Once, the American Civil Liberties Union was so committed to free speech that it defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. No more. As civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer argues in this op-ed, the ACLU has sharply backed away from the defense of speech that liberals don't like. Excerpt:
One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU's virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student's right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality.... The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts."
The ACLU has a right to be a liberal-speech defense group, but it shouldn't claim to be (and raise money on the pretense of being) broad-based opponents of state censorship.
Of course, the broader issue in the above case here is government schools; at a nongovernment school, there's little doubt that administrators could follow parental wishes on limiting minors/students from wearing political messages in the classroom.
More. Remember when we were told that hate crimes laws apply to actions, not speech? Tell it to the Chicago teen in jail for distributing anti-gay fliers. And no, this kind of judicial over-reaction is not "good for gays," even those who misguidedly think the state should have total power to eliminate "hateful messages."
Eugene Volokh explains why this prosecution "strikes me as a very serious First Amendment problem."
103 Comments for “Bravely Defending Some Speech”
posted by Xeno on
Would have they defended the neo-nazis if they were demonstrating in school? I don’t think so, this is another beast of its own.
BTW, they also defended Rush Lambaugh.
posted by Carl on
“Tell it to the Chicago teen in jail for distributing anti-gay fliers. ”
Um, doesn’t that article say she’s been kept in jail because of many other incidents she’s been involved with, and the judge is afraid to let her stay with her parents because of all those incidents combined? Not just the fliers?
posted by Jorge on
So sad. I used to love the ACLU.
posted by Avee on
No, Carl, read the article. It’s true that the jailed girl has had other run-ins with police, including an arrest for marijuana possession in August. But it’s the "hate crime" of distributing anti-gay fliers that’s landed her in jail.
posted by Brian Miller on
Yes, it’s the flyer that landed her in prison and which also underscores the traditional argument against hate crime law — which is that at their core, they’re a prohibition of certain kinds of speech and thought.
posted by Randy on
I’m not crazy about arresting the girl for the fliers. The answer to bad speech is more speech.
But I wonder about this person — she is actually advocating that students should actively hate two other students merely because they are gay. If either of the studetns gets beat up because of this, I would sue her.
But the bigger issue is what sort of twisted person would do such a thing?
posted by Michael M. on
What on earth is your justification for saying “No more”? Because the ACLU doesn’t get involved in one particular case?
See, for example, here:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_20-2007_05_26.shtml#1179873861
for the ACLU’s role in the successful prosecution of a high-school administration that retracted copies of a student newspaper that published an anti-immigration article.
No one organization can possibly take on all cases it might like to. If you think the ACLU should be doing more, perhaps you should try to increase your annual donation. Since the organization of the ACLU is largely decentralized, you can make your voice heard.
But no, as usual you prefer to join the WSJ in a typically baseless anti-liberal screed without any merit. It’s very hard to take you seriously when you are so often engaging in knee-jerk commentary. Surely there are some conservative commentators somewhere who actually investigate evidence before spewing dreck?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d prefer the ACLU start prosecuting their own staffers and group presidents who seem to be showing regularly why the organization was so willing to help NAMBLA.
posted by Casey on
Generally I’m on board that there’s something off about arresting anybody for flyers, whatever their content – but this particular flyer, depicting actual students at the school, could easily be interpreted as threatening… and a threat is not protected speech if it puts a person in reasonable belief that they are about to be assaulted. I think this one might depend on facts we don’t know yet.
posted by ETJB on
Agreed. If the flyers were making violent threats against a person then that is not protected speech.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30: One person in an organization is convicted of something, so the whole organization is guilty of it?
I think we should look at ACLU’s entire docket of cases they are working on, and compare it to previous dockets, to see if there are any patterns, rather than jump to conclusions based mostly on speculation or biased assumptions.
posted by BobN on
“As civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer argues in this op-ed, the ACLU has sharply backed away from the defense of speech that liberals don’t like.”
Well, what a sloppy thinker Wendy must be! Reading motive into an organization’s lack of action is a really pathetic way to make your own point. Perhaps the ACLU saw no need to intervene in Harper because the defendants were already so well represented by the very well bank-rolled Alliance Defense Fund.
For her next assignment, maybe Wendy should look into the number of times the ADF has taken a pro-gay stance in the cases IT chooses to take on.
posted by Zeke on
Does no one else think this whole “hate crime” arrest sounds fishy?
Someone needs to check out the background of this judge. It sounds to me like he’s trying to get headlines to fire up the “hate crimes are just thought crimes” crowd. Of course those who consider the ACLU to be the number one threat in America and those who so want to believe the conservative talking points on every gay related issue, are all too willing to swallow this hook, line and sinker without narry a moment of skepticism. That would include Mr. Miller.
This sounds a lot like the FEMALE, SUBSTITUTE teacher who showed Brokeback Mountain to school kids after telling them, ?what?s shown here stays here?. That is fishy as HELL! It?s time to do some research into who these people are.
I think the homophobes, in response to recent lost battles in THEIR culture war, have changed tactics and these are two examples of one of those new stealth tactics; infiltrate outrage and publicize. I mean think about it. Think about how effective it could be. Then think about these two incidences and tell me that they don?t sound fishy.
Does anyone know anything about the background of this judge?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Richard, I referenced a bit more than that in my post.
One was the conviction of Cunningham, the aide to the president of the ACLU — a fact which, as Faultline beautifully pointed out, would have led to a national apopolectic screaming fit and such had it been anyone who had ever been accused of even thinking about a conservative or religious point — but which was completely ignored by the mainstream press.
Second was Charles Rust-Tierney, who resigned from his position after twelve years as president of the board of directors of the Virginia ACLU, in which he set policy and determined which lawsuits the organization would bring, the day he was indicted on charges of receipt and possession of child pornography. This material included scenes of twelve-year-olds being sexually tortured and — interestingly enough — was stored on the computer in his ten-year-old son’s bedroom.
Add to that the fact that the ACLU repeatedly defended NAMBLA for not only providing child pornography, but also claimed it was a “free speech” right for them to post detailed instructions on how to lure, molest, and sexually torture children, then cover up the fact later, and I think we see a pattern emerging.
Not that the ACLU hasn’t played the game well; they know that the only thing you need to get unquestioning gay support is to throw gays a scrap or two. But the simple fact of the matter is that their obsession with sexual perversion and willingness to protect and promote child molestation and molestors is not only irrelevant to gays, but harmful.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Once again ND30 shows up spreading more misinformation with nothing more than a link to his own blog for justification. Get this through your thick head dumb-ass, ONE person does not represent the beliefs an entire organization. Idiot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, if you were actually to follow that link, CP, you would see that I linked several other sources there. It’s simpler to put one link to where the corroborating sources are collected than it is to reproduce them all here.
Meanwhile, I’ll save you some effort; you also think I should blow my brains out, etc.,etc. Thank you.
Now, moving forward…..
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, I doubt that you honestly believe that ACLU favors child molestation, however wrong they may be to defend NAMBLA on free speech grounds. Criticism is a lot more credible if you stick to arguing how wrongheaded people are instead of going to the nth degree and treating them as depraved etc. In any case, making generalizations about policy based upon a few personalities is fallacious–good enough for cheap dismissal, but not for serious persuasion.
posted by BobN on
The ACLU does not defend NAMBLA on free speech grounds, it defends NAMBLA’s free speech rights.
Defending a principle is a sometimes odious task.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (and note that I am not generalizing, I am only talking about them) has done more than throw gays a few scraps. They have for a long time been the most reliable non-gay allies of local gay activists in Washington, DC. Some sense of this can be gleaned from my citation for ACLU/NCA legal director Art Spitzer from 2006, at: http://www.glaa.org/archive/2006/rosendallspitzer0420.shtml
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BobN, that is the same thing, unless you bizarrely assume that “defend them on free speech grounds” somehow means defend their non-speech actions on free speech grounds. It is speech that one defends on free speech grounds.
posted by BobN on
I don’t “bizarrely assume” that it means that, but an awful lot of folks do. Just Google “ACLU and NAMBLA” — you can find plenty of them.
