I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he's absolutely right to pick up on the way that liberal Democratic pols and pundits still think it's the 1990s when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell," the ending of which they support in principle at some future date when it seems safe and appropriate.
And yes, the GOPers are much worse (expectedly so, since the big gay national lobbies have become fundraising arms of the Democratic party), while a few principled libertarian-conservatives like George Will get it.
More. Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), no friend of gay legal equality (he was a prime sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act), comes out against DADT.
38 Comments for “Ending DADT: The Liberals’ Nightmare?”
posted by Carl on
-And yes, the GOPers are much worse (expectedly so, since the big gay national lobbies have become fundraising arms of the Democratic party),-
So in other words, it’s perfectly right for Republicans to want to kick gays out of the military (even including gay Arabic translators, which has caused the situation in Iraq to become more and more dangerous), just because “big gay national lobbies” raise money for Democrats? Why would anyone want to support a party that persecutes gay just because they don’t give enough money to that party? What about all the gay men and women who have given money to the GOP, given time, and hold major positions in working for Republicans in Congress and the White House? Are you saying that they should all just give up, because nothing they do to help the GOP matters since the “big gay national lobbies” don’t cowto to Republicans who have campaigned and legislated against gays for decades?
No comments on even the “moderate” savior for gay Republicans, Rudy Guiliani, approving of this persecution of gay soldiers?
posted by Brian Miller on
I agree with Carl. Republicans (and Democrats) are quick to reach for excuses about how thier lack of leadership is the fault of other people — how they’d have done the right thing except for those nasty NGLTF or Log Cabin Republican activists who lobbied against them and “forced” them to do the wrong thing.
I’m tired of it. Political leaders are supposed to lead — the crop of pathetic jokers who make up the top tiers of the Republican and Democratic nomination candidates couldn’t lead a starving man to a buffet in the next room out of the fear that he’d not like some of the entr
posted by ETJB on
Yeah, it must be gay people’s fault that the Republican Party is worse then the Democratic Party on gay rights issue….
Now, put down that bong and go eat some brownies…
posted by ETJB on
BTW, if this is the same George Will then he was highly critical of the U.S.S.C. ruling in “Romer v. Evans” (1996).
Not very ‘libertarian’ of him…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What about all the gay men and women who have given money to the GOP, given time, and hold major positions in working for Republicans in Congress and the White House?
Ah yes, the ones that the gay mainstream and organizations like HRC spend so much time and effort painting as self-loathing Jewish Nazis and who they regularly harass and try to get fired.
A bit of advice, Carl; don’t use people who you and yours have spent years reviling (read “Mary Cheney”) as examples of the “LGBT community”. You didn’t want us before, and people aren’t buying that you suddenly care about us now.
So in other words, it’s perfectly right for Republicans to want to kick gays out of the military (even including gay Arabic translators, which has caused the situation in Iraq to become more and more dangerous), just because “big gay national lobbies” raise money for Democrats?
Personally, I question any group that claims it wants to be in the military, but then , including banning JROTC.
Perhaps if we ever saw these big national groups speaking out against ANTIMILITARY bigotry being carried out in the name of gays, we would get somewhere; however, what the public sees now is a group of people that hates and reviles the military, but then demands the “right” to serve in it.
Furthermore, according to statistics, the armed forces have discharged about twenty or so translators — which, when you have language classes graduating every year to the tune or 500 or so people, is a miniscule fraction of folks. And, if these so-called servicepeople really want to serve their country, there’s plenty of room at the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Commerce, and innumerable other spots.
In short, to get rid of DADT, gays need to make it clear that we can be of all political flavors and that we support the military.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What about all the gay men and women who have given money to the GOP, given time, and hold major positions in working for Republicans in Congress and the White House?
Ah yes, the ones that the gay mainstream and organizations like HRC spend so much time and effort painting as self-loathing Jewish Nazis and who they regularly harass and try to get fired.
A bit of advice, Carl; don’t use people who you and yours have spent years reviling (read “Mary Cheney”) as examples of the “LGBT community”. You didn’t want us before, and people aren’t buying that you suddenly care about us now.
So in other words, it’s perfectly right for Republicans to want to kick gays out of the military (even including gay Arabic translators, which has caused the situation in Iraq to become more and more dangerous), just because “big gay national lobbies” raise money for Democrats?
