Hip, Hip, Hoppin’

by on

Gay families exercised their right to partake of the White House Easter Egg Roll, wearing rainbow leis to identify themselves. Given that this is a government-sponsored event, and the government in question hasn't shown much concern about the needs of gay families, I think the egg rollers scored some points in a positive way.
--Stephen H. Miller

71 Comments for “Hip, Hip, Hoppin’”

  1. posted by Randy R. on

    Yeah. Too bad George Bush had to skip his annual appearance at the Egg Roll. Was he that scared to be seen with gay families?

  2. posted by Bobby on

    Bush has many gay friends. The gays at the Egg Roll weren’t his friends, they were activists. Why can’t gays show up to an event without wearing stupid rainbow colors and scarfs? They look ridiculous. I don’t show up to work dressed in pink!

  3. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Unfortunately, Randy, he didn’t skip, as the photos make clear.

    It should be a measure of what the “gay activists” were there for when you find them pushing baldfaced lies like that.

    And the reason is, Bobby, that if the “activists” hadn’t shown up wearing loud, garish clothes, they might have been viewed as just any other family is. They were there to create a spectacle and be “victimized”, as is exemplified by the fact that they’re now spreading lies about how Bush “skipped” the event; they weren’t victimized enough on their own, so they have to make it up themselves.

  4. posted by Eddie Brown on

    Yes, it is a good think that the White House Easter Egg tradition had participation from gay families.

    The Bush Administration likely decided that the best solution was to simply ignore the issue as much as humanly possible.

  5. posted by CPT_Doom on

    Unfortunately, Randy, he didn’t skip, as the photos make clear.

    It should be a measure of what the “gay activists” were there for when you find them pushing baldfaced lies like that.

    And the reason is, Bobby, that if the “activists” hadn’t shown up wearing loud, garish clothes, they might have been viewed as just any other family is. They were there to create a spectacle and be “victimized”, as is exemplified by the fact that they’re now spreading lies about how Bush “skipped” the event; they weren’t victimized enough on their own, so they have to make it up themselves.

    You are correct, North Dallas Forty, that it is not the case the Mr. Bush skipped the event. In fact, the only time I have heard anyone, including those families who attended yesterday, make that claim was on this board. I did not realize, in fact, that Randy was both the official spokesperson and keeper of all intentions for the entire group of 200 families who attended the event. I thought he was just some random poster who made a mistake, but perhaps you know better and feel free to smear the intentions of all these families with his comment.

    And while it is true that both King George II and his murdering concubine made their typical appearances at the event, it was only after a “last minute” change in ticket distribution, which ensured that everyone who waited out in line for the Sat AM ticket distribution (including all the GLBT families) were not allowed to enter until after Their Royal Highnesses had left. Somehow, and I am sure it was quite unintentional, the White House made certain that those evil fag and dyke families did not get near our Dear Leader.

    As for the alleged “spectacle” these families created – other than a poor fashion choice (I mean, really, leis, how gauche), there wasn’t one. There were no protests (except for a few of the Phelps-brand nastiness, OUTSIDE the events), at no point did the GLBT families attempt to stop any “normal” families from enjoying the event (in fact, according to newspaper and anecdotal accounts, some of the “normal” families even asked for their own leis, as a show of support). Instead, as Stephen pointed out, they probably did some good, because they were identifiable.

    Apparently the entire idea for the visibility campaign for the families came about from some of the DC-area GLBT families that attended last year. Of course, these families are always noticeable, what with two parents of the same gender, and that was the whole impetus for the idea. Since we do have a government that likes to pretend, officially, that gay and lesbian families are non-existent (and has guidelines for “abstinence education” that explicitly require teaching gay and lesbian students they can never have sex and be healthy), and a ruling party that, at least in some parts of the country, wants to make GLBT families impossible, it is vital that we show ourselves to the world – it is the only way to educate people on the realities of our lives and counter the anti-gay rhetoric that spews from both our religious and political “leaders.”

    I also find it funny that there are objections by some GLBT people to even this simple, direct and unobstrusive form of social protest – I thought it was creative and practical. After all, we are constantly hearing from gay “assimilationists” that the extremes of the gay pride parade are an embarassment to gay and lesbian people everywhere, and we should get the media to focus on the more “normal” of our kind. Well, here was an event where the media focused on the most “normal” and boring of our community – the suburban soccer Moms and Dads.

  6. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    First off, North Dallas THIRTY. It’s the difference between a clever turn of phrase and copyright infringement. 🙂

    Now, to your point:

    Apparently the entire idea for the visibility campaign for the families came about from some of the DC-area GLBT families that attended last year. Of course, these families are always noticeable, what with two parents of the same gender, and that was the whole impetus for the idea.

    Of course. But the problem here is that merely being visible wasn’t good enough — there had to be planned “shows of force” and even greater visibility.

    Why? Because there were no antigay protestors at last year’s egg roll. The families came, they were seen, and they left. That doesn’t get nearly the media propaganda coverage that “gay activists” want.

    Well, here was an event where the media focused on the most “normal” and boring of our community – the suburban soccer Moms and Dads.

    Unfortunately, “normal” and the “reality of our lives” does not include running around in wild-colored leis and glow-in-the-dark bracelets screaming, “Look at me, I’m GAY!”

    I thought he was just some random poster who made a mistake, but perhaps you know better and feel free to smear the intentions of all these families with his comment.

    Pardon me, but I have trouble believing that an event organized by the partner of someone who shoveled tens of millions of dollars to promote stripping these families of rights as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” has anything to do with gay rights — and likely has a lot to do with making political statements.

  7. posted by Georgiy on

    Oh please, NorthDallas. He merely saw Kerry as the lesser of two evils. The difference being this: Kerry was merely delimiting his support for gays so as not to alienate swing voters, whereas Republicans delimit their opposition to us (by having their wives appear in public with walkers and whispering sweet nothings about how “opinions differ” at the country club)to gain the support of verbally adept capons like yourself.

  8. posted by Timothy Hulsey on

    ND30’s line about activists “spreading lies” about Bush’s absence is by far the greatest and most damaging error to occur on this thread — one might even call it a lie. The Family Pride Coalition, which brought GLBT families has said nothing of the sort. Randy probably read the news over the weekend which stated that Bush would skip the Easter Egg hunt this year to give a speech in Sterling on taxes. It would have been timely, but Bush was wise to change his mind. (Perhaps he should try it more often.)

    ND30, the Easter Egg hunt at the White House has nothing to do with Gay rights as such. But it has everything to do with families; the event itself is a celebration of family values. By participating in the Easter Egg hunt and making their presence known in a subtle but unmistakable way, Gay families pointed out that they are also families — a simple fact that should not be in doubt and certainly should not be a “political” statement, but regrettably qualifies as both in the US.

    For issuing a long-overdue corrective to the American public perception of Gays and Lesbians, and for doing so without resorting to the sloganeering or victim rhetoric you accuse them of, ND30, these families deserve our thanks.

  9. posted by Timothy Hulsey on

  10. posted by Terrance on

    As one of the gay parents whose families attended the egg roll, I’m a little dismayed when people ask why we had to wear leis to identify ourselves as gay families. Part of the reason was visibility. People have a lot of misconceptions about our families, are fueled by others who build up lots of political capital (and the other kind too) at our families’ expense.

