A coalition of conservative African American pastors is lobbying Congress to vote against a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, the Wash Post reports. I've often heard that homophobia in the African American community is a sign that GLBT groups need to do more "outreach" and be more "inclusive" toward racial minorities, and that we need to start by confessing our own racism. But you never hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people. So why are African American homophobes simply misguided while white homophobes are routinely characterized as "evil"?
Speaking of church-inspired homophobia, another Wash Post story looks at anti-gay religious rightist John Arthur Eaves running for governor of Mississippi. The catch: he's a Democrat. In fact, Eaves is wrong about everything, favoring a bigger spending, more intrusive government that also discriminates against gays. The paper reports:
An Eaves victory would also be a shot across the bow to the Democrats' liberal base, raising the question of how far the party is willing to go in jettisoning its support for abortion rights, gay rights and a high wall of separation between church and state for a chance at electoral success [in the South].
With all the money that gays give to the national Democratic party, it will be interesting to see if this new, localized "Southern strategy" is allowed to take hold.
35 Comments for “More Political Double Standards”
posted by Lori Heine on
Any notions I might have ever had about the Democrats holding on to some principles — or even scruples — were blown away by their attempt to use bigotry to their advantage in 2004. The whole “Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian…boo!” line of attack was a new low for them.
No low is too low for most of these people to stoop. Will Hillary or Prince Valiant (he of the $400 haircuts) stand up for us? How about Saint Barack? I hold out no hope for any of them.
posted by dalea on
Any interest I might have had in concern troll Lori Heinrich is gone. In both 2002 and 2003 I was in the Denver Gay Pride celebration. At each point I HEARD and SAW Ms. Cheney stand up and say that:
AS AN OUT DYKE AND LESBIAN, SHE VOUCHED
FOR THE COORS BEER COMPANY BEING GAY FRIENDLY.
Mary Cheney has pubically stated that she is a carpet muncher. Mary Cheney has years of being paid to be an out lesbian behind her.
The only person who ever outed Mary Cheney was Mary Cheney. \\
Will the moderators let us have Lori’s ISP numbers so we can begin to deal with her endless lies and evasions?
posted by Clyde on
The statement: ?But you NEVER hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people? appears to be factually incorrect. I am not a big fan of HRC, but HRC has a Religion and Faith Project that presumably reaches out to evangelicals, most of which are white.
posted by PCT on
“But you never hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people.”
What nonsense. Do you read your own site, Mr. Miller? John Corvino often talks of the need to build bridges with evangelicals. There are lots of us working toward that end.
posted by Avee on
PCT, I think Miller was not talking about his own site (duh) but about the mainstream, left-leaning LGBT groups.
Clyde, HRC’s religion and faith project works with left-leaning religious groups; it’s not outreach to those on the religious right.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And besides, PCT, when you have leftist gays like dalea demanding other peoples’ ISP addresses so they can “deal with” them, it doesn’t take much to make it obvious that gays are hateful and hostile towards religion — even when practiced by their own.
posted by PCT on
Still busy winning over your opponents with your love, I see, ND30.
Avee, Miller’s only reason for commenting the way he did was to find yet another way to bash what he and ND30 call “leftists”, who at least in 30’s case, means anyone who has the audacity to disagree with him.
posted by Lori Heine on
So now this little “Dale” creep is asking for my ISP numbers.
Dude, you are a COWARD. So you intend to “deal with” me?
This has become standard practice for people of this ilk. Always, of course, over cyberspace.
You are a something worse than merely a bigot. You are an anti-religious terrorist. And I’ll be worried about being “dealt with” by the likes of you when hell freezes over.
I get the slightest inconvenience from you and I will nail your ass.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
PCT, thank you for making so obvious why your “bridge-building” is such a tragic farce.
When dalea demands information specifically for the purpose of harassing gays of faith and of different opinions, you say nothing.
When it is pointed out by you that dalea’s actions are counterproductive, you bad-mouth, not dalea, but the person who pointed dalea’s hateful behavior out to you.
That sends a powerful message to those with whom you are allegedly trying to “build bridges”: namely, gays can be as hateful and disrespectful to you as they want, and no one will correct them.
posted by Brian Miller on
That sends a powerful message to those with whom you are allegedly trying to “build bridges”: namely, gays can be as hateful and disrespectful to you as they want, and no one will correct them.
