think those folks hate Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I think they hate them, those protestors, don’t you think?”

Dan Fagan was starting off the third hour of his radio show on Monday with a rant. I thought we were in for the status quo liberal bashing. I had no idea what I was getting into.

While drifting in between “I don’t hate liberals” prefaces and “they just hate America” conclusions, as is becoming commonplace on the show in recent weeks, he addressed the angry protesters outside this past weekend’s Palin / Beck restoring America, nonpolitical, 9/11 tribute, return to theocracy, boo-Yale, it’s for the troops! event. Or whatever you want to call it.

I have been vocal in my disapproval of the Joker faces and Hitler mustaches which adorned pictures of the Fox News contributor and the Fox News host. They don’t speak for me. In fact, it garnered a very specific reaction from me. I put down my sign and left the rally. And we’re done talking about it.

Almost on queue, Fagan started attacking liberals in general; painting anyone to the left of Joe Miller as a thoughtless hater because some clown thought a Glenn Beck Joker face was a super cool idea. He continued down a path detailing how liberals do not base themselves in any facts; we only operate via our emotions. We live in a bubble, we’re brainwashed. College indoctrinated us with leftism (still working on my bachelors, actually), and we’re sheep. Keep it classy, Dan.

“Unless you make that effort to think outside of the box and think forward and look past the peripheral, look past the surface, you’re going to believe the same way.”

Fagan continued, poking fun at one protester who, admittedly, mightily struggled through a television interview; probably because not all of us host a daily radio talk show and have on camera experience. The woman interviewed used the word “hatemongering” as a description of why she was protesting the event. Fagan was offended.

“That’s typically what liberals say about conservatives is that we’re hate mongers. I don’t understand what we say that’s hateful.”

You explain pretty well yourself, Dan.

[This clip is not the full rant, which went on for a good 45 minutes. I suggest you contact him if you want the full thing. These are the highlights, in the order which he said them. I did not take anything out of context.]

Remember way back when, before you lived through that, up at the top of the page when I mentioned that Fagan described progressives as emotion-based and said that conservatives are the sole proprietors of the ability to think outside the box?

There’s a great book out there called “Marriage, A History” by Stephanie Coontz, which highlights reality. I recommend it highly.

The book’s full title includes the phrase “How love conquered marriage.” And that, Mr. Fagan, is the real story; the real model which we are, and have been, building for generations. Not just in relation to the “gay agenda,” but as a part of the human condition. It’s an evolution in the institution of marriage as a concept.

Beginning in prehistory, mating – later developed into marriage – was used as a  method to sustain a developing world’s need to procreate (In the East, marriages often were nullified when they didn’t result in children). This didn’t always go over very well; caste systems, arranged marriages, slave trade, mail order brides, TomKat – all in the name of baby-making… But in these modern times, we’re slowly – and still very painfully – moving into a society where love is the dominant uniting factor.

This concept that there is one way that marriage is and has been, and must be rigidly and somberly upheld, by marital oathkeepers, as some theocratic institution designed by God, only holds weight if that’s the religious pretext you subscribe too. And within the rules set by each individual church, each individual religion, they arguably have every right to discriminate (Congress shall make no law); churches redefine marriages all the time. Ever heard of a Cancellation of Sealing?  However, that shouldn’t be extended to the governmental construct of marriage, and shouldn’t, dually, be conflated with a history that just didn’t exist. And, sorry Dan, “the Gay” didn’t kill Rome.

I get that Dan is caught up on the whole multiple wives and horses thing. Whatever floats your boat, dude. But we actually are witnessing something really important: love defining marriage; love defining the union between two people (two people, Dan).

And not only love in terms of partnership, but also in terms of family. A family that breaks away from Fagan’s “building block of a society” rooted in “mother, father, children,” which was necessary to promulgate the human race while we were a developing country, but now works against us. The Campaign to End Child Homelessness estimates the current number of homeless children just in America at 1.5 million. One out of fifty. The choice same sex partners now have (offer void in Florida) to adopt a child, to raise a child in a loving home, is something that both sides of any aisle should be damned proud of as an emerging American value. Kids don’t care if they have two moms or two dads (yes, you should click that). They care that they have someone to hold them when they get scared. Someone to put a hand on their shoulder when they get dumped the first time, or don’t make the team.

Speaking as an adopted child, to any couples out there, opposite and same sex alike, who have chosen to bring a child into your home. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you.

And to those who saw and heard Fagan’s rant and felt like they got booted back to the 70′s, don’t let anyone ever tell you that your love for your partner, or your love for your family, is any less than anyone else. Obviously I don’t have to tell you this, but maybe it’s not you that needs to hear it most. Maybe it’s Dan Fagan. Or Florida. Probably both.

I’m sorry such derangement was plopped out on the air. And, no, I won’t label you, Dan, as hateful or a bigot. It just astonishes me that you can’t recognize a good thing when it’s staring you in the face or – I don’t know – raising one of our 1.5 million homeless children – or even just sitting at home enjoying each other’s company… You sat in your chair for forty five minutes trying to make an argument against something you clearly don’t have the faintest understanding of. It’s embarrassing. Super embarrassing.

And you’re scaring the horses.