Why Some Liberals Should Volunteer to Be Punched in the Face

I consider myself to be a staunch Liberal, with a capitol "L."  I'm pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-social services, pro-Socialism, pro-immigration; there are very few things about which I am not "Pro-."

However, my line in the sand has been drawn.

This week, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) had his own evolutionary moment concerning gay marriage and gay rights when his own son (who is currently attending Yale) came out to his family.

This could have been the moment that began a sea change in the gay rights movement, as Conservatives attending CPAC 2013 (dressed up in their TeaTard regalia) excoriated him for "agreeing with sodomy," and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) congratulated him on taking a momentous step forward.

Unfortunately, Liberals in the media just couldn't leave well enough alone.

Despite spending much of the 90s and 00s arguing that, if only they got to know some actual gay people, Republicans would start to soften their stances and would eventually come to support...nay, CHAMPION gay rights and equality, current Liberal activists are now unsatisfied that those efforts have begun to bear fruit.

"But if Portman can turn around on one issue once he realizes how it touches his family personally," posits Slate contributor, Matthew Yglesias, "Shouldn't he take some time to think about how he might feel about other issues that don't happen to touch him personally?"

According to Yglesias, this type of personal revolution is nothing more than the politics of narcissism.  He compares Yglesias unfavorably to Sarah Palin (which, let's face it, is it ever favorable to be compared to Sarah Palin) and her support for domestic social spending for children with special needs because of her own possible-her-daughter's bundle of joy.

But, it's not just Yglesias - Egberto Willies of Addicting Info says the following:

"Everyone has the right to evolve. Everyone has the right to be enlightened. However, if said evolution in a politician is based solely on a personal experience and not a real intellectual awakening, it means that politician lacks the empathy to serve his entire constituency."

<hr>

So, just to make sure that I have this straight...

After twenty years of saying that personal experience will lead to positive change for gay people, now that it's a Republican who has that experience, it's no longer haute, and he's no longer fit to serve his constituency?

Shut the fuck up.

When Obama finally "evolves" on gay marriage, he gets a halo; when anyone who's a Republican (currently in office) does it, he gets a set of devil horns and a tail?

Shut the fuck up, before I punch you in the fucking face.

It's people like these two asshats who give Liberalism a bad name.

Shut the fuck up.  Just shut...the fuck...up.