    The only way we have to counter those misconceptions is by being visible as gay families. It becomes even more important under an administration that isn’t exactly friendly to our families. Besides, the leis also make it easier for us to find each other. Being visible as a gay family comes with a degree of low-grade stress, and it’s relieved a little when we can find other gay families.

    I think it worked pretty well. As we were in line to enter the White House gates, I heard a non-gay father say to his wife and kids — who had noticed the families wearing leis — “I think it’s fine. It’s great. It adds a little extra color to the day.” I don’t know what he thinks about gay families, but at least his family has seen one now, and maybe realizes we aren’t all that different from them. If so, that makes a difference. And if that happened even a few times at the egg roll, then it was worth organizing our families to attend.

  11. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Oh please, NorthDallas. He merely saw Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

    She. It’s Cheryl Jacques of whom we speak.

    And what would have been “the lesser of two evils” would have been for “gay rights” groups to forego endorsing ANYONE and instead focus their money on defeating the individual state initiatives, instead of wasting tens of millions of dollars on homophobic candidates like Kerry, who were more than willing to promise the world in private for dollars, but backstab in public.

    And the word you’re looking for is “capos”, or more precisely, Kapos. These were the Jews that were forced by the Nazis to work the crematoria and as guards in the concentration camps. It’s one of the many derogatory terms, like “Uncle Tom”, “oreo”, and so forth, used by gay leftists to verbally abuse gays who disagree with them and force them back into complete conformity.

  12. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    The question is this, Terrence; if all you want is to be treated the same as everyone else and to show everyone how you’re the same as they are, why did you differentiate yourself?

    As I pointed out in response to CPT_Doom, merely being there means you are visible. The gay families that attended last year, sans leis, apparently had no trouble. I daresay that they struck up conversations with their fellow participants and changed more than a few minds themselves.

    All that was accomplished with no media circus, no protestors, and no “low-grade stress”. Why? Because they went as a family with other families, not as gays and lesbians trying to be different.

    As you admit, without wearing leis, it was difficult to tell the gay families from the straight ones. That’s the whole point. We AREN’T different, and we need to realize and accept that.

  13. posted by Terrance on

    How does not being visible change anyone’s perceptions of gay families?

  14. posted by Terrance on

    How does not being visible change anyone’s perceptions of gay families?

  15. posted by CPT_Doom on

    ND30 (excuse the typo), at the risk of being overly simplistic – there are a few thousand families who attend the Easter Egg Roll each year, the vast majority from the DC area, and perhaps a small minority of them might have had some contact with a gay or lesbian-led family during last year’s event. Clearly, yes, part of the reason for wearing the leis was to force people to notice gay families, because it is too easy for those who don’t want to see our lives to ignore them. It will take several generations to conquer anti-gay hate (and in the meantime who knows what means of limiting our lives the Dear Leader and his minions would find) using your means – random, isolated occassional interactions with gay people – in which the gay people still have to identify themselves.

    In the early days of the gay/lesbian civil rights movement – when the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis were basically the only groups out there, the reliance was on just your kind of “activism” – educational articles in newsletters with very small distribution; civil meetings with political leaders – that kind of thing. The groups were vital for creating the foundation of the movement (and for inspiring academics like Evelyn Hooker to look more closely at our lives), but they achieved very little in the way of civil rights gains. It was not until the younger “liberation” movement came into the fold that success began to happen. When a magazine published a homophobic article, the early gay activists “zapped” the magazine – staging a form of sit-in at their location, but with wit. They brought coffee and doughnuts and invited the magazine’s staff to sit down with a real, live homosexual and learn about our lives. This was far more effective than the alternative.

  16. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    It will take several generations to conquer anti-gay hate (and in the meantime who knows what means of limiting our lives the Dear Leader and his minions would find) using your means – random, isolated occassional interactions with gay people – in which the gay people still have to identify themselves.

    Please clarify, CPT, because this was your previous statement:

    Of course, these families are always noticeable, what with two parents of the same gender, and that was the whole impetus for the idea.

    So which is it?

    Meanwhile, despite the numerous high-level propaganda campaigns that drained millions of gay dollars, stuck hundreds of “gay activists” on the news, and made numerous public spectacles, our team still has an abysmal batting record, with overwhelming majorities, both Democratic and Republican, making it clear that we AREN’T the same and that our families may be legally discriminated against.

    That is because you substituted, in place of those “random interactions” where people meet and view others due to shared interests and values and not based on sexual orientation, “media events” like this one. Instead of others learning about us as people, you have turned us into media caricatures. “How do you spot the gays? Oh yeah, they’re the ones who have to wear garish clothes and dress their kids the same way.”

    The gay community achieves visibility quite well enough on its own, thank you. What we need more of is commonality — and we won’t get that as long as we do our best to make ourselves as different as possible.

  17. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    How does not being visible change anyone’s perceptions of gay families?

    Do you really think your neighbors, friends, and the other people you associate don’t know you’re gay, Terrence?

    And you know what’s even funnier….I bet they figured it out on their own without rainbow leis, glow-in-the-dark bracelets, T-shirts, protest signs, or anything else. How DID they do it?

    Don’t ever confuse “visibility” with “whoring after media”. “Visibility” involves relationship-building with people, getting to know them and their concerns, and seeing them as something other than TV or news report caricatures in funny clothes.

    Whoring after media…..well, let’s just say it’s the opposite.

  18. posted by Eddie Brown on

    (1) I am not sure how many notable LGBT groups made an official endorsement, but in comparing the relevant records between the two candidates; Kerry was certainly the lesser of the two evils.

    (2) Bush did attend the Egg thingie but seems to have been a brief, closed photo op. stop and then left.

    (3) The anti-gay state ballot initiatives were going to get passed either way. They were placed on the ballot largely to help benift Republicans.

    (4) Yes, gay people are not always nice to each other when political disagrements arise. Gay conservatives should stop playing the victim card and gay liberals should stop sleeping with gay conservatives.

  19. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    The problem is the defeatist attitude you express in 3, Eddie.

    What you and yours never explain is how giving money to a homophobe who endorsed and supported said initiatives was going to stop them — or how it was an improvement over channeling money into fighting the initiatives.

    And as for 4, you act as if your withholding sex from us is a punishment. We have to WANT to have sex with you in the first place for that to be the case, and the determinants for that are based on much more than political affiliation.

  20. posted by raj on

    From what I saw this morning, it strikes me that one commenter’s complaints that gays attending the easter egg hunt were encouraged to wear rainbow-colored leis, on the basis that it politicized the event, are a bit misplaced. The host and hostess of the event were doing more than a bit of official politicizing themselves.

    ?Katrina Kids? Sing to Laura Bush: ?Congress, Bush and FEMA?Have Come to Rebuild Us?

    Today at the White House Easter Egg Roll, dozens of children ?from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.? To the tune of ?Hey Look Me Over,? the kids from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

    ?Our country?s stood beside us

    People have sent us aid.

    Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.

    Congress, Bush and FEMA

    People across our land

    Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!?