Personally, I would question any group that claims it wants to be in the military, but then rails and rallies against them at every opportunity, including banning JROTC.
Perhaps if we ever saw these big national groups speaking out against ANTIMILITARY bigotry being carried out in the name of gays, we would get somewhere; however, what the public sees now is a group of people that hates and reviles the military, but then demands the “right” to serve in it.
Furthermore, according to statistics, the armed forces have discharged about twenty or so translators — which, when you have language classes graduating every year to the tune or 500 or so people, is a miniscule fraction of folks. And, if these so-called servicepeople really want to serve their country, there’s plenty of room at the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Commerce, and innumerable other spots.
In short, to get rid of DADT, gays need to make it clear that we can be of all political flavors and that we support the military.
posted by Jim on
“n short, to get rid of DADT, gays need to make it clear that we can be of all political flavors and that we support the military.”
Nobody who matters in making this decision gives a rip about that. Military decision-makers are a lot more utilitarian than that. They care about the wastefulness of throwing very expensive linguists out of the Army. They also have to care about pandering to civilian ideologues and believers of various stripes. Thus the impasse.
What matters is the loyalty of the individual soldier, not the loyalty of this or that identity group outside the military. Are the Army or the Marines running special background checks on recruits with Arabic names, or shying away from recruiting them? Or people who can fly to Israel and get citizenship that same day, or any individual in a host of groups that someone can invent an accusation against? Or even recruits likely to bring in their gang loylties to supercede their oath of enlistment? I doubt it.
Here’s a measure of opinion inside the miltary – when GEN Pace made his commnets, they fell to the ground and lay there. No supporting comment from anyone. Some polite and collegial demurrals from other senior people. That’s how generals tell each other STFU in public.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Given the background checks they do run, there’s not much else you CAN do differently.
What matters is the loyalty of the individual soldier, not the loyalty of this or that identity group outside the military.
You’re right. So where are the gays (other than myself) decrying the antimilitary hate and rhetoric pouring out of the representatives of the gay community?
Or are they, like the San Francisco chapter of Veterans for Peace to which many of them belong, too busy trying to get JROTC banned and to stop the Blue Angels from performing?
Of course, this is all done under the guise of “protesting DADT” — which translates as, “Since you won’t give us what we want, we’re going to do everything in our power to sabotage and harass you.”
Anyone who’s been in the military knows you don’t always — indeed, don’t often — get whatever you want. And yet the military is supposed to accept people who, when told “No” or who don’t get exactly what they demand, start screaming, stamping their feet, and sabotaging everything on which they can get their hands.
Brilliant, that.
posted by Carl on
–
Ah yes, the ones that the gay mainstream and organizations like HRC spend so much time and effort painting as self-loathing Jewish Nazis and who they regularly harass and try to get fired.-
Then doesn’t this make it even MORE unfair that the Republican Party refuses to support them in their goals to be in the military and serve their country? These gay Republicans take heat from their own community and in return what do they get? An entire slate of Presidential nominees, including “moderate” or “liberal” Rudy, who support the firing of Arabic translators who happen to be gay? A surgeon general nominee who doesn’t even want them to be a lay person in his church, or who uses tired old “pipe fitting” language against them? A judicial nominee who takes a child away from a woman because she’s a lesbian? And that’s just the past few weeks.
–
Personally, I would question any group that claims it wants to be in the military, but then rails and rallies against them at every opportunity, including banning JROTC.-
Using that logic, then why doesn’t the GOP shut out all national efforts for black voter outreach considering the NAACP hates Bush? Why doesn’t the GOP shut out outreach to Jewish voters since Jewish voters give huge support to the Democrats and many of the elected Jewish officials are anti-Bush/anti-GOP? Why doesn’t the GOP shut out efforts to reach Hispanic voters since some of them are furious at the GOP for their anti-immigration rhetoric?
The main reason would seem to be that the GOP does not blame an entire group of people for the actions of a few. Yet, they apparently DO blame all gays for the actions of a few, even though gays and lesbians have given many, many years of time, money, and support to the Republican Party.
