by brendan Beery
Here is a link to a Salon.com piece about a Fox segment from “The Kelly File”: LINK
During the segment, guest host Martha MacCullum and Family Research Council Fuhrer Tony Perkins fret over new documents in Tennessee that refer to a “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of “father” and “mother.” They grumble about the impending fall of humanity that will proximately be caused by the horrors of gender-neutral, politically correct labeling on obscure legal papers.
During the cross-patter between these two geniuses, the viewer comes to think that they’re discussing birth certificates — mostly because they indicate that they are talking about birth certificates. But look closely at the legal document on display as they grouse about this big gay win. The document isn’t a birth certificate or anything like a birth certificate. It’s a “Permanent Parenting Plan Order” relating to child custody.
Under the words “Permanent Parenting Plan Order,” one sees the two offending designations: “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” But the two thickwits bringing us this salacious story seem to have missed something.
To the left of a slash that precedes “Parent 1,” one sees the word “Plaintiff.” And to the left of a slash that precedes “Parent 2,” one sees the word “Defendant.” When all these words are read together — probably too much to ask from a Fox audience that communicates mostly with grunts and clicks — the words look like this: “Plaintiff/Parent 1” and “Defendant/Parent 2.”
With this document on full display, MacCullum poses this glorious question: “How do you decide who’s parent 1 and who’s parent 2?” Her point was supposed to be that Tennessee has now made mothers and fathers interchangeable as to their genders and gender roles. But any discerning viewer was left with just one syllable in mind: Duhhhhhhh …
Well, Martha, let me help you out. Here’s how you know which is parent 1 and which is parent 2: The person who is making a claim against the other (we call that a plaintiff) is parent 1, and the person against whom the claim is made (we call that a defendant) is parent 2. Does that help, Martha?
These people are so hopelessly ignorant that, in making the case for gender specificity, they used as Exhibit 1 a document that, by its very nature, requires gender neutrality. What is this form supposed to say: “Plaintiff/Father” and “Defendant/Mother”? Is the claimant in a child custody dispute in Tennessee always male? Is the defendant always female? According to Perkins, calling the plaintiff in a custody dispute “Parent 1” is “denying the facts of basic biology.” Hm. Who knew?
The Salon piece seeks to mock Perkins for seeming to struggle with mathematical percentages, but in focusing on that, the author misses the real hilarity: two dolts so dense that they accidentally proved the opposite of their own point.
Only on Fox.