“It is speech that one defends on free speech grounds.” I agree. So why is the ACLU wrong to do so?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I doubt that you honestly believe that ACLU favors child molestation, however wrong they may be to defend NAMBLA on free speech grounds.
That sentence contradicts itself, Richard. If they don’t favor child molestation, why are they taking actions to facilitate it and protect it?
You’re right, I would like to believe that they don’t, if for no other reason than I don’t want to think they’re that vile. But the simple fact of the matter is that two of their highest leaders, both of whom have extraordinary influence on choosing the cases the ACLU will take, have been caught in possession of porn featuring sexual torture of children and trying to set up molestation opportunities — just as outlined in the NAMBLA materials which they are defending on the grounds of “free speech”.
And frankly, gay rights do not need the legal assistance of child molestors and those who support videos of child sexual torture and explicit manuals on how to carry it out as “free speech”. The fact that we not only keep them around, but praise them, shows just how stupidly desperate the gay community is for “allies”, no matter how dubious.
posted by Timothy on
Though it hardly needs to be said, I find NAMBLA to be a vile organization. However, I think the ACLU was justified in defending them on the case in which they did so.
For those who never got further than the headline on WorldNetDaily, let me remind you of the issues of the case.
In 1997 a 10 year old boy was molested and killed. The sub-humans who killed him were convicted but the family of the boy decided to sue NAMBLA. One of the murderers viewed the NAMBLA website not long before they committed their crime. All agree that the intent was not to compensate the family or because anyone really believed that NAMLA incided the rape and murder but it was simply an effort to destroy the organization.
NAMBLA was having difficulty finding any lawyer to defend them and the ACLU stepped in. It should be noted that although NAMBLA does publically advocate for a lowering of the age of consent, they do not – publically, anyway – in any way support rape or murder.
The ACLU took the position that even vile heinous organizations deserve First Amendment rights. Some here may think that those rights should be reserved for those who are good or wholesome or with whom they agree. I do not.
So while I think that NAMBLA should dry up and blow away, I would not trample on the constitution to have that happen. A great many conservative websites ran diatribes against the ACLU and equated the organization with child molesters. I wonder what they would have felt if someone read their rants and then went out and murdered an ACLU member. Would they want to be held liable?
As the ACLU put stated:
In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
I’m saddened that some find their priciples to be conditional.
posted by Timothy on
I wonder if the ACLU was approached by the family of Chase Harper. I suspect not. In fact, I believe they would have refused any assistance.
Does anyone know if the Harpers have sought assistance or even enquired with the ACLU for either Chase or his sister (they transfered the case to her when he graduated)?
posted by Timothy on
I too am a bit bothered by the anti-gay flyer girls. Something seems unsettled about what we’ve heard so far. I get the sense that we only know half the story… though I don’t like the half we know.
If they go with the hate-crimes designation, I hope there is far more to the flyers that we have heard. Otherwise this is overkill and troublingly so.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For those who never got further than the headline on WorldNetDaily, let me remind you of the issues of the case.
You might want to read the first link I provided.
Having done that, let us consider this:
A great many conservative websites ran diatribes against the ACLU and equated the organization with child molesters. I wonder what they would have felt if someone read their rants and then went out and murdered an ACLU member. Would they want to be held liable?
Probably not, and they shouldn’t be — for mere rants.
But, were they to publish specific outlines, directions, guidelines, and tips on how to prepare, lay in wait, assassinate ACLU members, and then kite credit cards to provide cash for the getaway, that would and should be sufficient grounds to hold them liable — and far outside the protection of “freedom of speech”.
Of course, now that we know that the president of one of the ACLU’s largest affiliates and the chief assistant of its president were getting their kicks off child sexual torture porn and fantasies on the side, it should hardly surprise us that the organization is coming up with convoluted reasons for why groups that publish online and detailed how-to manuals and encouragement for coercing, molesting, sexually torturing, and covering up the fact that you did it with children are shielded by the First Amendment from liability.
But I suppose it is an example of how the ACLU “supports gays”, inasmuch as NAMBLA claims to be part of the gay-rights movement and gays are praising the ACLU for representing NAMBLA.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty | May 25, 2007, 8:31pm: “You might want to read the first link I provided.”
The article you indicated mostly regurgitates the arguments of the plaintiff’s attorney, which, to my knowledge, have not yet prevailed in court. It is therefore difficult to determine whether your characterization of the case is accurate or not. Probably not.
Incidentally, I found Mr. Murdock’s report on the other case – the City of San Diego’s attempt to expel the Boy Scouts of America from Balboa Park – very entertaining : “The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization…”, “Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization…”. It almosts sounds like a conspiracy by the godless ACLU and some activist judge. Mr. Murdoch conveniently omits the fact that the BSA itself unambiguously claimed to be a religious organization in other litigations when it suited its purpose to do so.
posted by Brian Miller on
If the flyers were making violent threats against a person then that is not protected speech
If the flyers were making threats, there was a criminal option (terroristic threats) and a civil option (intentional infliction of emotional distress) available to the prosecution and the aggrieved party, respectively.
The prosecution, to my knowledge, has not filed any terroristic threats charges, which suggest that the “threats” weren’t really there. In fact, the lone hate-crime criminal charge suggests that there wasn’t much of any other criminal penalty that they could toss at her — and that if she’d written similar “threats” calling them fat (or Democrats), she’d not be facing criminal charges.
Mr. Murdoch conveniently omits the fact that the BSA itself unambiguously claimed to be a religious organization in other litigations when it suited its purpose to do so.
The BSA is indeed a religious organization that has an absolute right to exclude whoever it wishes from its organization. Of course, *any* government funding, subsidy, or other assistance to the BSA is an unconstitutional promotion of religion, and should be immediately stopped.
Therein lies the problem — the left want the BSA to be forced to open up their membership to anyone who wants to join, while the right want to “protect” the BSA’s private affiliation status but publicly fund the organization like it was an arm of government. Neither side seems too interested in the contents of the Bill of Rights (but sadly, that’s the political reality of contemporary Republicratic power politics).
posted by Brian Miller on
If they don’t favor child molestation, why are they taking actions to facilitate it and protect it
What a profoundly sleazy, dishonest and slimy abbheration of an “argument.” Its sheer unethical nature speaks for itself, without any further comment from me!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What a profoundly sleazy, dishonest and slimy abbheration of an “argument.” Its sheer unethical nature speaks for itself, without any further comment from me!
Unfortunately, though, Mr. Miller, the facts clearly show that, not only does the ACLU facilitate and protect child molestation, at least two of their own leaders practice it personally.
Furthermore, since you and your fellow leftists were so willing to declare that the Republican Party was “facilitating and protecting” child molestation because of the Mark Foley matter, if you were consistent, certainly you would have no problem declaring the same of the ACLU, especially with far more evidence of them actually doing so.
Meanwhile, relative to the BSA, I will simply say this; was it better served when the BSA ran Balboa Park, paying for its upkeep and maintenance themselves and allowing numerous other groups, including Gay Pride, to use it…..or when the entire cost was thrown back onto the government of San Diego?
posted by Herb Spencer on
Forgotten in all this is the fact that over a decade ago there was one gay group – and one gay group ONLY – that had the courage to denounce NAMBLA for the bunch of pederasts that it is. And the name of that group?
Log Cabin Republicans.
posted by Brian Miller on
not only does the ACLU facilitate and protect child molestation, at least two of their own leaders practice it personally
Unless you have significant evidence of such a serious charge, I suggest you retract it. Libel of this order, even against a public figure, can result in a serious civil judgment against you (and Indegayforum) regardless of your “anonymity.”
This is one reason why I have trouble taking you seriously. You make outrageous claims such as these utterly vicious and baseless slurs, and then claim that your anonymity is to “protect you from personal attack” — when the reality is that your anonymity is to allow you to dodge accountability for your words and deeds.
