Riley J. Hood is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. He ran for U.S. Senate in 2012 as a write-in candidate and received 70 votes.
Riley Hood
Marry Two Same-Sex Dogs?
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves;” Romans 1:24
By Riley J. Hood-CPoW State Chairman
Homosexuality, known Biblically as Sodomy, is an affront to the Moral Order. It is an insult to God Himself, it says “I know how you made me, but I don’t care.” Sodomites, when under penalty of law used phony arguments of privacy, and “we keep it to ourselves.” Their pride-fests, pride parades, rainbow flags and blue “equality” signs have proved such statements to be lies.
“Gay Marriage,” goes one step further. Not content to dishonor their own bodies amongst themselves,” they mean to degrade every married couple in America, by lowering the nature of the marriage institution into the filthy gutter of their perversion. To “marry” two men is the equivalent of performing a ceremony, and issuing a license to two same-sex dogs. The same statement goes for lesbians. It is insulting to decent people, and it is an affront to God.
If you think these implacable perverts will be content with their “dog-licenses,” they will not be. They add other demented goals to their agenda, such as striking down age of consent laws. Sodomites are already molesting your children; they want to do this with impunity. Legalized prostitution is another one of their goals, so are “multiple-partner” marriages, and the re-structuring of every American institution on their terms, including your Church.
The Constitution Party of Wisconsin rejects the “Rainbow Flag.” We affirm the National Constitution Party’s Family Platform Plank which states, “The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.”
“We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘hate crime’ statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of ‘partner’ benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
So you would get rid of all animal cruelty laws, correct?
Absolutely. Someone’s pet would have the same legal status as their sofa.
I think it is excessive to publish him on a daily or near-daily basis, and most people here seem to agree. Every once in a while is fine by me, and, I think, probably most others here.
You’re in charge, so you can publish whatever you wish, however often you wish. Personally, though, I’d much rather read Hood and the reactions to him than another article about internal power struggles, proper bureaucratic procedure, petty personal vendettas, etc. But perhaps it’s just me, and others prefer the Oregon/Pennsylvania soap opera-type threads.
So you would get rid of all animal cruelty laws, correct?
I disagree. Applying the concept of rights to non-human species is the ultimate slippery slope, and trying to do so would make libertarianism (or any other political philosophy) completely incoherent.
It’s not a matter of either catching on or getting upset, but rather of proportion. I think it is excessive to publish him on a daily or near-daily basis, and most people here seem to agree. Every once in a while is fine by me, and, I think, probably most others here.
Well, there are animal cruelty laws, although they are not applied to raising and killing animals for food. However, we’ve long had a social compact that torturing animals for sport is unacceptable. It may well be true that it hasn’t been applied consistently enough and that humans need to further evolve in our treatment of non-human animals.
Since dogs can’t verbalize, we have no way of measuring whether they consented to sex with humans …
Since chickens can’t verbalize, we have no way of measuring whether they consented to being killed for food.
Does that mean the owners of KFC should be serving life sentences for mass murder?
I really hope IPR doesn’t stop publishing Hood’s articles, as doing so would deprive me of a great source of amusement. Between his one-track mind and his constant exaggeration, he’s like a cartoon character. Regardless of whether he’s sincere in his beliefs, they have no chance of catching on with a wide audience, so there’s really no reason for anyone to get upset about what he says.
http://iacreview.blogspot.com/2013/06/demanding-more-from-constitution-party.html
… Yeah, me and Josh recently launched a constitutionalist third-party news website, I’m sure Chris will talk about it in a upcoming article
I’m more of a cat person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dsqWFIbZHc
Even though he’s a state chairman, and one that was re-elected at the CPOW state convention not too long ago.
My money is on Tom Knapp’s analysis… Hood is just Stewart or Colbert (from an extreme right-wing perspective) gone wild! Don’t take this nutjob seriously.
@44 – Please clarify your preferences. Let me gues…power bottom.
Shame on you calling yourself a Christian, Riley, while spread such hate.
Riley, I see you are still stupid.