And I’m sure you’re including yourself in that group of “gays” you so despise, right ND?
You’re like a scratched record that’s about to be worn through completely by the needle. Egads.
As for “bridge building,” it’s a farce. Reaching out to religious people is all well and dandy, but if religious mythology is a security blanket to justify hatred — as it was for white Southern Baptists in the 1960s and many black Baptists today — then it doesn’t matter how much “reaching out” is done.
They’ll continue to insist that Jesus commanded them to hate you, and that your dismissal of their “deeply held belief” in the righteousness of their hatred is “anti-religious bigotry.” Then, amusingly enough, they’ll make themselves into victims and wheedle ceaselessly about what nice, caring people they are and how horrible it is that the wicked nasty secularists are so judgmental. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I’m sure you’re including yourself in that group of “gays” you so despise, right ND?
Only if I ever a) become an antireligious bigot and b) blame that on my being gay.
Personally, I never believed for a minute that being gay meant anything other than preferring sex with your same gender. But I also understand how you’ve made it the excuse for every antisocial behavior that you have, including your antireligious hate and bigotry.
Meanwhile, thank you for making it clear that you consider outreach to religious groups a “farce”, that you were lying when you say you respect gays who do so, and that you are confirmed in your beliefs that gays who are religious and those who do outreach to religious groups have not “evolved” and are thus idiots.
Not that I think Soulforce minds much; those are people with self-esteem problems strong enough that they can hear antireligious gays like you call them primitive and stupid, and then make fools of themselves over and over again by lying and saying that gays respect religion.
But those of us who don’t think being gay is an excuse for antireligious bigotry have had quite enough. If you want to be an antireligious bigot, do it on your own time; however, I have the feeling that what you’ve figured out is that yours and dalea’s support of antireligious hate and violence garners naught in terms of support unless you link it to your homosexuality.
posted by dalea on
Hit a nerve did I? Little suburban fundy housewife pretending to be a fierce lesbian doesn’t like this? Boo hoo.
Mary Cheney has stood up in public and proclamined that she is gay a number of times. Anyone who brings up this dumbshit topic is not a gay person who follows gay politics. Or Lesbian discourse.
You gave yourself away troll critter. No out person would make such a comment. Now we just need to know how to track you down.
When you did not respond to my obvious Lutheran clues, I became very suspicious. And this takes away all doubt. You don’t understand Lutheran references. Nor do you comprehend clear gay ones. What more proof do we need?
posted by Amicus on
I don’t do these back-and-for things much, any longer, but I just want to share to observations, for what they are worth (you know, 2-cents):
Mary Cheney has publicly stated that she is a carpet muncher.
We preach that our sexuality and personhood cannot and ought not be reduced to sex acts by those viscerally opposed to us. It’s just as caustic, arguably, to do it among ourselves. I don’t feel “p.c.” or “prudish” for saying so. I don’t want to go too far with this, because I myself used to like to say, “Heya, pervert!”, with a big hug and a kiss, on occasion, just as a way unhinge a de-affirmation, but still…
ND30, I’m not sure I’m going to convince you, but consider that the ‘gay movement’ isn’t a ‘political movement’ in the strict sense of the term. For instance, the International Socialists can expel or withhold membership from someone, if they don’t believe the principles of the party. You cannot expel someone from being gay. Therefore, the whole movement have to more forward as one big behemoth – the good, the bad, and the ugly.
posted by ETJB on
“But you never hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people.”
Um, Have you not heard of the organization called SoulForce?
Besides, I thought gay conservatives opposed hate crime laws to begin with.
posted by Fitz on
“I’ve often heard that homophobia in the African American community is a sign that GLBT groups need to do more “outreach” and be more “inclusive” toward racial minorities, and that we need to start by confessing our own racism. But you never hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people. So why are African American homophobes simply misguided while white homophobes are routinely characterized as “evil”?
The reverse of coarse is also the case.
Why are gay marriage proponents so eager to classify resistance to same-sex ?marriage? among religious minded white America as ?homophobic? & ?evil? and yet give African Americans a pass.