That’s not “caution” — it’s quite another “c-word”. . . cowardice. And that’s nothing to celebrate, believe you me. Republican cowardice like yours has already badly damaged our country’s political dialogue, institutions, and credibility worldwide.
posted by Brian Miller on
was it better served when the BSA ran Balboa Park, paying for its upkeep and maintenance themselves and allowing numerous other groups, including Gay Pride, to use it…..or when the entire cost was thrown back onto the government of San Diego?
I don’t support government parks. I also don’t support religious groups operating government property “for the benefit of all.”
if the BSA wanted to cough up the cash to buy the park and operate it as they saw fit, no problem. But they didn’t do so.
posted by Brian Miller on
over a decade ago there was one gay group – and one gay group ONLY – that had the courage to denounce NAMBLA
Utter silliness. Numerous gay groups have denounced said organization, which has virtually no membership and serves mostly as a useful shibboleth for Republicans to smear their opponents with.
Whether it’s anti-gay Republicans smearing all gays as NAMBLA-card-carrying child molesters, or cowardly anonymous trolls like ND-30 libelling leaders of groups he doesn’t like with the same appellation, it’s all the same. The insinuation is that people who don’t waste their every breath denouncing a group that effectively doesn’t exist — and merely ignore it, or exclude it — are “supporters.”
Meanwhile, Log Cabin Republicans were instrumental in the election of George W. Bush, who is competing heavily with Bill Clinton for the title of “president most damaging to LGBT liberties in the United States.”
It’s not a gay lobby group, it’s a gang of useful idiots shilling 1980s anti-gay talking points — down to NAMBLA smears — for the benefit of a bunch of politicians who would gladly see LCRs membership in prison or forceable “reparative therapy.”
posted by Randi on
As no one on this forum has seen the actual content of the anti-gay fliers the teen girl distributed, its pointless speculation to say that the hate crimes charges are unjustified. One can only assume in the absense of such information that people experienced with the law likely had some reason to make the charge in the first place.
As to the anti-gay T-shirts, if someone had worn a T-shirt to school saying “Being black is shameful” and “God has condemned blacks” or “Jews will burn in hell” there’d be precious few people standing up for that person’s right to wear such a t-shirt.
The anti-gay t-shirts are wrong because condemning people creates a hostile environment whereas the gay-positive t-shirts do not.
I’ve been away for awhile, its amusing to see that Northdallass is still up to his usual lies and distortions while cowardly hiding behind anonymity. Particularly amusing that he’s still whining about being told to shoot himself when hyporcritically says that gays shouldn’t be upset about Christian’s use of a bible that demands they be put to death.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That previous post was mine.
posted by Craig on
Glad to have you back Randi.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Thanks Craig.
posted by Timothy on
Forgotten in all this is the fact that over a decade ago there was one gay group – and one gay group ONLY – that had the courage to denounce NAMBLA for the bunch of pederasts that it is. And the name of that group?
Log Cabin Republicans.
Well, while LCR has opposed NAMBLA from their inception, they were not alone.
From personal example, well over a decade ago I was part of a committee that was responsible for the logistics of a gay pride parade. At that time we formally determined that NAMBLA would not be allowed to participate – I don’t recall if they applied or not. They’ve been banned since.
It’s not a gay lobby group, it’s a gang of useful idiots shilling 1980s anti-gay talking points — down to NAMBLA smears — for the benefit of a bunch of politicians who would gladly see LCRs membership in prison or forceable “reparative therapy.”
Brian, you reprimand NDT when he makes outlandish and blatantly false statements. And rightly so.
But I wish you would abide by your own criterion.
LCR does not shill 1980’s anti-gay talking points. And I can’t think of any excuse for saying that – even the most ardent Democrats know better than that.
LCR does not support any candidates that favor incarceration of gays or forced reorientation. That is utter nonsense and just hateful words to try and villify others.
I can see legitimate criticism of LCR’s genuine faults. Or arguing that they are ineffective. Or that supporting any Republican any time hurts the cause. I may not agree with any of that, but at least it has a basis from which to argue.
But I really don’t see the purpose of saying billious and vile things that have no basis whatsoever in fact. What do you hope to accomplish by making bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about LCR?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unless you have significant evidence of such a serious charge, I suggest you retract it. Libel of this order, even against a public figure, can result in a serious civil judgment against you (and Indegayforum) regardless of your “anonymity.”
This is one reason why I have trouble taking you seriously. You make outrageous claims such as these utterly vicious and baseless slurs, and then claim that your anonymity is to “protect you from personal attack” — when the reality is that your anonymity is to allow you to dodge accountability for your words and deeds.
Oh, I have evidence — quite a bit of evidence.
Which you would have known if you had read my original post, or the following post in which I went into extensive detail on the topic.
And that rather nicely exposes that yours and Randi’s shrieking about “baseless slurs” and “dodging accountability” is based, not on your actually reading the evidence I have provided on numerous occasions, but on your ideological hatred of me blinding you to its existence.
Granted, this is nothing unusual; after all, Timothy has already caught you in an unsupported assertion once, not to mention the times I have. Therefore, your vitriol is hardly unexpected, as is your making statements that ultimately turn out to be false. For some reason, both you and Randi think that, because you use your “real names”, that exempts you from having to provide facts for your accusations and assertions.
posted by dalea on
In both 1976 and 1975, the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Greater Metropolitan Chicago condemned the NAMBLA. In each case it was by unanimous vote by over 80 member organizations.
In the 80’s and 90’s, ACTUP condemned NAMBLA.
ACTUP additionally began a search for gay people who were members. They canvassed their wide membership, who in turn canvassed their friends and acquaintances. Not one gay person knew anyone connected to NAMBLA. Those listed as leaders were unknown to anyone in the gay circles ACTUP frequented. Which were very extensive. They concluded that it is an FBI front group designed to Which reminds me of certain…better not say.
The kid with the flyer was in violation of a mutual respect policy that all students at that HS must adhere to. Plus was on probation for previous actions of a like nature. Remember, this is someone under 18.
Good to have you back, Randi.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Oh, I have evidence — quite a bit of evidence. Which you would have known if you had read my original post, or the following post in which I went into extensive detail on the topic.”.
Northdallass, if you weren’t such a chronic liar and didn’t post such frequently irrelevant meandering tomes which contain no evidence whatsoever people wouldn’t ignore them as frequently as they do. Of course you have no morals so you’ll just have to live with people ignoring a lot of what you post.
Northdallass said “For some reason, both you and Randi think that, because you use your “real names”, that exempts you from having to provide facts for your accusations and assertions.”.
LOL, Northdallass, if I was going to make up a name I sure wouldn’t come up with one like Schimnosky. While you’re ranting about providing facts for accusations and assertions, where’s your facts supporting your assertions that I have multiple sex partners, demand to have public sex, and assault christians in all possible manners (you despicable liar).
Glad to be back with you Dalea.
posted by Timothy on
dalea,
Thanks for the info on Chicago and on ACTUP.
I really do doubt that NAMBLA is a front. I think as recently as last year an FBI probe found some members willing to go on a boat trip to Mexico in the hopes of having sex with underage kids. Now it is possible that they all were just for show, but I doubt it.
The point is that this group is miniscule and despised and derided by all. While I could understand some organization that thought age of consent should be 16 in stead of 18, I suspect this most of this particular group is really more about wantng to diddle the kiddies.
Yet their ideas and activist does deserve First Amendment protections. Really, if you think about it, there is no need for constitutional protections for the good wholesome vastly admired folk – no one is trying to remove their voice. But the KKK, and NAMBLA, and Oliver North, and people that are generally inconvenient to the powers that be need to have someone out there willing to fight for their right to be nasty and vile.