    NB: No “Preview” button in the new format?

  21. posted by Steven on

    “We AREN’T different, and we need to realize and accept that” said North Dallas Thirty. That statement is as ridiculous as it is patently false. We are different. Not only are we different in the way we are treated by society and the law, both in the United States and around the world; but in our desires to form loving relationships with the same sex which strike at the heart of an age old marriage institution that privileges heterosexuality. If gay people are serious about advocating for equal treatment under the law, especialy same-sex families with children, THEIR VISIBILITY is ESSENTIAL. I agree with you that gay people at large have become increasingly visible in the past decade, but same-sex families with children have not. We are different. People like you who pretend there are no differences, and by meakly asking for our rights while conforming to a still largely repressive world we can somehow gain them, are living in a dream-world. I find such people often live in urban areas where they no longer feel the need to fight prejudice and sterotypes. They have it easy. Everybody accepts us now, right? We just need to blend in with the non-gay crowd, that’s all. As somehow who grew up in a small-town where bigotry was rampant, and later moved to liberal Washington DC, I have learned there is a time for visiblity and indeed a time for quiet one on one dialogue. Visiblity does not always mean such one on one encounters however. It can mean media visiblity, it can mean media interviews and news stories. So instead of someone outright dismissing the existence of or significance of same-sex families, they turn on their tv and are forced into confronting a different reality. For many, many people living in small towns or conservative areas, these gay families “whoring after media” as you so tastelessly phrased it, may be the only representation of gay-families they get. Who would you rather have defining these families for this huge group of millions: religious extremists and political groups, or the actual families themselves?

    We are the same in that we all deserve to be loved, respected, and treated equally by the laws and societies of this planet. Until that happens, however, pretending that blind assimilation is the best strategy means turning a blind eye to the progress we have yet to make. I won’t.

  22. posted by Steven on

    “We AREN’T different, and we need to realize and accept that” said North Dallas Thirty. That statement is as ridiculous as it is patently false. We are different. Not only are we different in the way we are treated by society and the law, both in the United States and around the world; but in our desires to form loving relationships with the same sex which strike at the heart of an age old marriage institution that privileges heterosexuality. If gay people are serious about advocating for equal treatment under the law, especialy same-sex families with children, THEIR VISIBILITY is ESSENTIAL. I agree with you that gay people at large have become increasingly visible in the past decade, but same-sex families with children have not. We are different. People like you who pretend there are no differences, and by meakly asking for our rights while conforming to a still largely repressive world we can somehow gain them, are living in a dream-world. I find such people often live in urban areas where they no longer feel the need to fight prejudice and sterotypes. They have it easy. Everybody accepts us now, right? We just need to blend in with the non-gay crowd, that’s all. As somehow who grew up in a small-town where bigotry was rampant, and later moved to liberal Washington DC, I have learned there is a time for visiblity and indeed a time for quiet one on one dialogue. Visiblity does not always mean such one on one encounters however. It can mean media visiblity, it can mean media interviews and news stories. So instead of someone outright dismissing the existence of or significance of same-sex families, they turn on their tv and are forced into confronting a different reality. For many, many people living in small towns or conservative areas, these gay families “whoring after media” as you so tastelessly phrased it, may be the only representation of gay-families they get. Who would you rather have defining these families for this huge group of millions: religious extremists and political groups, or the actual families themselves?

    We are the same in that we all deserve to be loved, respected, and treated equally by the laws and societies of this planet. Until that happens, however, pretending that blind assimilation is the best strategy means turning a blind eye to the progress we have yet to make. I won’t.

  23. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Steve, are you really, really aware of what you’re saying?

    We are different. Not only are we different in the way we are treated by society and the law, both in the United States and around the world; but in our desires to form loving relationships with the same sex which strike at the heart of an age old marriage institution that privileges heterosexuality.

    So gays are out to destroy marriage. Brilliant message.

    Who would you rather have defining these families for this huge group of millions: religious extremists and political groups, or the actual families themselves?

    Given that they are saying the same thing — that gays are out to destroy marriage — I’d prefer to have THEM saying it. GAYS saying that merely confirms their worst fears AND validates the statements of the religious and political groups.

    I find such people often live in urban areas where they no longer feel the need to fight prejudice and sterotypes. They have it easy.

    Oh, I get it; this is the new variation on, “You can’t be gay because you don’t conform to my worldview.” Now it seems we can add “live in the wrong zip code” to the previous list of “gay disqualifiers”.

    Given my previous background and where I’ve lived before, I find that howlingly ironic. But, it’s also been my experience that people who make bigoted remarks like yours, Steven, are not interested in facts, but merely in reinforcing their stereotypes. Therefore, I shan’t trouble you with details because, frankly, I doubt you’d listen to them anyway.

  24. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    From what I saw this morning, it strikes me that one commenter’s complaints that gays attending the easter egg hunt were encouraged to wear rainbow-colored leis, on the basis that it politicized the event, are a bit misplaced.

    Of course it does, because you’re an irrational anti-Bush bigot.

    One look at that song, Raj, would make it plainly obvious that it celebrates EVERYONE who “came together”, people, Congress, Bush, and FEMA.

    But, since the word “Bush” is mentioned in the song, your head explodes. That’s how you can excuse gay “activists” whose stated intent was to make political statements and whore after media coverage.

  25. posted by Steven on

    “So gays are out to destroy marriage. Brilliant message.” Wrong. That is not my message, nor what I said. You seem to be the only one interested in promoting such a discourse on marriage equality. Your very choice of words indicates as much. Those gay families are NOT saying the same thing as conservative religious and political groups. One portrays same-sex families as first non-existant, or second, anti-Christian, wild-eyed, perverted sex-activists that could never provide a stable and loving home for children, THE OTHER ONE shows regular American families, with cute children, participating in an American tradition; by their very presence giving testament to the importance of societal equality. There is always going to be a 10-20% chunk of this country that will refuse to accept same-sex families and equality under the law for gay people, at least for the foreseable future. You seem far more interested in catering to the fears of this group that that muddy middle that can be brought to the side of equality. My own Mom, one of the most conservative people I know and still not accepting of homosexuality, went to see Brokeback Mountain, and was forced into reconsidering her views on same-sex relationships. Was “liberal Hollywood” pushes their ideology unfairly on America? I can tell my Mom all I want to about gay families, but she’ll never meet one in my hometown. Seeing them on TV helps people like her to humanize this issue even more.

    You can, of course, be as gay as you like! You often put words in other people’s mouths, I’ve noticed. I accept everybody’s right to think whatever they might think. However, I do not accept the validity that GLBT visibility at the easter egg hunt was anything but overwhelmingly positive. Do you have an alternative? As I recall, a quiet, media-silent strategy failed for a couple thousand years before Stonewall. You said earlier, “if you wanted to be treated the same as everyone else and to show everyone how you’re the same as they are, why did you differentiate yourself?” Because, quite simply, there is no other way to better one’s unequal position then first pointing out the injustice one is facing because of said difference. We are different. I have brown hair, you have blonde. We are different. You would not be so afraid to confront difference there, I wager, because society has not attached any significance to that difference. Unfortunately with homosexuality, we don’t have this luxury. History has proven, you must differentiate before you can fully integrate. You must scream, before you can whisper. You must point out injustice, for people to even have a chance at giving a damn. There are quiet and loud ways of going about this. The easter egg event was by and large a quiet one. Any other strategy will fail to move the status quo forward. You seem to crave GLBT acceptance through conformity. That has never worked. Not until the nature of the injustice has been made clear, not until the majority of hearts and minds have been touched by us.

