And as I promised earlier, we're going to look in on Spanky, Alfalfa and the rest of the gang, to truly appreciate the level of dumbassitude over at ThePolitic.com.
Here, we have Spanky totally fucking up the explanation of a recent COMPAS poll on the "Defense of Ignorant Bigotry Act" (or DORA). Quotes Spanky:
The COMPAS poll suggested there would be significant public support for such a move, with 72% of those contacted for the survey saying that clergy should have the right not to marry a same-sex couple if it runs counter to their beliefs.
“Those numbers are at the level of overwhelming support,” said pollster Conrad Winn, the president of COMPAS. “I mean, you can’t get three-quarters of Canadians to agree on the weather.”
But the above is simply not an issue -- no one is suggesting that members of the clergy should be forced to marry anyone they would prefer not to. That point has never been even remotely open to debate -- marriages within the context of a religious ceremony are entirely up to the dictates of the denomination, so what Spanky is presenting here is a red herring, from one end to the other.
(What's amusing about that poll number, though, is that only 72% of respondents agreed with that position. Quite simply, it really should have been virtually 100% since, as I pointed out, that issue is not even on the table. The fact that some 28% actually dissented is something I find moderately interesting. But that's not why we're here. We're here to deal with Spanky's overwhelming dumbfuckitude, so ... onward.)
Spanky finally gets around to the actual issue, quoting from Chris Wattie's rancidly dishonest Post article:
A COMPAS poll conducted last week found 57% of those surveyed said officials who conduct generally secular wedding ceremonies should be allowed to “not officiate at gay marriages,” provided there are enough marriage commissioners available for same-sex unions.
You will, of course, notice how carefully that question seems to be phrased -- specifically within the context of same-sex marriage. But what if the question were worded in a more appropriate way which represented its actual consequences for public employees in Canada as a whole? Something like:
Should Canadian public employees, who are paid by the taxpayer, be allowed to discriminate against anyone based on their personal bigotry?
Now that's the way the question should have been presented, and I'm betting we would have seen somewhat less than 57%. Besides, I notice that that figure of 57% was based on the assumption that there would be another official available to perform the SSM ceremony. And if there wasn't? Was that question even asked? Because if it was, I'm betting that figure of 57% would have dropped significantly, which only proves how very carefully these questions were constructed to produce the desired outcome.
In short, the poll is worthless, Wattie's article is crap, and Spanky's opinion on all of the aforementioned is amazingly ignorant swill, masquerading as a blog post. Colour me shocked.
P.S. Given the irrelevant and/or outright misleading questions in that survey, does it come as any surprise that the opening sentence of the poll itself is:
Following enactment of same sex legislation, COMPAS was commissioned by The National Post and the Institute for Canadian Values to gauge the public’s attitudes towards freedom of religion under the law.
The National Post and the Institute for Canadian Values. Is it any wonder that the survey is utter crap? Note carefully two of the issues that were raised: about writing a letter to the editor about SSM, and a printer refusing to print a gay group brochure, both of which hideously misrepresent two recent events that were savagely debunked here.
In the end, I'm not sure if the folks at the Politic.com are pathetically dishonest, or just astonishingly stupid. But, frankly, I doubt it's worth investing the time to find out.
LATE BUT ENTERTAINING OBSERVATION: Did anyone else catch the interesting wording used here:
A COMPAS poll conducted last week found 57% of those surveyed said officials who conduct generally secular wedding ceremonies ...
"Generally secular?" And in what way, might I ask, would a same-sex marriage be necessarily non-secular? Man, the dishonesty of this poll is seriously jaw-dropping. We just need some Jews and badges, and the atrocity would be complete.