Because if we can restrict their rights, I am absolutely certain that I’m not that far down the list from these folk. We already know that the Patriot Act was used to “look into” gay groups on university campuses and just this week the State of Alabama took down their website that warned that gays could be terrorists. It just wouldn’t be that hard to rile up the population in parts of this country to shut down this web site – cuz it’s part of the Homosexual Agenda.
posted by Timothy on
typo
.. ideas and activism …
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, if you weren’t such a chronic liar and didn’t post such frequently irrelevant meandering tomes which contain no evidence whatsoever people wouldn’t ignore them as frequently as they do.
I am amused — considerably — by how you manage to admit that YOU ignored my posting, that YOU failed to check the facts, and that YOU made a foolish decision and statement — but insist that I am the one to blame.
And, like I said previously, that rather nicely exposes that yours and Mr. Miller’s shrieking about “baseless slurs” and “dodging accountability” is based, not on your actually reading the evidence I have provided on numerous occasions, but on your ideological hatred of me blinding you to its existence.
Meanwhile, over to Timothy.
We already know that the Patriot Act was used to “look into” gay groups on university campuses and just this week the State of Alabama took down their website that warned that gays could be terrorists.
It also warned about several other groups that could harbor terrorists — like, and I quote, “environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents”.
All of which make perfect sense; after all, the Holy Land Foundation was antiwar, environmental terrorists were just sentenced, the Animal Liberation Front is quite terroristic in its actions, and Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, honed his skills attacking abortion clinics.
Given that gay organizations like ACTUP have repeatedly vandalized and attacked Christians — heck, even Dalea here has called for Christians to be assaulted — why should we be considered any differently?
And I think the state of Alabama’s website put it very nicely:
“Single-issue extremists often focus on issues that are important to all of us. However, they have no problem crossing the line between legal protest and … illegal acts, to include even murder, to succeed in their goals,” it read.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I am amused — considerably — by how you manage to admit that YOU ignored my posting, that YOU failed to check the facts, and that YOU made a foolish decision and statement — but insist that I am the one to blame.”.
Small things amuse small minds – I never said one way or the other whether or not I read your posts you assume much but understand little. The fact remains, you are a chronic liar and your links frequently are irrelvant and without evidence so a lot of people are going to ignore them. It’ll take a long time of responsible behavior on your part before people will judge you differently, and you’re either unwilling or incapable of behaving responsibly.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Given that gay organizations like ACTUP have repeatedly vandalized and attacked Christians — heck, even Dalea here has called for Christians to be assaulted — why should we be considered any differently?”.
What do you mean, “we”? You’re obviously not a part of the LGBT community – you just claim to be gay because you think that’s going to give your attacks on gays a bit of credibility. It doesn’t, we all know you’re a vicious anti-gay poser.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact remains, you are a chronic liar and your links frequently are irrelvant and without evidence so a lot of people are going to ignore them. It’ll take a long time of responsible behavior on your part before people will judge you differently, and you’re either unwilling or incapable of behaving responsibly.
Again, you blame the fact that YOU ignored my posting, that YOU failed to check the facts, and that YOU made a foolish decision and statement on me.
And yet, you consider that “responsible behavior” on yours and Mr. Miller’s part.
And this I found particularly amusing.
What do you mean, “we”? You’re obviously not a part of the LGBT community – you just claim to be gay because you think that’s going to give your attacks on gays a bit of credibility. It doesn’t, we all know you’re a vicious anti-gay poser.
I suppose denying that I’m gay is better than confronting the reality that gay organizations like ACTUP have repeatedly vandalized and attacked Christians — and even Dalea here has called for Christians to be assaulted.
And, ironically, along the way, you’re demonstrating the point of the Alabama website — that devotion to a single issue can cause a group to rationalize or overlook horrific and wrong behavior among its members.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Again, you blame the fact that YOU ignored my posting, that YOU failed to check the facts, and that YOU made a foolish decision and statement on me.”.
Once again its you who is foolish. And a liar. I did read your posting, you moron. And you lied – you said “not only does the ACLU facilitate and protect child molestation, at least two of their own leaders practice it personally”.
Neither of the links you posted showed any evidence that leaders of the ACLU practice child molestation. And the person in the second link was never even a leader of the ACLU, he was an employee, a paid lawyer. Looking at child porn is not the same as molesting a child. Communicating sexually with a child is not actual molestation of a child. As I said at the start, you are up to your usual lies and once again no one need have read your links because once again they don’t contain the evidence you claim they do.
Once again, it is you who does not provide evidence to back up your assertions. Provide yourself what you demand of others – where’s the evidence to back up your assertions that I have multiple sex partners, that I demand to have public sex, that I assault Christians in all possible manners? You don’t have any because you’re an unscrupulous liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And the person in the second link was never even a leader of the ACLU, he was an employee, a paid lawyer.
Yes, because we all know that Chief Aide to the President of the ACLU is a completely powerless position that leads nothing and has no responsibility whatsoever.
Meanwhile, I think this speaks for itself, folks.
Looking at child porn is not the same as molesting a child.
Again, the details (emphasis mine):
A former Arlington County youth sports coach who is a past president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia was indicted by a federal grand jury yesterday on charges that he used a computer in his 10-year-old son’s bedroom to view child pornography that a judge called “sickening.”…….
But U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchanan said the material found on Rust-Tierney’s computer was “the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography” she has seen in 10 years on the bench. Prosecutors say he downloaded images that included the sexual torture of children, set to a song by the band Nine Inch Nails. Court documents said many of the children were under 12 years old.
Next:
Communicating sexually with a child is not actual molestation of a child.
Again, the details:
On three separate occasions between September and October 2004, Cunningham chatted online via his home computer in Jersey City with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old boy, officials said. In reality, it was an undercover Passaic County investigator.
During the sessions, Cunningham ?described, in lurid detail, certain sexual acts that he hoped to perform on the boy,? court papers said.
?He also described sex acts that he hoped to teach the boy to perform on him, inviting the child to ?get together in New York,?? according to the documents.
But remember, folks, “real LGBTs” like Randi say that neither of those constitute child molestation.
LGBT Randi doesn’t think it’s child molestation to keep and view sexual torture porn on the bedroom computer of her ten year old son.
LGBT Randi doesn’t think it’s child molestation to have lurid chat with a twelve-year-old, trying to lure them somewhere so you can teach them sexual techniques and have them use them on you.
Isn’t that great to know that’s what “real LGBTs” like Randi believe? And that gays like myself who think it’s sick, disgusting, and worth prosecution and jail time aren’t really gay, because we don’t support the ACLU’s twisted activity and attempts to argue that it isn’t child molestation?
posted by Timothy on
Given that gay organizations like ACTUP have repeatedly vandalized and attacked Christians — heck, even Dalea here has called for Christians to be assaulted — why should we be considered any differently?
I guess you’re talking about the 1989 St. Patrick’s incident.
I’m not sure how that relates to law school gay associations being targeted by means of the Patriot Act. Nor do I see how it gives the state of Alabama cause to label gay people and groups as potential terrorists.
No credible person in the entire country has argued that Alabama was correct in labeling gay groups that way. It would take a real misunderstanding of gay folk and their activism and history – along with a deep-seated animus – to conclude that gay people or groups are a credible threat.
And I think the state of Alabama’s website put it very nicely:
“Single-issue extremists often focus on issues that are important to all of us. However, they have no problem crossing the line between legal protest and … illegal acts, to include even murder, to succeed in their goals,” it read.
I guess we’ll list you as a supporter of Alabama’s efforts to identify gay groups as potential terrorists.
I’m curious, NDT, and this is a sincere question:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is generally considered anti-gay that you do not support?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’d really like to know.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “LGBT Randi doesn’t think it’s child molestation to keep and view sexual torture porn on the bedroom computer of her ten year old son.
LGBT Randi doesn’t think it’s child molestation to have lurid chat with a twelve-year-old, trying to lure them somewhere so you can teach them sexual techniques and have them use them on you.”.
Obviously those things aren’t child molestation and you are a liar because you said these two people had molested children. Child molestation requires acutal physical sexual contact and there was none in these cases. Even when your shameless deceptions are exposed you still pathetically cling to them like the lunatic you are.
