Moronic Bigot of the Day: Richard Carvath

Oh, looky, we've got a hate-filled, god-bothering Neanderthal on our hands. Ladies and gents, I give you - Mr Richard Carvath:

Hmm... I've a lot of time on my hands right now and so I've been bobbing about the web a few places I haven't been for a while. I just happened to look up homosexual-pervert LGBTory Chairman Matthew Sephton who is over at a homosexual-pervert event in Liverpool today (the first Liverpool Pride).

"Homosexual-pervert" - good fucking God, we're back in the dark ages here. What a pig-ignorant thing to say. Only a bone-headed lackwit would even consider using such a deplorable phrase.

[Matthew was my rival candidate for Salford and Eccles at the last General Election. Despite having an easy ride - all the money, media and machine that any candidate could wish for - Matthew only managed to come in third as the Conservative Party candidate. It's a shame the Tories didn't pick a real conservative candidate rather than this homosexual-pervert activist. Any Tory candidate worth his salt and with those resources available should've at least beaten the weak Lib Dem Norman Owen into second place. Sephton failed to do so. Indeed after the count Hazel Blears appeared to be grateful above all to her Tory rival!]

The phrase "a real conservative candidate" links, inevitably, to a picture of Carvath - and he has a face only a mother could love. He also seems to miss the point that conservatism is not the same as being a reactionary; in case of doubt, Carvath is definitely the latter.

And let's look at the results from the particular election Carvath is talking about. He's right, Sephton did come third - which is not a great result but probably par for the course in a seat held by a high-profile former Labour minister. It is also worth noting that Sephton got 8,497 votes while our new friend Carvath came last with 384 votes. Which means that Carvath got just 4% of the support afforded to Sephton. Not that Carvath is bitter, of course. No doubt that Carvath would blame that on the lack of a party machine behind his candidacy, but that misses the point that the reason why he doesn't have a party machine behind him is because he's a despicable, reactionary bigot with intolerant homophobic views.

Will Matthew be gyrating on the back of a float wearing only a thong through the streets of Liverpool? Who knows, the mind boggles. Well, whether or not he's wearing bondage trousers and nipple clamps on the back of a lorry today, I have no doubt that my old chum Matthew Sephton supports the recent overturning of Prop 8 by a judge in San Francisco.

He probably does support it, what with it being a triumph for LGBT campaigners. Then again, most open-minded people will also support the over-turning. What with it being the right thing to do 'n' all.

This development is alarming because it'll probably end up in the US Supreme Court for a definitive legal decision as to whether the United States defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (or not).

Yes, it probably will end up in the Supreme Court. It is the, well, supreme court in that land. And as such it is where all appeals fight their final battles.

This is the way that abortion was legalised in the US (in the Supreme Court with Roe vs Wade in 1973): abortion was legalised in the US not by legislation but by judicial activism.

No. This is wrong. Carvath's view is completely the wrong way round. The 1973 Supreme Court decision did not legalise abortion - it said that restricting access to abortion was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. According to this judgement, it was the constitution that legalised abortion when it was first written centuries ago. Carvath may disagree with this interpretation of the US constitution, but it doesn't change the basic fallacy of his assertion that Roe v. Wade legalised abortion.

Is the same about to happen with the homosexual-perverts' 'holy grail' of completely subverting the definition of marriage?

Hopefully.

I hope not, but with Barack Obortion in the White House and backing the perverts, who can safely predict that sanity will prevail in the Supreme Court?

Barack Obortion? Hilarious, Dickshaft Cuntvath.

And this notion that the Supreme Court is a naturally liberal body or one that naturally follows the sitting President is also fallacious. You only have to look at the notorious ruling in favour of Bush Junior after the 2000 Presidential election to see that.

Here in the UK it is tragic that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband are all pro-pervert and do not recognise that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Erm, David Miliband isn't Labour leader yet.

And in this example, Cameron, Clegg, and (I'd imagine) all of the candidates for Labour leadership are simply following the wishes of the electorate: both the LGBT campaigners who want equal rights under the law, and those tolerant voters who don't want to see discrimination based on sexual orientation (or in any other way, for that matter).

We are more likely to see the perverts get their way here by means of parliamentary legislation in the next four years. The perverts don't need to pursue their cause through the courts here because top-level British politicians from the major parties are already doing their bidding.

Goddamn those politicians! Doing the bidding of the electorate. What a crazy fucking notion for a democracy.

Well, you know what I think about marriage and about the homosexual-perversion: I've spoken out on these themes plenty of times. I sincerely hope that marriage remains correctly defined in both the USA and the UK in the years to come. As for Matthew Sephton and his pervert pals at Liverpool Pride, they can get the help they need here and here and good luck to them.

The links lead to ignorant organisations who dismiss homosexuals and bisexuals as sinners, and offer them a cure for their sexual orientations. They are the sort of bigoted and malign organisations that a malign bigot like Carvath would know about. I'm not going to link to them as they turn my stomach.

Carvath is simultaneously the worst kind of Christian and conservative: he is a close-minded bigot who hides behind scripture, and uses religious and political beliefs as a smokescreen that he believes, falsely, validates his atrocious views. Both the Conservatives and genuinely tolerant Christians should speak out against the likes of Carvath - him and his odious ilk do nothing but harm for their causes.