If that is the case, then why should any gay or lesbian want to support the GOP?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Using that logic, then why doesn’t the GOP shut out all national efforts for black voter outreach considering the NAACP hates Bush? Why doesn’t the GOP shut out outreach to Jewish voters since Jewish voters give huge support to the Democrats and many of the elected Jewish officials are anti-Bush/anti-GOP? Why doesn’t the GOP shut out efforts to reach Hispanic voters since some of them are furious at the GOP for their anti-immigration rhetoric?
Notice the key words in there, Carl; “the NAACP”, which, for all its talk, can’t even inflate its membership numbers to a half-million of the 38 million-plus black people in this country, “many officials” for the Jewish people, which certainly does not mean all and includes people like Joe Lieberman, and “some” Hispanic voters, even though many Hispanic voters themselves are concerned about and oppose illegal immigration.
In short, these groups are not nearly as monolithic as the gay community, nor are they willing to go to the lengths that the gay community is — such as physical violence, harassment, trying to get other gay people fired (or getting other gay people fired, as in the case of Donald Hitchcock), and whatnot — to maintain that monolithism.
In addition, Republicans figured out a long time ago that gays and gay organizations will happily endorse, call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and give millions of dollars to candidates and campaigns whose positions, if they were espoused by anyone other than Democrat candidates, would create a screaming fit of these selfsame gays and organizations of “antigay” and “hateful”.
In contrast, Jewish, black, and Hispanic organizations are not NEARLY as willing to be hypocritical in terms of what they deem anti-Semitism or racial discrimination based on party affiliation.
Then doesn’t this make it even MORE unfair that the Republican Party refuses to support them in their goals to be in the military and serve their country?
Um…..by being in the positions they’re in, they ARE serving their country, and in positions of power.
Meanwhile, the rest of gaydom is having screaming fits, namecalling them, wishing their children dead, and mounting harassment campaigns against them.
I think the Republicans win in niceness in that case. And I suppose I’m mystified why you think that any of us conservative types, who have put up with namecalling, abuse, and even the threat of having our careers destroyed, should want to side with “gays and lesbians” at all.
posted by Carl on
–
In short, these groups are not nearly as monolithic as the gay community, –
NDT, blacks vote for Democrats by about 90%. Jews vote for Democrats by about 90%. Gays vote for Democrats by around 70-75%, I think. Doesn’t that mean Republicans should focus more on trying to show gay voters some sort of olive branch?
-nor are they willing to go to the lengths that the gay community is — such as physical violence, harassment, trying to get other gay people fired (or getting other gay people fired, as in the case of Donald Hitchcock), and whatnot — to maintain that monolithism.-
Wasn’t Michael Steele, the black Senate candidate in Maryland last year, the one who kept saying he had Oreo cookies thrown at him? He was also lambasted by black liberal bloggers. I haven’t ever heard of gay Republican candidates being treated that way by any gay groups.
–
Um…..by being in the positions they’re in, they ARE serving their country, and in positions of power.
–
The positions they are in can end at any time because the Republican Party does not support gay rights issues. And if we are supposed to judge gays based on the actions of a few extremists, then that means nothing they do matters.
-And I suppose I’m mystified why you think that any of us conservative types, who have put up with namecalling, abuse, and even the threat of having our careers destroyed, should want to side with “gays and lesbians” at all.-
I guess because I would consider what is best for the military – which is not things like kicking out Arabic translators because they are gay – over everything else. I see no reason why every gay and lesbian should be shunned because of the actions of a few. And since the Republicans do not treat other minority groups the same way, they are showing their hypocrisy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, blacks vote for Democrats by about 90%. Jews vote for Democrats by about 90%.
Ah, but those are CURRENT rates; if one looks, historically, the rates for Jewish voters, for one, have fluctuated significantly.
In short, they can make progress.
Wasn’t Michael Steele, the black Senate candidate in Maryland last year, the one who kept saying he had Oreo cookies thrown at him? He was also lambasted by black liberal bloggers. I haven’t ever heard of gay Republican candidates being treated that way by any gay groups.
Pshaw, that’s nothing in comparison.
And what you might also note is that what happened to Michael Steele was almost universally condemned. HRC, on the other hand, supports and encourages what I just cited happening to conservative and Republican gays.
The positions they are in can end at any time because the Republican Party does not support gay rights issues.
If that were the case, they wouldn’t have been hired in the first place.
And if we are supposed to judge gays based on the actions of a few extremists, then that means nothing they do matters.