Northdallass said “Isn’t that great to know that’s what “real LGBTs” like Randi believe? And that gays like myself who think it’s sick, disgusting, and worth prosecution and jail time aren’t really gay, because we don’t support the ACLU’s twisted activity and attempts to argue that it isn’t child molestation?”
Its sick and worth prosecution and jail time, but it obviously isn’t child molestation as there was no sexual contact. And its clear you’re not gay because of your chronic lies and insane attacks on gays regardless of what exemplary citizens they may be. I shudder to think what you do to gays when you’re sure you can get away with it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I guess we’ll list you as a supporter of Alabama’s efforts to identify gay groups as potential terrorists.
Yup — just like all the other single-issue groups they cite.
That’s because all of these groups have demonstrated two things — they will resort to violence, vandalism, and the like, and they have a tendency to ostracize, harass, and harm their own members who call for restraint in action or whose opinions diverge.
We’ve already established, Timothy, that you will ignore police reports of other gay people verbally assaulting people and vandalizing their property and making racial slurs against others because of their accents, claiming that it’s just “critics”.
Anti-abortion groups have had to live for years with higher scrutiny because of people like Eric Rudolph, and they have reacted by becoming far more open, transparent, and obvious about their condemnations of violence. Gay groups can do exactly the same thing — and every gay group that I have been a part of has.
I’m not sure how that relates to law school gay associations being targeted by means of the Patriot Act.
Yet, oddly enough, the Thomas More Center for Peace and Justice, as well as the Catholic Workers Group, have as well — a fact which I wonder if bothers you as much.
Again, openness and transparency. Have it, use it, and make it clear to other gays in your groups that they don’t get free passes to verbally assault or vandalize other people because they’re gay, and you won’t have this kind of problems.
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is generally considered anti-gay that you do not support?
Before I answer that question, Timothy, there needs to be a few ground rules laid out.
First, banning marriage in Massachusetts is not antigay, since those who advocate it were described as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, given tens of millions of gay dollars and endorsements, and received the lion’s share of gay votes.
Second, banning marriage in other states is not antigay, for the same reasons.
Third, supporting the FMA is not antigay, since gay staffers of the DNC and leaders of HRC, both organizations that gays consider “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, have no trouble endorsing and supporting those who do.
Fourth, sharing the values of or agreeing with religious leaders who are called antigay is not antigay, since organizations that gays swear are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” do so.
Fifth, opposing hate-crimes laws or ENDA is not antigay, inasmuch as I have yet to see you criticize Brian Miller or Rob Power of Outright Libertarians, both of whom do so, as antigay.
So what’s left that you consider to be “antigay”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You heard it here first, folks; after I spent time laying out the exact details of the actions of two ACLU leaders, Randi had only this to say:
Obviously those things aren’t child molestation and you are a liar because you said these two people had molested children.
Remember, folks, that’s an “exemplary LGBT citizen” for you; sitting there namecalling someone in defense of a person who had lurid sexual chat with a person he thought was twelve-year-old and tried to lure that person away from his parents in order to teach him and have performed sexual techniques on him, as well as another person who stored porn of children ages twelve and under being sexually tortured on the computer in his ten-year-old’s bedroom.
And those of us who object to this sort of stuff and call it child molestation are deemed “chronic liars” and “insane”.
The fact that “real LGBTs” are trying to deny, minimize and cover up the actions of people with whom they are allied while screaming and shrieking at those who are speaking up and saying that what these people are doing is just flat-out WRONG is a powerful argument for the state of Alabama’s contention. Randi is, right before our very eyes, demonstrating that she would rather cover up and minimize what these sick individuals did rather than admit that I, who she loathes ideologically, am right about them.
That’s at best delusional – and at worst, dangerous.
posted by Timothy on
Without trying to redefine the terms, can you please answer:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is generally considered anti-gay that you do not support?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’d really like to know.
posted by dalea on
Since I see no point in engaging with homophobic bigots, the responses here puzzle me. Just let me say one little thing. A visitor to this site would come away with a clear notion of the ideal towards which IGF labors. They would see a poster who is the logical culmination of ‘gay conservativism’. And I suspect most would not be impressed by either the ideal or the actual results.
posted by ETJB on
(1) A hate crime law that prohibits constitutionally protected speech is probably unconstitutional. However, hate crime laws are not (in themselves) unconstitutional.
(2) Our knowledge of the incident with the high school students is very, very limited. The facts matter in a legal case and frankly, we are probably getting some one’s opinion of certain facts.
(3) The NAMBLA is about as political-socially relevant or powerful as the KKK or the American Nazi Party. Yet, does the First Amendment apply to such groups? What universal limiting principles do people wish to impose?
(4) Supporting the constitutional right, is not the same as supporting the idea, belief or act. I do not agree with the Libertarian Party or the Communist Party, but I do support the First Amendment rights. I do not agree with Christanity, but I do support its First Amendment rights.
(5) Many LGBT individuals & rights organization have condemned the NAMBLA.
(7) Having child porn on your computer may or may not prove something. Unless I am the only person who get sooo much junk emails and spam and ‘cookies’ and the like.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The fact that “real LGBTs” are trying to deny, minimize and cover up the actions of people with whom they are allied while screaming and shrieking at those who are speaking up and saying that what these people are doing is just flat-out WRONG is a powerful argument for the state of Alabama’s contention. Randi is, right before our very eyes, demonstrating that she would rather cover up and minimize what these sick individuals did rather than admit that I, who she loathes ideologically, am right about them.”.
Typical Northdallass, when caught in his lies rather than be a man and admit it he just spins more in a vain hope to weasle out of it. Contrary to your lie, I never denied or tried to cover up anything. The fact of the matter is that you falsely claimed these two people had molested children when no contact, let alone sexual contact occurred between them and any child. You are a liar and its obvious to all.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “banning marriage in Massachusetts is not antigay…banning marriage in other states is not antigay…supporting the FMA is not antigay…sharing the values of or agreeing with religious leaders who are called antigay is not antigay…opposing hate-crimes laws or ENDA is not antigay”
Thanks for so clearly exposing your warped mind insane hatred of gays. Now why don’t you go and whine about how its unjustified that the LGBT community knows you’re scum.
posted by Timothy on
This is reposted so it does not get lost in the above.
NDT, without trying to redefine the terms, can you please answer:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is generally considered anti-gay that you do not support?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’d really like to know.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Timothy, I think Randi’s example shows the problem here.
Thanks for so clearly exposing your warped mind insane hatred of gays. Now why don’t you go and whine about how its unjustified that the LGBT community knows you’re scum.
What is conveniently left out, of course, is the fact that I have provided clear, linkable, referenceable examples of gays supporting each thing cited above — WITHOUT Randi claiming their minds are “warped”, that they have an “insane hatred of gays”, and are “scum”.
Thus, what you’re going to do first is to establish clearly what is antigay and not antigay.
You are going to say that anyone and their affiliated organizations who gives money, support, or votes to politicians or others who support the Massachusetts amendment, other state constitutional amendments, or the FMA is warped, insanely hates gays, and scum.
You are going to say that anyone who supports, belongs to, or votes for a party whose head claims to share the same values as Pat Robertson, or who is themselves Christian like Pat Robertson, is warped, insanely hates gays, and scum.
And you are going to say that anyone who opposes hate-crimes laws or ENDA and related laws is — you guessed it — warped, insanely hates gays, and scum.
Since you refused, Randi stepped into the breach to define “antigay”. Now, either affirm her statements on what is antigay and confront her on her own hypocrisy in refusing to apply that to all other gays first, or define yourself what is and isn’t antigay, and then we’ll talk.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
What’s the point of trying to have a conversation with ND30? He has all of the qualities of Fred Phelps with none of the honesty.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you’ve made it clear that you won’t admit that any actions are anti-gay, once again, that shows your warped mind and insane hatred of gays.