For Christ, not man, is the righteous judge- Cody J. Quirk
Jared,
Don’t put your preferences off on me. Cody, I see you are still a child.
For Christ, not man, is King–Riley J. Hood
“Riley Hood has screwed the pooch…”
Only if it’s of the opposite gender.
🙂 I think the IPR I know and love is back! Fighting for the sake of fighting seems to be scarce again. I hope we can keep it that way.
@34: I see what ewe did there.
@33
I think we should allow one more Hood post to give him one last opportunity to hit it out of the ballpark.
Lol, that’s clever.
37 – I’m still laughing.
Doesn’t a mullet make him a man in front and a woman from behind … how does that fit in this?
Anyway …
Communist nations are notoriously anti-gay …
so doesn’t that make him …
… Little red Riley Hood …
Is having sex with a woman who is barren equally a poke in God’s eye…because she can’t have children? Is masturbation the same, worse, or better than sodomy? Should an abstinent male feel shame from a nocturnal emission? Is a man having sex with a female dog better or worse than having sex with a male dog? I have so many questions…do you think God inspired someone to write down more rules for these questions? If only god had all his rules on a thumbdrive…or are computers unnatural too? I hope this guy gets a disease and refuses medicine because all he needs is prayer to be healed. Why do all the idiots always have the sweetest mullets?
That was baad, Sam!
With this article, Riley Hood has screwed the pooch and jumped the shark at the same time. Some say he may be trying to get everyone’s goat here. Maybe it helps him choke his chicken. On the other hand, maybe all he wants is a stable relationship.
My guess is that at some point Mr. Hood will come out as a performance artist who infiltrated the CP and ran for state chair for the express purpose of seeing how wild and crazy he could get in public before they’d denounce him. And I expect it’s taking longer than he thought it would take.
BTW what is with all the bigoted pre-judging of Mr. Hood based solely on his appearance? LOL
😛
I’m surprised he did not say puppies.
That mullet IS pretty sweet.
Also: Macklemore already tackled the gay dogs issue, didnt he? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbT7lEHFDGw
This seems to be a satire on the slippery slope argument that same-sex marriages lead to inter-species marriages.
The bold text on the dog bit highlights the obvious illogic behind this central comparison. Opposite-sex dogs do not get married, so what connection is there to same-sex dog marriages? This appears to be an attempt at humor.
We now know that these writings came from a man with a goofy smile, who appears to have a mullet. Does that not speak for itself?
Most likely true. I know people who think like this too. But the possibility that it could be satire (real life trolling) exists. I agree it is more likely that it’s happening on a subconscious level.
Believe me, they seriously believe this stuff- they are really that extreme in Wisconsin & elsewhere.
@ 25
It’s the latter. I’m convinced he actually believes this bullshit.
It’s possible that it could be intentional satire. However, it’s also possible it is unintentional satire.
Sounds like a plan. Few weeks break for him.
This has to be satire. The phrase, “a picture is worth a thousand words” is certainly applicable.
I agree, we don’t really need a constant stream of articles from Mr. Hood; he’s not a big enough figure in alt party politics to get this much attention, and whatever point he serves to illustrate about the CP has already been amply demonstrated. I don’t have a problem with having his articles once in a while – there are plenty of opinion pieces here I strongly disagree with, and I posted many of them – but he’s too prolific for us to publish everything he writes.
I haven’t read this one yet, but off hand the problem is not with marry two or with same sex, but only with the dogs part. We know from humans that both male and female victims of rape often exhibit physical sexual arousal and sometimes cooperate with the rape. Since dogs can’t verbalize, we have no way of measuring whether they consented to sex with humans, nor any standard for whether it could have been informed consent (for example, a human may give consent, but be deemed too impaired for it to have been informed consent). And yes, dogs have sex with each other, but so do human teenagers. It doesn’t follow that it is OK for adult humans to have sex with either.
Yes, adult humans should be able to marry any number and any gender of other adult humans who are able to give informed consent and have given such.
However, I also agree that Mr. Hood has been given enough of a soapbox here. We do deserve a break from this simpleton nutjob.