A “few extremists” who are, as I pointed out, backed and supported by HRC — the organization which purports to represent us on Capitol Hill.
I guess because I would consider what is best for the military – which is not things like kicking out Arabic translators because they are gay – over everything else.
Let’s see; twenty or so Arabic translators who can be replaced a hundredfold versus hundreds of thousands of troops and the decision of military commanders, who are in a far better position to know such things.
And since the Republicans do not treat other minority groups the same way, they are showing their hypocrisy.
Other minority groups do not have a history of trying to sabotage the armed forces, of banning and attacking their recruiters and affiliated organizations, and whatnot when they don’t get their way.
Gays are most singular in their anti-military hate and activism. There’s very little hypocritical about it.
posted by Carl on
–
Ah, but those are CURRENT rates; if one looks, historically, the rates for Jewish voters, for one, have fluctuated significantly.
–
The Republicans made serious efforts in 2004 to sway Jewish voters. They did not make any real progress in 2004 or in 2006. There was also no real improvement for black voters in 2004, outside of a few states. Gays, meanwhile, supported Bush enough in 2000 to help him win Florida, and gave him the same amount of support in 2004 in spite of the FMA and various anti-gay campaigns from that party. I just don’t see why this voter base should be constantly ostracized by the party, especially in the case of Guiliani, who is never going to convince anyone he is a big conservative.
–
Other minority groups do not have a history of trying to sabotage the armed forces, of banning and attacking their recruiters and affiliated organizations, and whatnot when they don’t get their way.-
I didn’t hear any of the Presidential candidates using this as a reason for supporting a ban. I’m sure you could also say that gay activists in the UK or Australia or Canada have had their anti-military moments, yet those countries lifted their bans on gays in the military, and their armed forces have not suffered, as far as I can tell.
–
Let’s see; twenty or so Arabic translators who can be replaced a hundredfold –
Have they been replaced a hundredfold? I thought I had heard somewhere that they had a shortage in translators. Wasn’t there some news recently about a TV channel in the Middle East that the US was supposed to be controlling, and which, unbeknownst to us, was broadcasting anti-Semitic propaganda? Surely if they had a lot of translators, that never would have happened.
If the military and the GOP wants us to believe they support a ban because gays hate the military, that’s fine, but as long as they keep using lines about “unit cohesion” and all that, I don’t think their argument is persuasive. I guess we will agree to disagree.
posted by Brian Miller on
So to summarize NDT’s arguments, the army should only draft Republicans.
I’m all for that! Let’s send the Republicans to Iraq and get rid of all those seditious Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and Independents/Agnostics on the front lines.
NDT can take up street patrolling in Baghdad given that he doesn’t identify as a “typical gay,” the Bush daughters can work as emergency nurses in the intensive care ward, and we can get the remainder of the GOP core supporters of the Iraq War doing the right thing and fighting for their country!
Of course, if they refuse or come up with lame excuses about why they are avoiding this essential national service, we can point out Ann Coulter’s sage observation that those who refuse to do everything — EVERYTHING — must simply hate America. 😉
The remainder of us who aren’t in Iraq can then set about undoing the damage that the neoconservatives created here at home!
We’d be insane not to take this important opportunity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So to summarize NDT’s arguments, the army should only draft Republicans.
Well, right now, the armed forces don’t draft anyone — they’re volunteer-only.
And given their voting returns, it seems they’re primarily Republicans anyway.
Of course, if they refuse or come up with lame excuses about why they are avoiding this essential national service, we can point out Ann Coulter’s sage observation that those who refuse to do everything — EVERYTHING — must simply hate America. 😉
So the theory here is that, if you’re not over there serving, you can’t support the war.
When do you and yours plan to get your butts to Afghanistan, then?
Heck, if you want, you could even go to Canada and enlist in their armed forces; you could have a whole gay “libertarian”/leftist brigade fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
As an aside, I find this to be a most effective argument in quieting the “yellow elephant” crowd — or discrediting them publicly when they’re forced to admit they didn’t support military intervention in Afghanistan or against the Taliban, either.
Now, back to Carl:
There was also no real improvement for black voters in 2004, outside of a few states. Gays, meanwhile, supported Bush enough in 2000 to help him win Florida,
So let’s see, outreach to a group with a comparatively miniscule number that might be useful in one state in a tight spot, versus outreach to a far-larger group that can swing several states — and opposes what the first group wants.