The same can be said among their fellow secular democrats, most of whom also don?t support same-sex ?marriage?; why aren?t they evil homophobes in their midst?s. (note the pervasive lack of support among prominent democrats)
Well, the first is easy to answer. The gay movement relies on the (fatally flawed) analogy of race & racism to garner moral legitimacy. No matter how many civil rights leaders dismiss this analogy: the (miss)characterization of sexual orientation as the same as race (both its innate qualities & historical character) is relentlessly conflated by gay friendly academics, press, and laymen alike.
As to the second question, admission on the part of same-sex ?marriage? proponents that large segments of their own base are equally hesitant to equate resistance to same-sex ?marriage? as mere ?bigotry? forces them to except legitimate disagreement. The admission of such disagreement: #1. Eliminates their ?no rational basis? judicial mechanism #2. Saps their rhetorical power vis-
posted by Lori Heine on
“Now we just need to know how to track you down.”
“Suburban fundy housewife?” You are really a sick, deluded little bastard.
I am not going to answer you anymore except with this: track me down, you bigoted little psychotic pig. I, and whichever police authorities I find necessary, will be waiting.
You really are a jaundiced piece of work. Who is going to bother posing as something they’re not simply to post gay-friendly Christian messages on a GLBT website? If I were a “fundy” of some sort, my messages would be short, to the point, and something like this:
REPENT! The End is Near (or whatever).
As to “Lutheran references,” I have been a tad busy with real life to pick up on whatever you’re talking about. There’s been a death in the family this weekend, so I don’t have time right now to play little games with you.
You obviously lack a single decent bone in your entire body. Don’t blame it on how persecuted you’ve been. People either are decent or they aren’t. My entire family was messed up for many years because of the influence of right-wing bigots, so I’m hardly under any delusions about them. You, however, are the gay version of a McCarthyite: you see a homophobe under every rock.
Go away, annoying little man, and bother somebody else.
posted by Amicus on
Why are gay marriage proponents so eager to classify resistance to same-sex ?marriage? among religious minded white America as ?homophobic? & ?evil? and yet give African Americans a pass.
Fitz, the answer is much more simple.
When someone notes that the scaldingly inhumane views of some in “religiously minded America” amount to bigotry against gays, it’s fairly plain that they mean you are ignorant (if not just misled).
Now, it is not so easy to call black people ‘ignorant’ in this country, in a way that doesn’t also bring up the question of racial overtones, because there are, of course, people who have been calling blacks ‘ignorant’, historically, for decades, if not centuries, and some even go further, raising it to the point of principle, thereby complicating whatever simple goodwill might be generated among the races.
By the way, what do you think is the proper relationship recognition for gays and lesbians, if not marriage?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I’m not sure I’m going to convince you, but consider that the ‘gay movement’ isn’t a ‘political movement’ in the strict sense of the term. For instance, the International Socialists can expel or withhold membership from someone, if they don’t believe the principles of the party. You cannot expel someone from being gay. Therefore, the whole movement have to more forward as one big behemoth – the good, the bad, and the ugly.
You’re right, you’re not.
Mainly because we have an example in this very thread — dalea’s posts — of someone being “expelled” as not really being gay because, and I quote, “no out person would make such a comment”. Or, if you need additional corroboration, it’s easy to find. Generally, “you’re not really gay” is the second thing a gay conservative or religious person hears when they express their opinions (the first being “self-loathing Jewish Nazi” or its equivalent).
In short, Amicus, there seems to be a very effective and instantly-invoked means of “expelling” people when it comes to expressing political or religious viewpoints that differ from “gay standard”; however, whenever gays advocate and carry out violence, vandalism, and hate speech, the ability to “expel” disappears in a sea of rationalization.
In short, the gay community is more than capable of “expelling” its violent and hateful elements. It simply lacks the will or inclination to do so.
posted by Brian Miller on
I also understand how you’ve made it the excuse for every antisocial behavior that you have
I’m sorry, ND30, I know I ask this an awful lot but — do I know you? Do you know me?
If not, as I suspect, what are you doing making such moronic assertions? You lack even the most basic knowledge required to make them.
posted by Brian Miller on
In short, Amicus, there seems to be a very effective and instantly-invoked means of “expelling” people when it comes to expressing political or religious viewpoints that differ from “gay standard”
Yes, and it comes from the Republican Revenant Right as well as the Doofus Democratic Left.
