Friday, July 1, 2011

Larsen Likens Gay Marriage Opponents to KKK

May 4, 2009 by Staff Reporter  
Filed under State House

New Hampshire Senate President Sylvia Larsen appears to liken opponents of gay marriage legislation to the Ku Klux Klan in a blog entry on her official state webpage.

“The [gay marriage] law gives everyone the opportunity to seek a ‘civil marriage’ and no longer segregates same-gender marriages under a separate category of ‘civil union.’ Some had likened this to the segregated drinking fountains of the South…separate but not equal,” writes Larsen on her website.



“Passing a law does not end discrimination by itself. One has only to look at the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan to see that. It takes fair laws and changing public attitudes – and the latter may do more than the former in the long run,” she continues.

Larsen’s office did not immediately respond to our requests for comment as to whether the Senate President believes opponents of the legislation are akin to the KKK.

Larsen’s rhetoric appears to be part of an aggressive new strategy on the part of the Democratic majority in New Hampshire. Three weeks ago, state Democratic Chair Ray Buckley referred to participants in April 15th’s “taxpayer tea parties” as an “unhinged mob.”

Nationally, gay marriage supporters have grown more hostile to dissent. Celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton referred to “pro-opposite marriage” Ms. California Carrie Prejean as a “dumb b!&ch” after she revealed her opposition to gay marriage on national television.

“Senator Larsen has just heightened the rhetoric on this issue to an intolerable level with her hideous and offensive comments inferring that the thousands of traditional marriage supporters in this state are equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan,” said Kevin Smith of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research.

Smith added, “I call on Senator Larsen, as President of the Senate, to apologize to the thousands of New Hampshire citizens, who support traditional marriage, for her irresponsible and reckless analogy.”


6 Responses to “Larsen Likens Gay Marriage Opponents to KKK”
  1. Jayden Scott says:

    Carrie Prejean deserves to have her crown. She is beauiful and is also entitled to her own opinion about gays. .

  2. Loretta says:

    Great information. Thanks for the post. That was a spectacular article, need more great work like this out there.

  3. Joe Konopka says:

    Whether calling people unhinged or comparing them to the KKK, it reveals am argumentational weakness: they don’t have enough facts to refute the opposition. Hence, they fall back to the old liberal standby: character assassination.

    That’s supposed to intimidate those having opposing views. However, it’s not working as well as it once did. I see more and more people challenging copycats of Liberals like Larson and Buckley.

    The tactics are simple and direct. They merely ask for an example showing how the accused person’s actions equaled the actions of the KKK. Nothing is more entertaining than watching the accuser try to think of an answer.

    You see, liberals use these words strictly for their shock value and their intimidation effect. They usually don’t have a clue about the correct definitions or the cicumstance under which usage is appropriate. MOreover, they don’t expect anyone to challenge them over its use.

    Public schools have taught most people how terrible is to be called one of these bad names, so many feel a sense of guilt when someone calls them a bigot because that means the label sticks. Not so.

    Standing one’s ground and asking the person using that label to substantiate the charge usually results in a broadened definition of the term in an attempt to justify its use. That’s opportunity calling.

    Once that defense is used, the umbrella is widened, then the term can be applied to other situations or even to the user himself. So how can that apply to the accused person when it also applies to the accuser.

    The second user defense tactic has the accuser cutting off debate by turning away or saying something like, “if you don’t know I’m not going to tell you.”

    The response should be to loudly announce that the user cannot justify the accusations he or she is throwing around.

    The third user defense has the accuser feigning outrage. Be prepared for loud yelling, browbeating, and more accusations. The response should be to keep insisting that the accuser justify use of the word. After using the anger tactic the accuser will stomp off pretending to be so angry he or she can’t talk.

    Once again, this is the point at which its beneficial to repeat the charge that the user still did not justify use of the word.

    If anything, those on the sidelines will recognize its misuse and the label won’t stick. More importantly, the accuser or any other potational accuser will not want to be challenged like that again. This, for the most, part ensures there will not be a repeat attack of this nature.

  4. Sandy Dunes says:

    What is the favorite saying by the Republicans “This was taken out of context”.

  5. Rick007 says:


    I always thought the KKK was an arm of the Democratic party???

  6. ECM says:

    Well, good job on handing the pro-traditional marriage folks a club with which to beat Governor Lynch, Ms. Larsen.

    As usual, the pro-gay marriage folks are keeping it classy and, what’s that word again? Oh yeah: tolerant.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.