  26. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    You seem to be a master of contradiction, Steve.

    On the one hand, you criticize this:

    You seem to crave GLBT acceptance through conformity. That has never worked.

    On the other hand, you want your media propaganda to portray this:

    One portrays same-sex families as first non-existant, or second, anti-Christian, wild-eyed, perverted sex-activists that could never provide a stable and loving home for children, THE OTHER ONE shows regular American families, with cute children, participating in an American tradition.

    So in short, you say GLBT acceptance will never come through conformity, but you want to set up media propaganda opportunities to show how “conformed” and “regular” gay families are.

    Again, if people had just gone as regular families, there likely wouldn’t have been an eyebrow raised. But there also wouldn’t have been cameras, and for media-whoring gay activists, that will never suffice.

    So, in order to attract the cameras, the media-whores had to dress up in loud and garish attire and publicize the fact. However, in doing so, they put themselves squarely OUTSIDE the mainstream of regular families, which do NOT dress up so that cameras can immediately identify the sexual proclivities of their parents.

    I can tell my Mom all I want to about gay families, but she’ll never meet one in my hometown.

    And that’s likely because we are a fraction of the population ourselves; the number of us who want to raise children will be even less. But who the hell CARES? Does the fact that your glee over “forcing” your mother gives credence to the people who say we are “forcing” a homosexual agenda mean anything?

    In short, Steven, you want acceptance as “normal”, but you don’t want to act “normal”. As long as you insist on differentiating yourself, you give strength to those who want to treat you differently.

  27. posted by raj on

    North Dallas Thirty | April 19, 2006, 11:47am |

    Another lame excuse from the hacks at the ridiculously-named “gaypatriot.”

    It has been rare that I have ever seen such lame excuses, even from syncophants from a pseudo-conservative web site.

  28. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Truth hurts, doesn’t it, Raj?

    Come on now. Just come out and admit that, no matter what Bush does or says, you will never, NEVER agree with it. You should be proud of your ideological purity and consistency.

  29. posted by Ed Brown on

    I am not “defeatist”, the reality is that

    most Americans do not support “gay mariage.” They are more open to limited benifits, and most other gay rights issues.

    The HRC made a decision to put thier limited resources behind a presidential candidate that had a chance of winning, versus trying to stop ballot measures that were simply not going to be stopped.

    John Kerry supported civil unions, and opposed such state amendments that failed to provide for such. President Bush flip flopped and outright lied about the issue.

  30. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    John Kerry supported civil unions, and opposed such state amendments that failed to provide for such.

    Ah yes, the desperate lies of HRC propagandists, trying to explain why they handed over millions of dollars to promote homophobia.

    Read and weep:

    The Missouri amendment that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards support is very different from the Massachusetts amendment that Kerry already backed. Unlike in Massachusetts, Missouri law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, unlike the Massachusetts amendment, the amendment in Missouri did not provide any protections, such as civil unions, for gay and lesbian couples.

    Of course, Kerry tried to lie his way out of that one, claiming that he, a lawyer, “didn’t know”. But, as you show, he really didn’t need to; HRC and their fellow whores wouldn’t stop kissing his toes anyway, even though their “official position” is that they will never support or endorse any politician who supports discriminatory actions against gays.

    The lesson should be obvious; stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments is not discrimination against gays. HRC and gay Democrats proved that.

  31. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And, courtesy of Another Gay Republican, we have confirmation that the organizer of said egg roll protest is none other than the partner of chief Kerry toe-sucker Cheryl Jacques, erstwhile head of HRC, who praised as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” John Kerry’s attempt to not only strip gays of rights in other states, but to invalidate her Massachusetts marriage as well.

    I wonder why Chrisler and all these families never showed up with leis and outrageous jewelry at Kerry campaign events to protest his antigay bigotry and disrespect for their families? All we ever heard from them was how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” it was for him to advocate denying gays rights because of characteristics with which they were born, and how it was more important to give him money to promote his antigay stances than it was to fight them.

  32. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    NDT’s shrill scizophrenia in this thread and efforts to reduce the entire debate about the legal equality of gay families to burlesque partianship illustrates why Republican conservatism isn’t just bad for gays, but bad for America. An honest approach to this would have him and his cohorts acknowledging Bush’s obvious flaws on the matter with at least the same vigor with which they attack Kerry’s flaws. They are truly playiing politics as team sports and they have no concern for the facts within the issue, nor the well being of the gay families represented in the event (or indeed, the millions more not present).

    If this was a Kerry or Browne presidency eggroll, they’d doubtlessly be cheering on the activists.

    I cannot think of a better illustration of why gays who are tired with this sort of shrill shrieking of “the sky is not blue” should vote Libertarian in 2006 and 2008.

  33. posted by Lori Heine on

    As the very fact that gay families were going to be there was widely publicized, I guess I don’t understand the need for wristbands and leis. It does seem sort of over-the-top to me.

    A little more restraint, in the form of a general willingness to blend in with the other families, would have made a much more dramatic statement — especially when contrasted with the anti-gay loonies ranting and raving outside the fence. We should simply be our normal selves, and leave the theatrics to our adversaries.

  34. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    An honest approach to this would have him and his cohorts acknowledging Bush’s obvious flaws on the matter with at least the same vigor with which they attack Kerry’s flaws.

    Oh, I’m sorry, wrong answer.

    And, since that laughably-false assumption is what the rest of your post is based upon, please try again.

    Meanwhile, Lori, you’re absolutely right.

  35. posted by Randy R. on

    Funny thing. The press announced that Bush was going to skip the Egg Roll altogether, and that’s what I based my pronouncement on. Actually, Georgy did in fact show up, but failed to give any sort of speech, as he usually does. So, although incorrect in fact, my observation nonetheless still has a merit of truth — George severely curtailed his appearance at the Egg Roll. Why? Oh I don’t know — I’ll let you folks argue that one out.

    But the whole point is that it forced Laura Bush to state that ALL families are welcome to the Egg Roll. That means that in the official eyes of Bush administration, gay parents do in fact make a family. That is a direct contradiction to how the religious right tries to frame the issue. Score one for the parents. Woo hoo!

    Incidently, the other day I was at a White House briefing on China. I went with a friend, who spotted an aide. We introduced, and turns out he was the Official Easter Bunny for the Egg roll. He got a memo saying he was promoted to the new position! He enjoyed the stint, but he said he has a new found respect for those in costume. It was hot in there!

  36. posted by raj on

    North Dallas Thirty | April 19, 2006, 3:38pm |

    You still have presented no rationale for the Bushies’ politization of the Easter egg extravaganza, while you’re complaining gays are allegedly doing the same. Admit it: you’re nothing more than a sycophant for the Bushies.