The survey, by Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, shows that 18 percent of African Americans say they would vote for President Bush, doubling the nine percent that said they would support him in the Joint Center’s pre-election 2000 poll.
One suggested reason for the drop is Democratic Party nominee John Kerry’s support for granting limited rights to gay and lesbian couples. Like Bush, Kerry opposes gay marriage, but, unlike the president he opposes amending the US Constitution to forbid same-sex unions.
African Americans show greater opposition to both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples than the general population. Forty-nine percent of black voters said they oppose rights for gay couples. The national average is 37 percent opposition.
Next:
Wasn’t there some news recently about a TV channel in the Middle East that the US was supposed to be controlling, and which, unbeknownst to us, was broadcasting anti-Semitic propaganda? Surely if they had a lot of translators, that never would have happened.
Go find it and I’ll tell you.
Aside from that, I would doubt such a channel was being run by the military; more likely, it would be another department, i.e. State or the CIA, all of whom are more than happy to have gay Arabic translators.
You have to wonder why these Arabic translators won’t go to work for groups where they would actually be allowed and would be contributing a great deal — versus continually demanding access to a place with weapons in far easier reach.
And that really is the point. These gay translators aren’t prevented from serving their country; they’re simply not allowed to serve in certain positions, just as women are not allowed to be in special ops or to bunk with men on a regular basis.
Furthermore, and I repeat this point, given gays’ willingness to sabotage recruitment, to harass and try to ban the military, and the like, all because they aren’t getting their way, that makes a rather compelling case; can you imagine, for example, a unit under fire with someone deliberately obstructing and screaming at other members because they didn’t get what they wanted?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, the rest of gaydom is having screaming fits, namecalling them, wishing their children dead, and mounting harassment campaigns against them.”.
I presume you’re referring to the one blogger who said they wanted Mary Cheney’s baby to die. Once again, you lie by blaming gays in general for the isolated actions of an individual whom you don’t even know was gay.
Your rants are filled with the same tactic, blaming the isolated actions of individuals on all gays, claiming gays are monolithic when they are not. I recall the last time you tried to claim all gays are anti-military, you quoted two people, one who was married with children and one who supported banning the JROTC not because he was anti-military, but because he opposed DADT. And then you laughably claimed you could prove the first person was gay but that you weren’t going to do so because “no one would believe you” – what a pathetic weasel.
You have just as much evidence that blacks are monolithic, but you wouldn’t attack them as a group for the isolated actions of individuals because that’s no longer socially acceptable. Instead you attack the group its still okay to hate because you truly are the enemy of gays.
Northdallas said “HRC, on the other hand, supports and encourages what I just cited happening to conservative and Republican gays.”
Bullshit, your link didn’t show anything of the sort – that’s why a lot of the time people don’t read them, that’s typical of you.
posted by Brian Miller on
These gay translators aren’t prevented from serving their country; they’re simply not allowed to serve in certain positions
You and your filthy, prurient mind!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Once again ND30, you are wrong.
Draft /dr
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You have just as much evidence that blacks are monolithic, but you wouldn’t attack them as a group for the isolated actions of individuals because that’s no longer socially acceptable.
Ha.
The only thing Condi Rice and Jesse Jackson — or Michael Jackson, for that matter — have in common is skin color.
That’s because black Americans over time have stood up and been willing to disagree with each other — even vehemently — about matters. Think of MLK versus the Black Panthers, or Bill Cosby versus Kweisi Mfume. Even in the case of Michael Steele, as cited above, when the worst of the black racists started abusing him, numerous other black people made it clear that that wasn’t acceptable.
In contrast, when leftist and Democrat gays start abusing conservative and Republican gays, national gay organizations facilitate the process — even as they publicly claim the exact opposite.
And they try your technique here:
Your rants are filled with the same tactic, blaming the isolated actions of individuals on all gays, claiming gays are monolithic when they are not.
Notice that this tactic of yours never requires you to actually say what that “individual” is doing is wrong.
And even when something, like the quote mentioned, is so egregious that you can’t avoid saying that it’s wrong, you try to qualify that by claiming the person isn’t really gay, or that heterosexuals are worse, or that Mary Cheney deserves it because of her political affiliation, etc.
And any time you are confronted with examples of gay wrongdoing, you spin.
