This is not a surprise or anything. Volokh has been trying to dress up his homophobia with ludicrious arguments for some time.
(Via Senor Black.)
Update: But he likes lesbians. (Because you know, a straight guy can jerk off to that.)
And his "I am just engaging controversial ideas in a serious way" thing is like a parody of academic rigor. Citing statistics doesn't mean you're not a bigot; using polite langauge does not keep you from being an extremist.
Yep. No surprises there; I'm glad Atrios is staying on it.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | August 24, 2005 at 12:52 PM
First they came for the fags, but I'm like not a fag so I didn't say anything ....
Well, we all know how that story ends and minds like Volokhs just help us rationalise the killing.
Posted by: Northern Observer | August 24, 2005 at 04:38 PM
"Citing statistics doesn't mean you're not a bigot; using polite langauge does not keep you from being an extremist."
Excellent. That's worth saving and repeating.
Posted by: ThomH | August 24, 2005 at 11:38 PM
Why does W hate women? especially while he's honoring the 85th anniversary of the 19th Amendment... http://cardcarryingmember.blogspot.com/2005/08/w-says-he-loves-ladies-we-know-better.html
Posted by: chb | August 25, 2005 at 09:15 PM
Yeah, those Republicans who favor gay marriage are real anti-gay extremists. Thanks for pointing it out to the rest of us. Courage.
Posted by: Thomas | August 27, 2005 at 02:57 AM
those Republicans who favor gay marriage are real anti-gay extremists
Nice. He's against gay marriage as currently implemented, but would be in favor of it if it were done a different way, so that proves he's not a bigot for saying that gay men are dangerous disease-bearing vectors infecting kids.
And some Republicans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, so that makes the Iraq war a good idea, no matter what.
I love right-wing logic!
Posted by: Mithras | August 27, 2005 at 11:29 AM
Well, no. He's in favor of adopting gay marriage democratically; that isn't to say that he wouldn't oppose gay marriage if it were adopted differently, but rather that he would vote for it (and has advocated it on his blog). He does oppose US judicial efforts to re-define marriage, but of course that's not the only way that changes are being made to marriage laws worldwide. In some countries, they have a democratic debate and decide democratically.
And, despite your (not surprising) inability to comprehend his posts, he's never said what you suggest he said.
If one were looking for logic, they wouldn't look to you, master of the non sequitur. I mean, Saddam! Iraq! Ergo, Volokh's a bigot! ain't exactly the high point of logical argumention.
Posted by: Thomas | August 27, 2005 at 07:13 PM