    Are you getting your bloviation orders from Scotty McClelland? Scotty is gone; you can be, too.

  37. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Funny thing. The press announced that Bush was going to skip the Egg Roll altogether, and that’s what I based my pronouncement on. Actually, Georgy did in fact show up, but failed to give any sort of speech, as he usually does.

    Really? On April 18th, the day you posted, the press was claiming that Bush skipped the egg roll and didn’t make a speech?

    Nice try.

    But the whole point is that it forced Laura Bush to state that ALL families are welcome to the Egg Roll. That means that in the official eyes of Bush administration, gay parents do in fact make a family. That is a direct contradiction to how the religious right tries to frame the issue. Score one for the parents. Woo hoo!

    And it also directly contradicts the statement of anti-Bush bigots like yourself who claim the Bush administration hates gays and would never publicly recognize them. Although, admittedly, that was compromised already by the fact that gay families went to the egg roll last year and reported no problems whatsoever.

    Both the extremist sides got bitch-slapped. Isn’t it wonderful?

  38. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    You still have presented no rationale for the Bushies’ politization of the Easter egg extravaganza, while you’re complaining gays are allegedly doing the same.

    That is because, Raj, it is impossible to rationalize the irrational fantasies of others. As I pointed out, despite the fact that EVERYONE was mentioned in the song, you had a brain meltdown because it mentioned Bush, and you are too irrational of a bigot to think past that fact.

    As for being a “syncophant”, you would do well to read what I write, rather than relying on your tired old stereotypes.

  39. posted by Steven on

    My very last comment on this thread (I must promise myself!)

    “I want acceptance as normal” but I “don’t want to act normal”. Guess what NDT? Despite the fact you think “normal” is some static, engraved in stone, normative category, it is in fact formed, shaped, and influenced by passionate folks like you and me. Or “media whoring” gay rights activists you seem to loathe so much. You are sure lucky those activists gleefully “forced” the majority of people to redefine the public perception of “normality” over the past 30 years, or you and me might not be having this conversation today. Dispelling stereotypes does not mean conforming if the stereotypes are false to start. It is deeply disturbing to me that Republicans such as yourself have so little respect for “gay rights activists”, the very people that have afforded you the privilege to be so insular and self-interested; constantly self-rationalizing support of conservatives with “both are equally bad” rationales, when objective facts speak differently. I will continue supporting our community’s voice, AND their integration into the greater American community by redefining “normal” to include us and our families. Just as slavery was redefined as abnormal, and women being equal to men was redefined as societally “normal”. You can continue craving acceptance through shameful silence, and denigration of the very people who have afforded your freedom.

  40. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    It is deeply disturbing to me that Republicans such as yourself have so little respect for “gay rights activists”, the very people that have afforded you the privilege to be so insular and self-interested; constantly self-rationalizing support of conservatives with “both are equally bad” rationales, when objective facts speak differently.

    And now, ladies and gentlemen, the “shame, shame, shame” attempt at social control by invoking “unity” and “So-and-so would have never….”

    People like you who invoke gay activists of the past, Steven, are like Cynthia McKinney invoking MLK. Your concern is less with the cause itself than it is in using the cause as an excuse for your inane, self-serving, and foolish behavior.

    Do you honestly think “gay activists” of the past would have bought your swill, for instance, that it’s more important to give money to homophobic politicians than it is to fight antigay initiatives? Do you think THEY would have stood up and said it was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for people to support antigay state constitutional amendments and the FMA, just because of those peoples’ political affiliations?

    Gays like myself, Steven, are taking back “gay rights”. Yes, we deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. However, that’s not what you or your other hatemongering gays want; you want to use the fact that you’re gay to force on people your antireligious beliefs, your political strictures, and your special privileges. You’re nothing but reverse fundamentalists, and you’re now being called on it.

  41. posted by Randy R. on

    ND30 <>

    Well, but just a while ago you were arguing that we should NOT be treated the same. You stated most emphatically that the catholic church SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against gay parents in the adoption process. You stated that we gays must find “accomodation” with such groups.

    <>

    Really? What gay group or persons says that religious people become antireligious? What gay group or persons have tried to force it’s political stricture on another? And what precisely is that ‘political stricture’? Most people I know call it ‘democracy.’

    But most bizarrely, you argue that gays want to force their special privileges on others? What special priviledges do I get as a gay person? Sure, I wish people would dress better, and god knows how many times I’ve bitten my tongue when I enter a horribly decorated house owned by straight people, but even then I wouldn’t force my good taste upon them.

  42. posted by jeff on

    North Dallas is correct – gays should start acting more ‘normal’. I’m a little fuzzy on what ‘normal’ entails, but i assume that it is what is ‘normal’ for straights…and one of the most normal behaviours for them, i’ve noticed, is simply public displays of affection. is this what you mean, ND30 – when was the last time you gave your significant other a peck at a movie? held hands while walking down the street? necked a bit at a street corner? is this the sort of normal behaviour the folks who attended the easter egg hunt should have indulged in to boost gay visibility?

  43. posted by Ed Brown on

    BTW everyone may wish to debate at the WorldCrossing message board “GayPolitics.”

    I said: John Kerry supported civil unions, and opposed such state amendments that failed to provide for such.

    You said: Ah yes,

    Thank you for agreeing with me ;0)

    “the desperate lies of HRC propagandists”

    I am not a member of the HRC and the last time I gave them any money was back in 1996. I have never given the NGLTF anymoney.

    John Kerry supported civil unions. When questioned about the Missouri Amendment he stated that he was unaware that it also outlawed civil unions and said that if it does, he does not support it.

    “Stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments is not discrimination against gays.”

    First off all, civil marriage has never been ruled by the USSC to be a constitutional right.

    The lesson from the HRC is that most Americans simply oppose gay marriage, but Kerry supported cu/dp. Bush opposed cu and dp.

    I do tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates, but I am also an advocate for election law reforms that would give us all greater choices.

    The lesson in LGBT rights may be that we need to get behind groups such as Fair Vote and Ballot Access News.

  44. posted by Ed Brown on

    I do not think that anyone said that Kerry’s specific views on gay marriage were “pro-gay” but rather his support of civil unions was.

    Bush opposes any legal recognition of same-sex couples, adoption and up until 2004 felt that homosexuality should remain a crime.

  45. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    “Oh, I’m sorry, wrong answer.”

    I’m not going to spend time engaging with you, NDT, because you’re an obvious partisan shill, but three or four one-sentence rejoinders in obscure posts does not constitute sustained critiques of Bush — and even in those attacks on Bush, you had to drag opponents in to bash them “equally.”

    The irony, which is obvious to those of us who don’t live in your partisan bubble, is that just as your liberal antitheses will never approve of anything Bush does, you will never honestly and publicly DISAPPROVE of anything Bush does. If Bush shot a gay man in the head on national TV because he was gay, your “criticism” would be something like “Bush, like Kerry, is anti-gay. But at least Bush was compassionate in not drawing out the gay man’s suffering, and people who condemn him for it should shut up because John Kerry supports an anti-gay law in Missouri.”