ND30, for instance, will expel anyone who doesn’t agree with him 100% on the issues as a “leftist” and will immediately cease debating the actual issues to instead descend to a flurry of infantile namecalling from behind the mommy’s skirt of anonymity.
It’s not at all conducive to real analysis, but then again, we’re talking about apologists for the Ann Coulters and Michael Moores of the world! 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If not, as I suspect, what are you doing making such moronic assertions? You lack even the most basic knowledge required to make them.
Ah yes, the double standard strikes again:
I do find it interesting how conservative Republican gay men so often advocate monogamy, marriage, etc. but get caught out having secret lives of wild, unprotected sex. It makes me wonder if this is one of the details that the pseudonymnous don’t want folks to know about — it’s so common in the right-wing community for absolute sex addicts to go on benders denouncing “slutty women” and “promiscuous gays.”
and:
Thus, unlike you, I don’t make accusations or declarations without proof. That doesn’t, however, prevent me from advancing my theories as I see them.
In short, you are allowed to claim I am a sex addict who repeatedly has wild unprotected sex without any proof whatsoever, but you scream bloody murder when I quote back your own posts to demonstrate that you do indeed use being gay as your excuse for your antisocial behaviors.
And as for your attempts to prove you are interested in “real analysis”, you, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, apparently believe that “real analysis” constitutes your stating a claim and then proceeding to ignore and belittle anyone who disagrees and provides information to the contrary — as was well-exemplified here.
Furthermore, your attempts to smear me here are nothing more than a diversion, an attempt to draw attention away from the behavior of your fellow leftist dalea, whose views you wholeheartedly endorse and support.
posted by Casey on
Just a quick note to Lori – the rest of the conversation doesn’t bear weighing in on, sadly – I’m sorry to hear about your loss, and will include you in my prayers tonight. Shake off the nonsense, and focus on what matters, knowing that you are loved.
posted by Craig2 on
I second Casey’s sentiments, Lori. I have a mother who has a heart condition, and both my parents in their seventies, so I can relate about what you must be going through now.
My condolences to you and your family.
posted by Brian Miller on
you are allowed to claim I am a sex addict
Where did I state that you were a sex addict? Nowhere.
I was actually thinking of Ted Haggart and a number of other prominent social conservatives who fit that description.
It’s not all about you, ND. Stop emoting and start thinking.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Where indeed, Mr. Miller.
I do find it interesting how conservative Republican gay men so often advocate monogamy, marriage, etc. but get caught out having secret lives of wild, unprotected sex. It makes me wonder if this is one of the details that the pseudonymnous don’t want folks to know about — it’s so common in the right-wing community for absolute sex addicts to go on benders denouncing “slutty women” and “promiscuous gays.”
And, given your rant against my using a pseudonym immediately preceding, it is more than obvious to whom you were referring.
As I pointed out previously, this sort of oblique accusation — and now, attempting to backpedal when you’re called on it — is nothing more than cowardice on your part.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Forget it, Jake, it’s Mississippi.
posted by crankyd on
In reference to Lori Heine’s opening statement on this thread about the Democrats:
“their attempt to use bigotry to their advantage in 2004. The whole “Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian…boo!” line of attack was a new low for them.”
Most of the people that i know understood that entire subject was brought up not to “out” Mary Cheney; but to point out the HYPOCRISY of some Republicans (i.e. Dick Cheney) that would be members of a party so ready to enact horrible discriminatory policies (via The Constritution, no less) against people they love…and that love them.
My understanding is that the Cheneys are a rather close family and that their daughter’s relationship is held in high regard by them and by others (in the party) that know them.
Seems like supporting a party that would do something so ugly (for the sake of politcal expediency) and not openly condemn it, is (in no uncertain terms) a shitty way to treat your daughter and the countless other families just like themselves.
So, basically…
spare me the “notions I might have ever had about the Democrats holding on to some principles — or even scruples.” schtick.
Both parties are gravely challenged in that respect.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Seems like supporting a party that would do something so ugly (for the sake of politcal expediency) and not openly condemn it, is (in no uncertain terms) a shitty way to treat your daughter and the countless other families just like themselves.
I can think of far worse.
Like pretending to like gay people, taking millions of dollars from them, making all sorts of flowery promises, and then casually going off and supporting “horrible, discriminatory” policies against gays.