For example, this lovely post went up today on a gay site frequented by gays and moderated by a gay person who has no qualms whatsoever about banning, editing, or deleting posts from other individuals who he deems “hateful” or who he just doesn’t like, concerning a young kid who just came out and is working for and has a past with people who these folks don’t like.
My heart bleeds, but not for the likes of him. Make him bleed. Make them all bleed. If you aren’t up to it. Don’t watch, or stay out of politics. This is not a polite and civil endeavor.
Now, I fully expect you to do the following:
1) Complain that gays shouldn’t be held accountable
2) Complain that the kid’s working for certain politicians mitigates this
3) Complain that it’s just words, that it’s just a blogpost, that it shouldn’t matter
4) Argue that violence against this person would be justified in “self-defense” because he allegedly has associated with people who allegedly want to kill gays
You could, of course, take the easy tack that what is being said here is wrong, flat wrong, and the fact that it’s not even being discussed on the blog in question raises serious questions about just how far the owner of the blog and the commentors are willing to go.
But that would cast gays, and particularly a PROMINENT gay leftist and Democrat, in a bad light.
So I fully expect to see 1 – 4 instead — again, none of which require you to say that what was done is wrong — and excuses for why you shouldn’t just do the simple thing.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you try to qualify that by claiming the person isn’t really gay, or that heterosexuals are worse, or that Mary Cheney deserves it because of her political affiliation, etc.”.
You lie yet again, I never said Mary Cheney deserved it. I don’t know if that person was gay or not, and neither do you. Typical Northdallass, lies and more lies and blaming all gays for the isolated acts of an individual he doesn’t even know is gay.
posted by Carl on
–
So let’s see, outreach to a group with a comparatively miniscule number that might be useful in one state in a tight spot, versus outreach to a far-larger group that can swing several states — and opposes what the first group wants.-
The problem is that the GOP heavily courted this vote in 2004 and 2006 and got very little in return. Most black voters do not vote based on gay marriage. Meanwhile, the gay vote, which was not heavily courted, has remained at about 25% for the GOP Presidential candidates, and this is in states where the vote could make a difference.
–
Furthermore, and I repeat this point, given gays’ willingness to sabotage recruitment, to harass and try to ban the military, and the like, all because they aren’t getting their way, that makes a rather compelling case; can you imagine, for example, a unit under fire with someone deliberately obstructing and screaming at other members because they didn’t get what they wanted?-
I see no reason to believe a gay soldier would do that more than any other soldier. Since this hasn’t happened in the UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, etc. it doesn’t seem to be likely.
posted by Brian Miller on
One has to wonder what’s worse for morale in the military — allowing their gay colleagues to serve openly, or the present government’s policy of sending them off to war in Iraq with inadequate ammunition, no flak jackets, no armor on their vehicles, drinking water contaminated with e. coli (made from recycled sewage), and new “colleagues” recruited from the nation’s prisons.
posted by Audrey B on
“One has to wonder what’s worse for morale in the military — allowing their gay colleagues to serve openly, or the present government’s policy of sending them off to war in Iraq with inadequate ammunition, no flak jackets, no armor on their vehicles, drinking water contaminated with e. coli (made from recycled sewage), and new “colleagues” recruited from the nation’s prisons. Brian, thous things don’t make baby Jesus cry. Of course they are better polices then having icky queers in the barracks.
posted by Mark on
This entire comment thread is pure trash. Who are you people?!? And how did you find this otherwise lovely site?!?
posted by BobN on
If “all gays” are doing all the things that NorthDallas says they are because one he can find evidence of one gay person doing it, then “all gays” are doing all the wonderful things that NorthDallas would want them to be doing because he, himself, is doing them.
I am so relieved that we’re all doing the right thing. I’m sure he is, too…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Most black voters do not vote based on gay marriage.
More information from 2004.
One potential Democratic loss could come from black voters, 58% of whom say they would not consider voting for a candidate who doesn?t share their views on the issue of gay marriage.
And more:
Two-thirds of all blacks, and about the same proportion of black likely voters, oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.
And furthermore, I think this description helps explain the whys of the matter.
In short, there are more Jewish voters than there are gay voters, and Jewish voters make up barely 3% of the electorate. Meanwhile, black Americans make up 11% — and are supermajority-opposed to what the miniscule fraction of gay voters want.