  46. posted by raj on

    Northeast Libertarian | April 20, 2006, 6:42pm |

    I’m not going to spend time engaging with you, NDT, because you’re an obvious partisan shill…

    You discovered that, too, eh? He can BS like the best of them. Maybe Bush should put him up to replace Scotty McClellan.

  47. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    is this what you mean, ND30 – when was the last time you gave your significant other a peck at a movie? held hands while walking down the street? necked a bit at a street corner? is this the sort of normal behaviour the folks who attended the easter egg hunt should have indulged in to boost gay visibility?

    Absolutely. And, while they’re at it, they could put a picture of their partner on their desk at work, freely mention them in water-cooler conversations, that sort of thing.

  48. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    The irony, which is obvious to those of us who don’t live in your partisan bubble, is that just as your liberal antitheses will never approve of anything Bush does, you will never honestly and publicly DISAPPROVE of anything Bush does.

    Wrong answer again.

    When faced with facts that destroy your stereotypes, you simply move the goalposts, trying to replace unfavorable reality by trying to a) denigrate my very clear statement as not being good enough and b) replace it with your fantasies about “if”.

    Fortunately, you have a fellow bigot in Raj to keep you company. Beautiful, really, to watch two irrational haters at work.

  49. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    When questioned about the Missouri Amendment he stated that he was unaware that it also outlawed civil unions and said that if it does, he does not support it.

    What a pathetic lie.

    Did you not read Kerry’s very clear statement made previously (emphasis mine)?

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    So we have a lawyer who parades around claiming he supports something that’s “the same” as a previous ban he supported, but then claims later that he didn’t know it banned civil unions.

    How could he have known it was “the same” unless he had read it? And if he had read it, how could he, a LAWYER, not know that it banned civil unions?

    Anyone? Anyone care to explain that?

  50. posted by Steve on

    “Do you honestly think “gay activists” of the past would have bought your swill, for instance, that it’s more important to give money to homophobic politicians than it is to fight antigay initiatives?” WHAT?! I have certainly not commented here about the relevant merits of fighting state ballot initiatives versus supporting individual candidates; and indeed have mixed feelings on that myself. Once again you project your own words, your own twisted perceptions (or big bad liberal bogeymen if you will) onto me. Sorry, not going to fly. Lastly, I am anti-religious? That is an interesting interpretation of a man who prays every night, attends United Methodist services regularly, and has a deep respect for those with religious/and or spiritual faith. But please, continue to slander away without addressing what I said. I will continue to speak up for my “special right” to be treated equally under the law, and continue to believe positive media portrayals of gay people in movies such as Brokeback Mountain and in news media are essential to helping people better understand the unequal world gay people live in. You seem unable to rise above your partisanship to realize the courage to be “different”. I hope one day you get your priorities ‘straight’ NDT.

  51. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    WHAT?! I have certainly not commented here about the relevant merits of fighting state ballot initiatives versus supporting individual candidates; and indeed have mixed feelings on that myself.

    Or next:

    Lastly, I am anti-religious? That is an interesting interpretation of a man who prays every night, attends United Methodist services regularly, and has a deep respect for those with religious/and or spiritual faith.

    Unfortunately, those “gay activists” you are now defending don’t.

    Do you care to criticize them for said stances, or are you too afraid to be “different”?

    You can say that you’re this or that, Steve; prove it.

  52. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    I will continue to speak up for my “special right” to be treated equally under the law, and continue to believe positive media portrayals of gay people in movies such as Brokeback Mountain and in news media are essential to helping people better understand the unequal world gay people live in.

    Ye gods, you call Brokeback positive? Why on earth would we want the world to think that gay men are self-loathing cheaters who can’t express their emotions, ignore their children, and threaten to beat their wives when their wives confront them about their cheating? Even better, why would we want the world to think that gay men CAN get married and have children, no problem, especially when we argue that sexuality is “not a choice”?

    What we have here, Steve, is failure to communicate. You seem to be of the mind that ANY media coverage of gays is positive. I am of the mind that the gay community is not nearly ready for prime-time, and won’t get that way until we do some serious re-evaluation of what we is and what we isn’t.

  53. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And Randy, I haven’t forgotten you, I just haven’t had time to answer. 🙂

    Well, but just a while ago you were arguing that we should NOT be treated the same. You stated most emphatically that the catholic church SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against gay parents in the adoption process. You stated that we gays must find “accomodation” with such groups.

    I wholeheartedly believe that gays should be treated the same, Randy. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church doesn’t.

    As I previously pointed out, the flaw in the logic being used was that people were saying there would be major impact if a small fraction of people (gay parents) were no longer adopting through Catholic Charities, but no impact if Catholic Charities left completely, because there were “other choices” through which people could adopt. I refuted that.

    In short, the impact to gays was slim to none, the potential impact to others was large, and the perception that churches were being forced to do things against their religion by gays was extremely dangerous. That’s a good argument to accomodate them.

    Really? What gay group or persons says that religious people become antireligious?

    I’m not sure what you mean by this statement.

    What gay group or persons have tried to force it’s political stricture on another? And what precisely is that ‘political stricture’? Most people I know call it ‘democracy.’

    “Gay rights” groups and “activists” insist that voters have no right to amend state or the Federal Constitutions as they see fit or submit petitions to change laws.

    But most bizarrely, you argue that gays want to force their special privileges on others? What special priviledges do I get as a gay person?

    See above.

  54. posted by Ed Brown on

    “What a pathetic lie.”

    Nope. Kerry said it in at least one interview to the gay press. The quotes you provide may be truthful, but when asked about it, he said that he supported civil unions and was unaware of how far the amendments went.

    Meanwhile President Bush claimed to support civil unions, while also pushing for a federal amemdnet to ban them. He also opposed gays adopting children, and felt that gay sex should be a crime.

    In faced with only two viable candidates the choice was clear.

  55. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Oh, I’m very well aware that Kerry said it to the gay press. But I’m also very aware that Kerry completely contradicted himself in the process; previously he claimed he had read it, seen it, and it was the same as the previous ban he supported. However, when he was confronted with the fact, he said he had NOT read it, had NOT seen it, and that it WASN’T the same.

    The difference is, Ed, you completely lack curiosity over why Kerry says one thing to you and the complete opposite to everyone else. That would raise questions of whether or not he was sincere, and questioning Democrats is simply not something of which you appear capable, especially since you bash Bush for doing exactly the same thing for which you excuse Kerry.

    Finally, since you now want to whine about gay adoption, I present you this; the Federal courts have determined that adoption is not a constitutional right. Since you insist that Democrats’ denial of marriage is all right because it’s not a constitutional right, you should apply the same to bans on adoption. But again, you can’t, because your pretzeled logic in the matter is meant only to rationalize your protection and support of homophobic Democrats like Kerry.

    Finally, there are times when gay sex should be a crime, like this, but you call Bush “homophobic” for opposing that as well.

  56. posted by Ed Brown on

    “Kerry completely contradicted himself in the process.”

    No, he said that he misunderstood what the amendents did, what is not hard to do when its proponents are less then honest in what they do and do not ban. The bottom line; Kerry supported civil unions and Bush did not.

    Kerry was the lesser of the two evils. I have no problem pointing out the faults with both candidates. I do have a problem with revionist history.