And what I find most amusing is how so many gays make excuses about how Kerry was supposedly pointing out the “hypocrisy” of others — while ignoring the fact that his OWN actions were even more hypocritical, given that he was actively soliciting donations from gays with one hand while stabbing them in the back with the other.
Of course, given that gay leaders like Hilary Rosen of HRC and gay staffers like Andrew Tobias of the DNC even insist that FMA-supporting Democrats are pro-gay, this really surprises me not.
posted by Brian Miller on
Both parties are gravely challenged in that respect.
Hammer. Nail. Head.
I’d only add that Kerry’s comment on Cheney’s daughter was calculated for a “1-2” effect — both to attack Cheney for his hypocrisy, while also clueing in social conservatives to Mary’s lesbianism.
Of course, Kerry himself had no legitimate stake in making the comment, since he’s a public homophobe on the fundamental question of gay marriage that he was attacking Cheney on in the first place.
So it all comes back to your initial point! 🙂
posted by ETJB on
Well, until a third political party become a meaningful choice, what they may or may not say about anything means almost nothing.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Most of the people that i know understood that entire subject was brought up not to “out” Mary Cheney; but to point out the HYPOCRISY of some Republicans (i.e. Dick Cheney) that would be members of a party so ready to enact horrible discriminatory policies (via The Constritution, no less) against people they love…and that love them.
Dick Cheney was the only major-party presidential or vice-presidential candidate in 2004 who publicly opposed the FMA. He stated that opposition during the vice-presidential debate, and even criticized Bush (albeit mildly) for supporting it. From a sitting vice-president, this behavior is highly unusual.
Kerry and Edwards, on the other hand, skipped town when the FMA came up for a vote. When it came to anti-gay amendments among the states — including a proposed anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts — they never met one they didn’t support. They made the Cheneys look like profiles in courage.
posted by Brian Miller on
Dick Cheney was the only major-party presidential or vice-presidential candidate in 2004 who publicly opposed the FMA.
Before he then reversed course (again) and later endorsed it.
even criticized Bush (albeit mildly) for supporting it
Huh?!?
Kerry and Edwards, on the other hand, skipped town when the FMA came up for a vote. When it came to anti-gay amendments among the states — including a proposed anti-marriage amendment in Massachusetts — they never met one they didn’t support.
You’re absolutely right here. Democrats aren’t any “better” from a substantive view on gay issues than Republicans — particularly marriage equality. “Pro gay” Democrats like Wellstone and even Frank were reliable sources of anti-marriage-equality quotes that they couched in language of “strategy” and “deeply held belief.”
Kerry isn’t in a position to criticize anyone else on gay issues as a homophobe himself. Ditto for all the Dem party front-runners. Partisan Democrats attempting to spoon feed us their candidates are like Southern blacks campaigning for George Wallace in that regard. African Americans got a lot more respect when they stood up to bigots — even ones that were “nuanced” and “more liberal” than social conservatives. It’s time that gay folk did the same.
posted by ETJB on
“Dick Cheney was the only major-party presidential or vice-presidential candidate in 2004 who publicly opposed the FMA.”
Well, he was not running for President, so that argument is just plain silly. He was running for vice-president and said that while he personally disagreed with it, he would support the president. Thus he was basically saying that what he thought did not matter.
Kerry/Edwards opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Yes, they helped kill the bill in a way that was less then dramatic or supportive of equal rights. That is simple the political reality we live in.
posted by Brian Miller on
Kerry/Edwards opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment
No they didn’t. They didn’t even show up to the vote.
A couple of mealy-mouthed statements against the bill are worthless when they don’t bother to show to vote “no.”
That is simple the political reality we live in.
More like the political reality that you’re willing to accept.
posted by ETJB on
Brain
Yes, Kerry/Edwards did oppose the FMA. President Bush supported it. Get over it. If you want a candidate with a “perfect” record on LGBT rights (and is electable) you will be waiting a while.
I have done plently of work on LGBT human rights issues AND on campaign law reforms. If you want more then two meaningful choices, then you need to get off your rear end and work with election law reform interest groups.
Until that happens, it really does not matter what an independent or third party says about LGBT rights. Until that happens we are stuck with creating changing within the two party system.
Frankly, I am rather amuzed about the low level of interest in campaign law reform among the LGBT community. One would thing that their would be more interest then I have seen here.