Even assuming a generous number of glbt voters (say 3%), offering gay marriage is not likely to get you more than 1.5% of total voters — and has a high likelihood of swinging 7 – 8% of voters against you.
And as far as “glbts being in a state where it could make a difference”…..um, yeah. Appealing to gays — which, if we’re lucky, make up 2.04% of couples even in San Francisco — is going to take California, New York, and the eastern seaboard for the Republicans, you bet.
Since this hasn’t happened in the UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, etc. it doesn’t seem to be likely.
In Israel, gay people know that their enemies will murder them on sight; American gays, in contrast, see nothing wrong with supporting said enemies.
And as for Australia, Canada, and the UK, that would be why their respective governments were so eager to send them, but only to places where they would generally be kept OUT of combat — i.e. Kabul AFTER American forces had cleared it, etc.
And again, unlike American gays, I think UK, Australian, and Canadian gays may be more aware of what the Taliban and its allies like to do to homosexuals. American gays, in contrast, tend to support anyone who’s anti-Bush, regardless of little things like stoning and forced sexual reassignment surgery (Iran’s clever method).
If “all gays” are doing all the things that NorthDallas says they are because one he can find evidence of one gay person doing it, then “all gays” are doing all the wonderful things that NorthDallas would want them to be doing because he, himself, is doing them.
Problem is, BobN, they oppose vehemently what I’m doing.
Second off, your fellow folks here have declared that I’m not really gay.
Feel free to adjust your argument accordingly.
posted by Jim on
“And yet the military is supposed to accept people who, when told “No” or who don’t get exactly what they demand, start screaming, stamping their feet, and sabotaging everything on which they can get their hands.”
No. They are being asked to take gays like me – 30 years of service already – not some other people who for some reason you think you can lump me in with. The gay political groups are completely irrelevant to the military, who cannot give a shit less who loves them or not, unless it affects funding.
“Let’s see; twenty or so Arabic translators who can be replaced a hundredfold versus hundreds of thousands of troops and the decision of military commanders, who are in a far better position to know such things.”
throwing out and then replacing translators is waste fraud and abuse. You are not in a position to have any idea of what it costs to produce a military translator – a year and a half of eight hours days of university level instruction, background investigations for TS SCI clearances. It is really no different from such seting fire to a battalion’s worth of HMMVWs.
It also has nothing at all to do with the judgement of military leaders. ask people like oh…GEN Shalikasvili. It has to do with conforming to the dictates of politicians sensitive to the feelings of their constituents, which in this case are mostly based on religious conviction. Fuck their religious convictions. The 9-11 bombers had religious convictions. If they hold religious convictions contrary to constitutional principles, they are traitors. And this is wartime.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No. They are being asked to take gays like me – 30 years of service already – not some other people who for some reason you think you can lump me in with.
The reason I feel perfectly free in lumping you together with them, Jim, is because I have yet to see you, SLDN, or any other group that purports to represent “gay servicepeople” criticize them for verbally and physically assaulting your colleagues for, just as an example, the horrible crime of being military recruiters.
Or their rhetoric about how evil the military is when they banned JROTC.
Feel free to speak up. But you and SLDN will find out very quickly how much you’re liked when you do anything other than provide convenient cover for the gay left’s flagrant antimilitary hate and bigotry.
throwing out and then replacing translators is waste fraud and abuse. You are not in a position to have any idea of what it costs to produce a military translator – a year and a half of eight hours days of university level instruction, background investigations for TS SCI clearances.
LOL….DADT has been public policy for nearly fifteen years. You’re asking me to get upset at the military for bringing in people who lied on their application, took advantage of expensive training, and then declared themselves gay and got out of it.
I know very well how much Arabic translators with security clearances are worth in the marketplace and I also know how much it costs to train them; do you think, perhaps, that enterprising gays are going in, getting free training, and then using a convenient means of getting out so that they can take advantage of lucrative private-sector opportunities — versus signing up for the FBI, CIA, Department of State, and Department of Commerce, just to name four, where they could not only receive the training, but actually serve their country in the process, but for less?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The reason I feel perfectly free in lumping you together with them, Jim, is because I have yet to see you, SLDN, or any other group that purports to represent “gay servicepeople” criticize them for verbally and physically assaulting your colleagues for, just as an example, the horrible crime of being military recruiters.”.