    I have no problem “questioning” any political party or candidate. As I have said, I support election law reforms that would give us all more viable choices.

    “bash Bush” Ah, yes. The gay Republican spin that to question Bush is “bashing” but to question Kerry is being honest.

    “Uou now want to whine about gay adoption.”

    Funny, I did not think that talking about a gay rights issue on a gay rights message board was “to whine.”

    “the Federal courts have determined that adoption is not a constitutional right.”

    As they have with marriage. This does not mean that such a policy is good or bad.

    “Democrats’ denial of marriage is all right…”

    I never said it was “all right”, only that Kerry was willing to support some measure of equality, Bush was not.

    “Finally, there are times when gay sex should be a crime.”

    Their are times when sexual should be a crime (i.e. rape), but that is clearly what I was talking about. Bush supported a Texas sodomy laws that made gay sexual conduct a crime when done between consenting adults in private.

  57. posted by Ed Brown on

    In regards to the specific link, this had little to do with Bush support of the Texas sodomy laws.

    Will you “question” Bush on his belief that we should all be looked up in jail?

  58. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    No, he said that he misunderstood what the amendents did, what is not hard to do when its proponents are less then honest in what they do and do not ban.

    Ed, Kerry claimed to have read the amendment, that it was “the same” as the Massachusetts legislation he endorsed previously, and that he would have voted for it himself.

    Furthermore, Kerry is (allegedly) a lawyer. Are you trying to tell me that someone who tried to run on his legislative experience and legal background, including his running mate, who was also a lawyer, did not understand a short constitutional amendment?

    I give Kerry credit for having (somewhat) of a brain in his head. Unfortunately, what he’s used it to figure out is that gay activists can’t and won’t add two and two if it means a Democrat is two-timing them.

    “bash Bush” Ah, yes. The gay Republican spin that to question Bush is “bashing” but to question Kerry is being honest.

    When you criticize one person for doing something, than praise another person for doing the same thing, that is bashing.

    Will you “question” Bush on his belief that we should all be looked up in jail?

    Of course. I disagree with his stance and I don’t like his “symbolic” excuse. But it’s incumbent on me to convince enough people why it’s important to repeal the law legislatively, just like every other law.

  59. posted by Eddie Brown on

    “Kerry claimed to have read the amendment, that it was “the same” as the Massachusetts legislation he endorsed previously, and that he would have voted for it himself.”

    And when it was brought to his attention that amendments would have also banned civil unions, he said that he would not support amendments that did so.

    “Are you trying to tell me…[he] did not understand a short constitutional amendment?”

    As a Paralegal, I can say that it is possible to not understand that original intent of a proposed constitutional amendment written by a special interest group that is trying to cover up its intent. I have seen these groups work in Minnesota, and they flat out lie about what their own amendment means.

    “bash Bush” Ah, yes. The gay Republican spin that to question Bush is “bashing” but to question Kerry is being honest.

    “I disagree with his stance and I don’t like his “symbolic” excuse.”

    Likewise I disagree with Kerry’s stance.

    “It’s incumbent on me to convince enough people why it’s important to repeal the law legislatively, just like every other law.”

    Agreed as marriage, unlike privacy, is not a constitutional right.

  60. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    As a Paralegal, I can say that it is possible to not understand that original intent of a proposed constitutional amendment written by a special interest group that is trying to cover up its intent.

    Yes, but as a paralegal, you should be able to understand what the law actually does, regardless of the intent with which it was written. A lawyer, even more so.

    In short, are you telling me that Kerry is so ignorant of the law that he can read an amendment, but not understand in the least its effect?

  61. posted by Ed Brown on

    “[A]s a paralegal, you should be able to understand what the law actually does.”

    Yes, if the law has either a clear legislative history or a series of court case opinions. However, most of those amendments were kept vague because they did not want the public to think that they were ditchning civil unions.

    When you write stuff vague enough, then no one is sure what it means and thus you invite confusion until judges decided to get involved.

    I am saying that right-wing nutcases wrote a serious of badly worded amendments that clearly banned gay marriage, but were often less then clear about the they did for CU/DP.

    Meanwhile their was little confusion that President Bush oppose gays adopting, supported making homosexuality a crime and “abstience only” programs to fight AIDS/HIV.

  62. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    I am saying that right-wing nutcases wrote a serious of badly worded amendments that clearly banned gay marriage, but were often less then clear about the they did for CU/DP.

    That makes no sense. If they were “less than clear”, how did you know they banned civil unions, and then why did you oppose them?

    The problem here is that you simply can’t admit that Kerry lied to gays when he said he supported civil unions. He knew full well what the law did, and he tried to weasel out of it. Stop enabling the lies and for once stand up for yourself.

    Meanwhile their was little confusion that President Bush oppose gays adopting, supported making homosexuality a crime and “abstience only” programs to fight AIDS/HIV.

    Since the first isn’t a constitutional right, you don’t care about it; the second can be legislatively blocked and repealed; and the third applies to school educational programs meant to be taught to those under the age of 18. Is it now required for “gay rights” that we promote sex for those under the age of 18?

  63. posted by raj on

    North Dallas Thirty | April 24, 2006, 3:13pm |

    Since the first (adoption) isn’t a constitutional right…

    This is largely incorrect. The right to be in the pool of potential candidates to adopt is a constitutional right, unless, of course, the state can come up with at least a rational basis for precluding him or her from being included in that pool. Simple 14th amendment equal protection analysis.

  64. posted by Ed Brown on

    I said: right-wing nutcases wrote a badly worded amendments that clearly banned gay marriage, but were often less then clear about the they did for CU/DP.

    Your reply: That makes no sense.

    If you are not a lawyer or a paralegal then many legal matters will not make sense.

    The right-wingers amdendment proponents intent (in most cases) was to ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but they had to be careful about admitting the later in public or else they would risk losing the suburbian soocer moms.

    So, they write the amendment with enough plausible denibility and launch a camapign that focuses on banning gay marriage.

    “You simply can’t admit that Kerry lied to gays when he said he supported civil unions.”

    I have no problem stating that Kerry opposed gay marriage. However, you have not shown me any credible evidence that Kerry did not support civil unions.

    “Since the first [adoption] isn’t a constitutional right, you don’t care about it.”

    A lawyer or paralegal is able to tell you what the law probably is, and thus what are constitutional rights. However, the fact that the USSC has ruled one way, does not mean that I do not care about it.

    Likewise the the fact that the USSC has ruled on gay marriage does not mean that I do not care about it.

    “the second can be legislatively blocked and repealed.”

    Thankful, the USSC tossed out the stupid laws. However, the fact remains that Bush felt that gays couples should live in legal anarchy, and that all gay people should be in jail.

    “third applies to school educational programs”…

    Actually the rule applies to any group, even those directed at adults.

    “Is it now required for “gay rights” that we promote sex for those under the age of 18?”

    Abstience only education is about telling young gay and bisexual youth that they should not have sex until marriage, not receive safer sex education, and oh, they are not going to get you get married and we think you should be locked away in jail.

  65. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    If you are not a lawyer or a paralegal then many legal matters will not make sense.