Exactly, Michael
And now that it’s known, I see my leaving the CP was the right choice indeed.
You’re right that this is nothing but vile unchristian trash, Jill, yet it still should get published because this man is the state chairman of a political party and therefore this is newsworthy, and therefore must be made public- regardless of how controversial it is.
Mr. Hood still deserves his freedom of speech, and in letting his views be known to others.
It is better to have this stuff out in the open so others can see what he really is all about.
Thanks.
His stuff is going to get a break from IPR. For a while.
Seriously, why does someone become such a hater?
It sure smacks of self-loathing to me.
This article offends me as a dog-owner, also, since he’s somehow inferring that there’s something wrong with dogs.
Interestingly enough, Mr. White Hood only equates same-sex marriage to marriage of two same-sex dogs. Does he approve of heterosexual canine marriage?
You’ve had comments, Krzysztof, so you don’t have to pull the article. I’ve scheduled my new two articles to publish in the morning. I really don’t want my name anywhere near him, except in comments where I can express my utter disgust.
He’s nuts if he thinks the Christian God approves of his way of thinking.
Personally, I wouldn’t have posted it the article and given him any validation at all. I don’t know how everyone else feels, though.
“Equating human being with dogs, should get him fucking expelled.”
That would only be the case in a party that doesn’t actually believe that.
This guy seems obsessed with thoughts of other people and animals engaging in sexual relations. His proposals to regulate and prohibit sexual behavior according to his personal rules smacks of a voyeuristic desire to monitor such activity. In the end, he appears to be reacting with revulsion to his own perverted fantasies. Perhaps some professional intervention could help him with his obsessively perverted thought patterns.
@5
Jill, you don’t have to do that. I would un-publish this article, because it’s complete fucking bullshit, and extremist, vile, disgusting hate, but…well the only reason I want to keep it up is to see if the CP actually cares about their party’s PR. Equating human being with dogs, should get him fucking expelled.
Okay, a few things stick out to me.
1) ” To “marry” two men is the equivalent of performing a ceremony, and issuing a license to two same-sex dogs.”
Is this a CP endosement of heterosexual dog marriage license’s? Or is he jsut saying that we’re all dogs? Or…?
2) “It is an insult to God Himself, it says “I know how you made me, but I don’t care.””
I figure he’s saying that the ‘gays’ choose to be ‘gay’, to stick it to God, in which case does he and every straight person wake up and say “I’m going to be attracted to women, because God sleeps better at night when I do that”.
3) “Sodomites, when under penalty of law used phony arguments of privacy, and “we keep it to ourselves.” Their pride-fests, pride parades, rainbow flags and blue “equality” signs have proved such statements to be lies.”
Oh no, not blue “equality” signs!
4) “Sodomites are already molesting your children;…”
Don’t be gross.
“Legalized prostitution is another one of their goals, so are “multiple-partner” marriages…”
Groovy.
“…and the re-structuring of every American institution on their terms, including your Church.”
Now that’s just gay.
Still, this homophobic rant is helped by the creepy pervert picture above.
I am too. This guy is insane.
Riley is the chairman of a CP state affiliate. That’s something I guess. Grundmann is just a dude with no political leverage whatsoever (at least not any more).
CP has a crazy wackos problem. They can’t (or do they even try) to control their array of psychos. That is why I am never going to support this party. At all.
Yeah, most people in the CP are decent, but people like Riley Hood, Don Grundmann, Don Stone, etc, et al, really mar the party badly, very badly.
Mr. Hood looks like a power bottom.
I’m so disgusted I just un-published my article. I don’t want my writings anywhere near this horrible person.
I’m going to say it again: I’m thoroughly and completely disgusted by Riley Hood. Any party that would have him in it has no value to me–and this includes Chuck Baldwin.
So, are we going to start posting Don Grundmann’s rambling missives now?
Words can’t describe how thoroughly and completely disgusted I am by this article. Why give this bigoted, hateful individual any attention at all? IPR deserves better than this sociopath. Is he important enough that he continues to get attention from IPR? I think not.
At least he’s got a good bro-perm going for him.