Now its time for you to also admit that you lied when you said two leaders of the ACLU molest children.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, you’ve made it clear that you won’t admit that any actions are anti-gay, once again, that shows your warped mind and insane hatred of gays.
Actually, what I’ve done is clearly lay out the dichotomy of actions here.
And now I’m going to hold you to them.
State that it is not antigay to work for the campaigns of, give millions of dollars to, or vote for politicians who support the FMA, or call Hilary Rosen, Joe Solmonese, HRC, Andrew Tobias, and all gays in the DNC insane, gay-hating scum.
State that it is not antigay to work for the campaigns of, give millions of dollars to, or vote for politicians who support state constitutional amendments banning marriage and stripping marriage in Massachusetts, or call HRC, Stonewall Democrats, all of John Kerry’s gay staffers, and every gay person who voted for him insane gay-hating scum.
State that it is not antigay to support, work for, or vote for politicians and parties who pander to religious leaders, or call every gay who supported, worked for, or voted for Howard Dean and the Democrat Party he leads insane gay-hating scum.
State that it is not antigay to oppose hate-crimes laws or ENDA, or call gays like Brian Miller and his other counterparts over at Outright Libertarians and other such locations insane gay-hating scum.
You like to namecall, Randi. Now namecall all of these people, all of whom I have demonstrated do as stated — or demonstrate that your definition of “antigay” changes based solely on a person’s political ideology, and not on their actions.
Just like your attempts to argue that these sick actions aren’t child molestation — because liberals are doing them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, child molestation is sexual contact with a child. In the two links you gave no contact of any sort, let alone sexual, occurred with children. Your mind is warped and you’re a chronic liar and its obvious to all.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And you’re an insane gay hating scum, no doubt about that.
posted by dalea on
Everything that Colorado Patriot said. Good points.
posted by dalea on
As a libertarian I find the initiation of force, fraud or violence profoundly disconcerting. And I regard anyone who signed these petitions as having initiated force. As in asks the state to withdraw valuable things from people; like theft.
So, who gives a shit what happens to these relentless haters? This bimbo bus driver is upset that people have confronted her? Boo Hoo. Wonder what waits down the road for her.
And these taxpayer subsidized ‘churches’ that promote grabbing rights from people? The clearly need to have every ‘service’ disrupted and ended abruptly until they recognize the obligations they owe to those who pay their way. OK, what is the net present value of every tax exempt dollar received in 1835? If they really want to continue on this rampage, they need to repay every cent they ever bilked the taxpayers for.
posted by Brian Miller on
Once again, I am agreeing on point with dale’s post.
posted by Brian Miller on
LCR does not shill 1980’s anti-gay talking points.
Sure it does — down to its unqualified support in 2000 for GW Bush, one of the only candidates on the presidential ballot of that race who amended and increased the penalties for state sodomy laws while in office.
Oh sure, there were lots of rationalizations for that position, but that position’s on the books nonetheless.
And just like yourself, Timothy, they engaged in talking points to cover up their very direct on-the-record endorsement of an anti-gay candidate.
Not one who disagrees on specific points of policy, such as “non discrimination” laws, mind you — but rather someone who signed into law a law that incarcerated gay people simply for being consensually intimate with each other.
No amount of outrage can cover up that simple truth.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not one who disagrees on specific points of policy, such as “non discrimination” laws, mind you — but rather someone who signed into law a law that incarcerated gay people simply for being consensually intimate with each other.
Actually, the Texas sodomy law, as amended in 1995, made it a class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine, no jail time required. In fact, Texas was the only state that had a sodomy law in which jail time wasn’t mandatory.
Furthermore, specifically to the case of Lawrence and Garner, what is quite often left out is a) that the phone call that intiated the action was made out of jealousy, and resulted in the person who made it serving jail time for filing a false police report, b) that the call made insisted that the apartment in question was in fact being robbed by an armed individual, which means police had to treat it quite differently, and c) that both Lawrence and Garner had criminal records for violence and assault, which tied in nicely to b) above. The Supreme Court made it clear in 2001 that it was perfectly constitutional to arrest someone for a crime that did not carry jail time as a requirement if the arresting officer witnessed the crime and thought it was necessary; given that Garner and Lawrence both had criminal records for violence and assault, and the report had been phoned in as an armed robbery, the police acted correctly, in my opinion.
Activists were overjoyed at the arrest because they had had no cases to go on before; indeed, prior to the Lawrence case, as sources point out, the sodomy statute had been invoked only two to three times in the past 30 years, and in all cases in jails in which the action basically constituted public sex.
In other words, much ado about nothing — but convenient to use for a “libertarian” who needs a reason to hate Bush, regardless of its rationality.
posted by Brian Miller on
the Texas sodomy law, as amended in 1995, made it a class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine, no jail time required
You forgot mandatory registration as a sex offender.
In other words, much ado about nothing
You call it “nothing” — then again, you’re a Republican shill who wishes to promote your man above the rights of gays and lesbians (and other Americans). You present your candidate as “not anti-gay” and then insist that his passage of an anti-gay law (and support of strengthening penalties for that law) is completely irrelevant.
As for putting libertarian in quotes, one wonders the level of pretzel-logic required for a Republican such as yourself to position Bush as a candidate who is worthy of even a modicum of libertarian support. From government spending (way up) to anti-gay laws (in favor and passing them) to warrantless wiretaps (for them) to elimination of habeus corpus (for it) to deficit spending (soaring) to war under false pretenses (orchestrating it), Bush doesn’t have anything to offer a libertarian of any stripe.
To boil it down to “hate” rather than legitimate policy differences is the sort of emotionally-driven team-sports orientation to politics, devoid of principle, that I’ve come to expect from the modern Republican party and its supporters. It’s sort of sad, really!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You forgot mandatory registration as a sex offender.
Perhaps you need a little reminder on when that came into being.
In 1993, the sex offender treatment law was broadened. This new law, signed by Governor Ann Richards, brought under its operation anyone convicted of “a sex crime under the laws of a state or under federal law.” Since “homosexual conduct” is a “sex crime,” this new law now covered it. Another provision of this law permitted the council to obtain information on any previous conviction of sex offenders for “a sexual offense,” again covering the misdemeanor “homosexual conduct” law.
That was the same year as the Legislature — at that time, VERY majority-Democrat — killing a bill to repeal it.
You call it “nothing” — then again, you’re a Republican shill who wishes to promote your man above the rights of gays and lesbians (and other Americans). You present your candidate as “not anti-gay” and then insist that his passage of an anti-gay law (and support of strengthening penalties for that law) is completely irrelevant.
Mr. Miller, I believe your argument against laws concerning employment nondiscrimination was basically that, “if you don’t like it, you can move to a state that has it — and why would you want to stay there anyway if it doesn’t?”
Considering that, in 2001, there were only seventeen states that still had sodomy laws at all, that would seem to be a perfectly acceptable means of dealing with the issue there as well — and which also avoided the issue of the Supreme Court infringing on state rights by allowing them to repeal laws, as several states already had, through their own democratic processes.
And, as someone who actually lived in Texas while the sodomy law was in effect, I can tell you — it truly was nothing. As I mentioned above, a grand total of three people prior to Lawrence were prosecuted specifically relative to it; if you had wanted to eliminate the law that was getting gays thrown in jail for having sex, you should have gone after the public sex law.
posted by Timothy on
LCR does not shill 1980’s anti-gay talking points.
Sure it does — down to its unqualified support in 2000 for GW Bush
You are mistaken. The support was not unqualified. A list of demands was made in order to get the endorsement of LCR (the very definition of “qualified support”). Bush met the demands, including having an openly gay speaker at the national convention.
This is all public record. It is also public record that LCR publically opposed Bush for reelection in 2004.
And just like yourself, Timothy, they engaged in talking points to cover up their very direct on-the-record endorsement of an anti-gay candidate.
Wow. I know that the rule on this site is to make wild accusations. But this one is beyond me. I engage in talking points? I think everyone who read here knows full well that I am not a party appologist nor do I talk from “talking points”. These sort of slurs don’t impact me but they do diminish your credibility.