    But Kerry IS a lawyer.

    What you are saying is that Kerry was too ignorant and stupid to realize that it banned civil unions.

    I don’t think Kerry is stupid; I actually think he’s quite intelligent. Of course, he’s aided by the fact that gays like you will rationalize every bit of his behavior.

    Abstience only education is about telling young gay and bisexual youth that they should not have sex until marriage, not receive safer sex education, and oh, they are not going to get you get married and we think you should be locked away in jail.

    Actually, it’s about telling people that they should not have sex as teens and until they are in committed relationships.

    Should I be surprised that gay leftists oppose this message?

  66. posted by Ed Brown on

    “But Kerry IS a lawyer.”

    Yes, and lawyers do not have all the answers. They do make mistakes and are not always correct. Also when you write an amendment (in the way that the right-wingers did) or law, lawyers can disgree with what a particular word or phrase means.

    I am not the trying to “rationalize” everything that Kerry said back in 2004. Frankly, I seen many gay Republicans try to rationalize and revise history when it comes to President Bush or even President Reagan. I just tell it like it is.

    President Bush thinks that homosexuality should remain a crime. That gay couples should not be allowed to adopt/have custody of children. That gay couples should not have any legal rights or responsibilites. That some one should be fired from their job because they are gay.

    “It’s about telling people that they should not have sex as teens and until they are in committed relationships.”

    Nope. I have studied the programs extensively. Abstience education is about telling teenagers not to have sex until they are married, and then turning around and saying, “Oh, and no marriage for gays.” It is about not giving any accurate information about safer sex or birth control.

    Most credible studies demonstrate that Abstience only education does not work.

    It does not reduce unplanned pregancy,

    it generally does not delay sexual activity, and pretty muches young gay and bisexual teenagers (the highest risk group) out of situation.

    Should we be surpised that gay conservatives support a policy that does not work, because it might be politically correct?

  67. posted by Edde Brown on

    Again, both major party presidential candidates had less then perfect records on LGBT rights issues, although I would argue that objectively Kerry was much better.

    This is a reason why LGBT people be active in election law refom interest groups such as Ballot Access News and Fair Vote.

  68. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Most credible studies demonstrate that Abstience only education does not work.

    Actually, why don’t you post links to a few of those studies, since you claim to have reviewed them extensively?

    What you’ll find is two things:

    — The unplanned pregnancy comparison is hardly ever made

    — “Sexual activity” is redefined to include oral sex.

    It’s actually kind of Clintonesque; the people who did these studies found out to their horror that abstinence-only programs, from a disease-spreading standpoint, actually pushed teens towards lower-risk behaviors. What they didn’t want to admit is that teens who had sex ed were more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, such as unprotected vaginal intercourse; the abstinence kids, while they only started a bit later, stuck to lower-risk activities like oral sex.

    The reason abstinence-only education is so greatly opposed by leftists and Democrats is because anything that reduces or changes the nature of teenage sexual activity reduces the revenue of abortion clinics. Teenagers in general are too immature and not responsible enough to have sex; like when they drive, they take unnecessary risks and too often ignore safety rules. Democrats and leftists know that; therefore, they encourage it in order to ensure that revenues for abortion clinics stay up. Sort of like how alcohol and tobacco companies used to market to children and teenagers.

    President Bush thinks that homosexuality should remain a crime. That gay couples should not be allowed to adopt/have custody of children. That gay couples should not have any legal rights or responsibilites. That some one should be fired from their job because they are gay.

    You got the first two right. Unfortunately, John Kerry is guilty of the second-to-last as well, and it would seem odd for Bush to advocate the firing of gay people when he himself has hired and nominated several of them. You made that up.

    Moreover, Kerry lied to and stole money from the gay community; his goons and syncophants ordered gay rights groups to fund him and stop funding efforts against antigay state initiatives because doing so was embarrassing him.

  69. posted by Ed Brown on

    “What they didn’t want to admit is that teens who had sex ed were more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behaviors.”

    Pure BS. Teens who have abstience only sex ed tend to demonstrate little longterm reduction in high-risk sexual behaviors. Furthermore then are clearly homopohobic.

    “The reason abstinence-only education is so greatly opposed by leftists and Democrats”

    Ah, well since you are neither of these I have to wonder what expertise you have on the matter.

    “is because anything that reduces or changes the nature of teenage sexual activity reduces the revenue of abortion clinics.”

    HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! North Dallas. That has to be the stupidest, assine thing I have ever heard on the topic. Abstience-only education does not work (if (as you admit) they still have having blow jobs), is homophobic (no sex until marriage and then gays, cannot marry) and certainly does not reduce the number of unplanned pregancies in America.

    “Democrats and leftists know that; therefore, they encourage it in order to ensure that revenues for abortion clinics stay up.”

    Again, this is a really silly, idea. Um, No. I oppose abstience-only education because it (1) does not work, (2) does not reduce the spread of STI or pregnancy, and (3) is frankly homophobic to its core.

    “It would seem odd for Bush to advocate the firing of gay people when he himself has hired and nominated several of them. You made that up.”

    Yet, he does not support the ENDA, and may have underimined current federal civilian job protections.

    “Kerry lied to and stole money from the gay community.”

    Um no, Kerry said that he supported civil unions, but opposed gay marriage. This is not perfect, but until the Greens or the Libertarian presidential candidates matter, we have to settle.

    When questioned about the fact that the amendments also banned civil unions, he made it clear that that would oppose an amendment that did not support civil unions. He also opposed the federal amendment, which is the key issue for a president.

    “his goons and syncophants ordered.”

    Boy, oh boy. You really have got your dark helicopters in the closet rountine down pat. Not all LGBT rights groups funded Kerry, the HRC did so because he was the lesser of the two evils.

    The lessor of the two evils is often what American democracy-federalist is all about. If you do not like it, then get involved in groups such as Fair Vote and Ballot Access News.

  70. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Yet, he does not support the ENDA, and may have underimined current federal civilian job protections.

    Excuse me? You said quite clearly he supported firing gay people because they were gay. Surely you must have a better argument than “he opposes ENDA”.

    Abstience-only education does not work (if (as you admit) they still have having blow jobs), is homophobic (no sex until marriage and then gays, cannot marry) and certainly does not reduce the number of unplanned pregancies in America.

    Help me understand here, Eddie; do you honestly believe that the risk of unplanned pregnancy and STD transmission is the same if one is having oral OR anal sex?

  71. posted by Ed Brown on

    Good to see that you argreed that I was right and that you were wrong on my of your ideas.

    President Bush opposes the ENDA, and seems to have let federal antidiscrimination laws lax or be ignored.

    “Help me understand here.”

    I am certainly praying that you will see the light.

    Abstience only education is NOT about oral vs anal sex. Thus this entire debate of which one is more risky then the other is (for this topic at hand) rather silly as abstience based education makes it clear what it advocates, and what it denies.

    Sodomy (oral, anal, j/o) does not lead to pregnancy. The risk of STD infection for anal vs. oral sex is a scientific and political mindfield.

    Some people (and apparently Andrew Sullivan) feel that oral sex does not require the usage of a condom.

Comments are closed.