Those weren’t gay service people Northdallass, yet again you lie and try to blame gays for something they didn’t do. Now I suppose you’re going to hide from that lie just like the lie where you claimed I said Mary Cheney deserved having someone say her child should die.
Its obvious you can’t be trusted to tell the truth. It was the board of education that voted to ban the JROTC, not a gay group as you suggest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, what I’ll point out, Randi, is just how unknown, unloved, un-gay, and un-leftist the commentor who wished Mary Cheney’s baby dead was first.
Then I’ll tell you to look up some details about Mark Sanchez, the president of the SF school board.
Or I can give you other examples of glbt groups trying to get JROTC banned.
And then Jim can speak up about glbts calling him and his fellow soldiers “killers” and “cannon fodder” who were “preyed upon” and manipulated into joining the armed forces.
posted by Lori Heine on
“If they hold religious convictions contrary to constitutional principles, they are traitors. And this is wartime.”
Any so-called Christians who think that their religious convictions are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution have read neither the Bible nor the Constitution.
If they feel they must betray this country in order to uphold their “religious convictions,” then they are barking-at-the-moon crazy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, unfortunately, there’s no constitutional right to military service, so that kind of goes out the window as an argument.
Personally, I worry much less about religious people betraying this country than I do about gay leftists who think that assaulting military recruiters is in any way a good idea.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I love how Northdallass tries to dodge his lies with more lies. There was nothing in the links you gave (as is common) to support your claim that that commentor was known, gay or “leftist”.
And back to the lies you were trying to cover up with those lies:
I never Mary Cheney deserved to have someone say her baby should die.
The San francisco board of education is not a gay group, having one gay as a member doesn’t make it so – you lied.
This link you gave about people assaulting military recruiters:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004974.htm
wasn’t a gay group – you lied.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That should have read “I never SAID Mary Cheney deserved to have someone say her baby should die” – Northdallass lied as per usual
posted by Brian Miller on
there’s no constitutional right to military service
Au contraire. The Constitution doesn’t provide for a standing army — the Second Amendment, however, recognizes that an armed citizenry of all sorts is the best military option.
The founders were utterly opposed to a standing army, since it provided the state with the apparatus necessary to inflict tyrrany on the domestic population and also interfere in the affairs of other countries where we don’t belong.
Recent history certainly underscores the founders’ concerns.
I worry much less about religious people betraying this country than I do about gay leftists
Then again, you also worried that Saddam Hussein was about to nuke the United States with massive stockpiles of WMDs. . . so you’ll forgive me if I question whether your worries should form the basis of policy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There was nothing in the links you gave (as is common) to support your claim that that commentor was known, gay or “leftist”.
Sure, just the high-profile gay leftist blogger celebrating her existence and birthday. 🙂
I never Mary Cheney deserved to have someone say her baby should die.
Yes, we already know you think Mary Cheney deserved to have people say that.
And I’ll also note that you ignored the link that clearly showed gay groups supporting bans on JROTC, as well as their obvious influence in San Francisco, and as well as the attacks being made on military personnel by “those people” with whom Jim wanted to be lumped.
Meanwhile, to Brian:
The founders were utterly opposed to a standing army, since it provided the state with the apparatus necessary to inflict tyrrany on the domestic population and also interfere in the affairs of other countries where we don’t belong.
Recent history certainly underscores the founders’ concerns.
And I’m sure you and Gerardo Sandoval will have a lovely life together.
posted by murchu on
Northdallas,
You straights have no monopoly at all on conservatism, yes, believe or not, there are gay conservatives as well, is this shocking to you?
gay people are not all “leftists” you seem to stereotype gay people as leftists by always pairing the two together.
I am a gay man and I know more about the gay community than you do.
Gay people are just as diverse as straight people, of different races, creeds, backgrounds, economic levels, nationalities, of different political beliefs, different likes and dislikes, different styles and opinions, just as different as straights are from each other.
So just as not any one straight person or belief speaks for all straight people, similar applies to gay people, we are not by any means all the same, so please stop the uninformed stereotyping.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Murchu, may I suggest you stop by for a toddy?
Suffice to say that I am aware of what you speak. However, I am also aware that the vast majority of gays would vastly prefer that we not exist — and are more than willing to act to bring about that preference.