And really, they are pointless. Just disagree with what I’m saying. Attacks on me don’t advance your argument much.
posted by Timothy on
Thus, what you’re going to do first is to establish clearly what is antigay and not antigay.
OK, I’ll give a definition. For the purpose of this question, I am not referencing the political actions of any one person or group of people or what they may have at some point funded or said or done or who they did or didn’t criticize or anything else whatsoever other than my definition.
Anti-gay: 1) Any position, law, political effort, or policy that would differentiate between a heterosexual person and a gay person (whether so defined by orientation, identity, or behavior, or presumption about the same) and which would treat the gay person in a less favorable manner.
2) Any position, law, political effort or policy that would differentiate between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple and which would treat the same-sex couple in a less favorable manner (this includes differentiations which are also based on options disallowed to the same-sex couple).
Now having provided my definition,
I repeat my question:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’d really like to know.
Second question:
Do you favor or oppose the reversal of the Lawrence v. Texas decision?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you favor or oppose the reversal of the Lawrence v. Texas decision?
I favor it.
For three reasons:
1) The supermajority of states had already shown themselves able to remove their own sodomy laws, which means that it could be managed on a statewide level.
2) The other states that had them rarely (if at all) enforced them — and that comes from personal experience on my part as an out gay man in Texas during those years.
3) The decision is a horrible, half-assed legal precedent (the states have no power to restrict private sexual conduct based on individual characteristics….uhhh, except in all these other cases) that makes matters worse, not better — and pissed off a lot of people who didn’t really care all that much about gays, but did care about the Supreme Court meddling.
In short, the need is not nearly dire enough to require putting in place a bad decision of this nature. It would have been far better for the Supreme Court to declare that the law is constitutional, but patently stupid, and then use that as leverage on the various state legislatures to have it removed, as the majority of their brethren had already done. It all comes down to whether or not gays are willing to live in peace with our neighbors and do things the way everyone else does or if we intend to use the court system as a means of disregarding them.
Now, to your definition of “antigay”:
Any position, law, political effort, or policy that would differentiate between a heterosexual person and a gay person (whether so defined by orientation, identity, or behavior, or presumption about the same) and which would treat the gay person in a less favorable manner.
Well, what confuses me is this; current law does not distinguish between, or treat less favorably, a heterosexual or homosexual person in terms of prosecuting and punishing crimes committed against them or in terms of employment. For instance, it is perfectly legal for you to fire someone for being heterosexual, and the law requires the same penalties for murdering a homosexual as it does for a heterosexual.
Now, is it “antigay” to think that the status quo is pretty darn good in that respect?
And for number 2:
Any position, law, political effort or policy that would differentiate between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple and which would treat the same-sex couple in a less favorable manner (this includes differentiations which are also based on options disallowed to the same-sex couple).
So in other words, it’s antigay to point out that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are biologically different from each other and make decisions accordingly.
posted by Timothy on
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
Anything?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Re: ND30’s comments above…
Shameful and disrespectful to the extreme. Thank you for showing your true colors at long last. Fred Phelps would be proud of your hateful and truly EVIL mindset. You sir are a disgrace of the highest order. I herby condemn you and all of the rotten content of your character. You are worse than dirt and are deserving of nothing more than scorn and derision. Now fuck-off to your disgusting and sad little life. FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.
posted by Brian Miller on
I think everyone who read here knows full well that I am not a party appologist nor do I talk from “talking points”.
I call them solely as I see ’em, and rely heavily on my perspective to make my assertions. If you don’t want me to call out your talking points, don’t debate using party talking points! 😉
current law does not distinguish between, or treat less favorably, a heterosexual or homosexual person in terms of prosecuting and punishing crimes committed against them or in terms of employment
Well, ND-30, go mince into your local army recruitment center in a pink tutu and repeat this assertion!
And if the bi-partisan “hate crimes” laws are passed, the former statement on criminal law will no longer be accurate either.
In other areas, including taxation, citizenship, immigration and various other areas that federal (and state) governments have been sticking their fingers in, your assertion isn’t accurate either.
Finally, the entire federalist argument is a charade. Republicans keep talking about their opposition to “big government” — but only at a federal level. If a state government chooses to grow big, bloated and oppressive, well then it has the right and the DUTY to do so!
Frankly, bloated, high-tax state governments aren’t any more desirable than bloated, high-tax federal administrations. Since Democrats and Republicans are both equally capable of providing both of these forms of government (and equally poor at preventing them), the entire argument about where anti-gay activity occurs is strictly academic (not to mention boring).
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
Paul Cameron’s “execution of homosexuals” as a “thing we’ll have to consider” due to AIDS, perhaps?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..you know, it would almost be worth playing with you over that one. But I definitely do oppose the execution of homosexuals.
That being said, Cameron said “extermination”, not execution, and in 1994 when he made that statement, prior to the advent of protease inhibitors, we gays were doing a fine job of exterminating ourselves in an immediate and dramatic fashion. Now we’re still doing it, just more slowly.
In other areas, including taxation, citizenship, immigration and various other areas that federal (and state) governments have been sticking their fingers in, your assertion isn’t accurate either.
That rather depends.
Compared to gay couples, two-income heterosexual married couples quite often pay higher taxes (the marriage penalty) and receive less in Social Security. Do you consider that fair?
And last, but not least…..awww, how will I live without your approval? 🙂
posted by Damon on
North Dallas Thirty
You don’t know me but I just have to get this out there. I’ve been reading and lurking on this forum since I was 18 I believe. I’m 20 now.
You are one scary individual.
I mean it.
Cheney and Rove…Clinton and Chavez, etc, those are some messed up people proven capable of some nasty stuff but they’re not scary. But you, boy…where did you come from and who made you the way you are today?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You should speak up more often, Damon; it’s always good to have another voice around.
Scary, huh? Oh well; like my dad always puts it, you can either speak your mind or be liked.
posted by DaveyChuck on
OK. last post here. Now i remember why I quit reading this site years ago. You’re not Independent. You’re just a Republican whore.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
DaveyChuck, I’m not even sure you know what a whore is.
This is a much better example.
But I doubt you care, because she, HRC, and gay DNC staffers are doing it for Democrats.
posted by Timothy on
It bears repeating:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
Anything?
Surely there’s SOMETHING?
posted by Brian Miller on
Compared to gay couples, two-income heterosexual married couples quite often pay higher taxes
Typically, married dual-income heterosexuals are net consumers of taxes.
They typically pay less of a share of their child’s education than single folk (or gay families).
They also gain access to the Social Security ponzi scheme — one reason why I always laugh at endless whining about the “marriage penalty.” The real penalty are these welfare programs such as SocSec put in place for the benefit of people who aren’t responsible enough to save for their own retirement.
Not only do the same people not save for their own retirement, but they get massive benefits paid from government debt (social security) that others certainly don’t get — yet they whine that in certain circumstances they might pay 1/2% more than two people who are single and filing.
The ultimate answer, of course, is to privatize retirement and eliminate income tax altogether, but I don’t count on either Dems or Reps to do that. Instead, it’s a jostling competition for who is the most oppressed person and most deserving of receiving huge welfare payments at the expense of others.
In every situation — single, married, whatever — gay people are expected to “contribute” more and “receive” far less. That’s one reason why I’ve found it so curious that Republican and Democratic party socialism has any appeal to a thinking gay person whatsoever — the entire arrangement is a wealth redistribution scheme shifting money from the pockets of poorer, harder-working single people into wealthier, stabler, more prosperous government-married people’s fat-n-happy pockets.
Ever wonder why so few gay single folks (or single folks of any sexual orientation) live on leafy streets with nice big yards?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
Question, Timothy; are you actually reading
what I write?
Because if you’re not — and it looks like you’re not — it certainly isn’t worth my effort to respond.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Question, Timothy; are you actually reading what I write?
Because if you’re not — and it looks like you’re not — it certainly isn’t worth my effort to respond.”
You didn’t answer the question, you just obfuscated the issue again. Neither does the link you provided show any sort of answer. What the link does show is that you are a hate-filled sociopath who takes delight in perpetuating the myth that homosexuals are most likely AIDS-infected hedonists. So, congratulations on being an asshole…how about answering the question?
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What the link does show is that you are a hate-filled sociopath who takes delight in perpetuating the myth that homosexuals are most likely AIDS-infected hedonists.
Read and learn, ColoradoPatriot.
Nine out of ten HIV cases in San Francisco are gay men, with 1,000 more being added annually.
Three out of four HIV cases in California are gay men, with 2,000 more being added annually.
In terms of transmission category, men-to-men sex is the runaway leader, constituting many more thousands of cases annually than heterosexual sex among males and females combined — and the number of cases has increased since 2001.
And, I quote:
The highest HIV infection rates are found in many sub-Saharan African populations because up to 40 percent of adolescent and adult males and females in these populations routinely have multiple and concurrent sex partners, and they also have the highest prevalence of factors that can greatly facilitate sexual HIV transmission. In most other heterosexual populations, the patterns and frequency of sex-partner exchanges are not sufficient to sustain epidemic sexual HIV transmission.
UNAIDS and most AIDS activists reject this analysis as socially and politically incorrect, saying it further stigmatizes groups, such as injecting drug users, sex workers and men who have sex with men. However, all available epidemiologic data show that only the highest risk sexual behavior (multiple, concurrent and a high frequency of changing partners) drives HIV epidemics among heterosexuals or men who have sex with men, anywhere in the world.
This explains a lot about why HIV infections are on the rise among gay men — and why they’ve been joined by syphilis, gonorrhea, and numerous other STDs that were previously medical anachronisms.
But showing statistics and being honest about gay promiscuity and HIV infections is “antigay” and “sociopathic”.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I DON’T NEED YOU TO DEFLECT FROM THE QUESTION WITH STATISTICS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION YOU FORCE UPON THE BOARD ANOTHER DEFLECTION. ANSWER THE QUESTION. ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF THAT?
PS
Your statistics do not back up your claim that MOST homosexual men are AIDS-infected hedonists. In fact, they run counter to you claims. Do you honestly believe that the world-wide spread of HIV lands squarely at the feet of homosexuals? That, my idiotic troll, is abominable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I repeat myself, ColoradoPatriot; you are insistent that showing statistics and being honest about gay promiscuity and HIV infections is “antigay” and even “sociopathic”.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…you are insistent that showing statistics and being honest about gay promiscuity and HIV infections is “antigay” and even “sociopathic”.”
True to form you smear and lie rather than deal with the truth. I have never EVER said what you claim. You once again lie and slander me on a public board…that is very VERY wrong and you know it. But, just to humor you…show me that statistics on gay promiscuity (you’ve never done that so I have a hard time believing I’ve ever commented on it). The “Statistics” you quoted are from an editorial, by the way…how about some scientific data?
PS
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have never EVER said what you claim.
Mhm.
What the link does show is that you are a hate-filled sociopath who takes delight in perpetuating the myth that homosexuals are most likely AIDS-infected hedonists.
Next:
The “Statistics” you quoted are from an editorial, by the way…how about some scientific data?
You might want to recheck those links.
posted by Timothy on
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
Question, Timothy; are you actually reading
what I write?
Because if you’re not — and it looks like you’re not — it certainly isn’t worth my effort to respond.
The reference you provided indicated that you oppose execution of homosexuals. Perhaps I was unclear in my question. I want to know about things anti-gay that are being proposed in this country and I was not aware (Cameron notwithstanding) that this was being proposed. So let me ask again (assuming we already know your answer on execution):
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
There are quite a few to select from.
posted by Brian Miller on
Nine out of ten HIV cases in San Francisco are gay men
You keep bringing up this statistic like it’s meaningful.
But 1 out of 3 men in San Francisco is a gay or bisexual man.
So using your “logic,” 1/3 of American men are gay or bisexual.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But 1 out of 3 men in San Francisco is a gay or bisexual man.
Nope.
McFarland has compiled the city’s first survey in five years on gay men and HIV to be presented at a meeting next week to discuss HIV/AIDS prevention.
He said it found an estimated 63,577 gay males aged 15 and above in San Francisco, a city with a total population of 764,000. That figure represents nearly one in five of the city’s males above the age of 15.
Perhaps more telling, it found this:
0ne out of every four gay males — 25.8 percent — is infected with the HIV virus, giving San Francisco an estimated total of 16,401 HIV-positive men, said McFarland, an epidemiologist who has also worked on studies in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Egypt..
Next up, to Timothy:
I oppose discriminating against people in employment, housing, and whatnot because they’re gay, and I certainly oppose committing crimes against people because they’re gay.
But I don’t think we need laws to make that obvious; I think we need enforcement of existing laws, outreach and policy change at business levels, and general bridge-building based on respect for other peoples’ beliefs.
posted by Timothy on
Thank you for answering, NDT.
This answer really isn’t to the question that I asked (which was about which anti-gay efforts you do not support). But I’m glad for what you did provide.
Without sounding like I’m grilling you, I would like some follow up.
I oppose discriminating against people in employment, housing, and whatnot because they’re gay
Do you support or oppose having the exact same laws that apply to race apply to orientation? (regardless of how you feel about these laws in general)
But I don’t think we need laws to make that obvious; I think we need enforcement of existing laws, outreach and policy change at business levels, and general bridge-building based on respect for other peoples’ beliefs.
Do you believe that this site could be a good place to begin bridge-building based on respect for other peoples’ beliefs?
And finally, I would still like to know the answer to my original question.
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
It isn’t that I’m not listening.. it is that I still don’t know the answer to the question.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you support or oppose having the exact same laws that apply to race apply to orientation?
No.
That is because race and orientation are not the same thing, nor are they evaluated similarly.
Simply put, gay rarely, if ever, shows; race rarely, if ever, doesn’t. Second off, one may choose whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation; race offers no such similar option.
Furthermore, if sexual orientation were to be made identical to race in laws, business would not be allowed to use sexual orientation as a preference in hiring, period, unless there was a bonafide occupational qualification required. As a result, a bar or store owner who preferred to hire glbt staff to better serve his or her client base could be sued for discriminating against heterosexuals.
posted by Timothy on
Furthermore, if sexual orientation were to be made identical to race in laws, business would not be allowed to use sexual orientation as a preference in hiring, period, unless there was a bonafide occupational qualification required. As a result, a bar or store owner who preferred to hire glbt staff to better serve his or her client base could be sued for discriminating against heterosexuals.
Yes. Precisely. That is the law in California. Which is why many “gay businesses” have straight employees. An employer may choose not to hire a homophobic employee (either gay or straight) because of customer relations, but they cannot refuse to hire a straight employee.
posted by Timothy on
Incidentally,
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes. Precisely. That is the law in California. Which is why many “gay businesses” have straight employees.
And that makes absolutely no sense from a practical standpoint.
Think about it, Timothy.
Under California law, you are expressly forbidden from asking an applicant’s sexual orientation. However, the law as written opens the possibility that you can be sued and punished for discrimination (via disparate impact) if the number of gays or straights on your staff differs too drastically from the general population.
Furthermore, if a glbt business owner prefers to hire glbt workers as a community-boosting measure (to give them the opportunity for jobs and training), s/he can be sued for discrimination — even though government agencies constantly discriminate in terms of awarding contracts and preferential treatment to minority members and minority-owned firms.
Nondiscrimination laws were originally created to limit discrimination on the basis of easily-distinguished or identifiable characteristics (race, sex, national origin, and so forth), and for that, they still have their uses. However, their expansion creates a paradox by holding businesses accountable for things about which they shouldn’t be asking in the first place.
posted by Timothy on
Which brings me back to the question:
Is there ANYTHING at all whatsoever proposed anywhere in the country that is considered anti-gay by the above definition that you do not support?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yawn.