John McWhorter, an African-American policy analyst who, among other positions, supports school choice (and thus gets damned in some quarters as a race-betraying conservative) has a column in the New York Sun about Mitt Romney, Mormons and gays. Deeply moving, whether you agree with his conclusion or not.
Meanwhile, Newsday looks at Rudy Giuliani's support for gay rights. Expect gay "progressives" to send this to GOP conservatives (see our earlier posting), perhaps adding a video of a lisping gay stereotype to introduce it, in their efforts to keep anti-gay Republicans in control of the GOP (it's the kind of logic that only a morally superior "progressive" could appreciate, I suppose).
19 Comments for “Don’t Tell the Gay “Progessives”!”
posted by Randy on
Oh, please! Enough already. So according to Stephen Miller, gays cannot criticize Guiliani, apparently because he is somwhat in favor of gay rights (though he flip flops when needed), and if he doesn’t win the GOP nomination, then we will have someone who is much worse on gay rights.
So because he offers us crumbs, we should leave him alone, because the alternative is worse.
And this is VERY attitude that you criticize liberals of doing with the Democratic field!
Even more strangely, you assume that this one video has the power to hand over the GOP to the Dobson gang — as if it weren’t already!
posted by Brian Miller on
If a candidate is not in favor of equal treatment under the law for gay people in all areas — marriage, immigration, military service, tax treatment, and so on — then he/she is not “pro-gay.”
He/she is homophobic, but perhaps less virulently so than other competitors.
There is a difference. Let’s not allow the rush by old-party partisans paper over that simple truth — Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Guiliani, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Paul, Mr. Obama, Mr. Richardson, Mr. McCain, and all the others who are so often loved on this blog are all homophobes to varying degrees by that simple and irrefutable definition.
Thus, supporters of one homophobe arguing against the supporters of another homophobe, based on opposition to homophobia, is patently absurd — regardless of whether it’s in favor of the Demopublican or the Republicrat of the moment.
posted by Craig2 on
Er, given that the Christian Right
are usually proponents of ‘school
choice’ ie government subsidisation of
(antigay) fundamentalist and religious
sectarian schools, why exactly do gay
conservatives support it…?!
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by avee on
Actually, I’m amazed that the lefty commentators (do they keep this blog on their RSS?) can’t deal with the homophobic lisping stereotype in the anti-Rudy YouTube video that they so adore. Their lame responses and evasions tell the story.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
McWhorter’s books on race (“Authentically Black,” “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in the Black Community”) are among the best and most incisive I have seen. The attacks against him, which echo those against Ward Connerly, discredit the attackers. Thanks, Steve, for the link to his eloquent column.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Matt Foreman’s fair-minded comments about Rudy in the Newsday article remind me of how much more appealing he is than HRC’s Joe Solmonese, who is much more interested in star-f*cking than dealing with the gay rank and file.
posted by Brian Miller on
Rudy Guiliani is the 2007 equivalent of circa 1991 Bill Clinton. Gay activists are swooning over him and ignoring his troubling backtracking.
If he attains office, he’ll stab us in the back ala Clinton, and the activists who supported him will insist they had no idea that this would happen, but he’s the “best we can hope for.”
And just like Clinton, gay people will be less free and more restricted by the federal government after his term than we were before his term.
posted by ETJB on
It is clear that Rudy Guiliani has given Stephen a happy, but beyond that, what is this post about?
Progressives (sexual orientation aside) have little to do with the fact that the GOP base is in opposition to equal rights.
“YouTube” is made for a generation that grew up with Simpsons and South Park and more recently Family Guy and American Dad!
If you do not understand that, then the message of such a video clip will be lost.
posted by Brian Miller on
the GOP base is in opposition to equal rights.
This is very true. The Democratic base is in opposition to equal rights as well.
The anti-equality character of the Republican and Democratic parties manifest themselves in different ways. Both Democrats and Republicans generally oppose marriage equality, for example, but Republicans claim to “make up for it” through supporting tax cuts and big government.
Democrats claim to “make up for it” by opposing equal rights on broad and important issues like marriage, but supporting special rights like “hate crimes” laws and preferential hiring quotas for gay people.
For those of us interested in actual equality, neither of the old parties has much to say of interest — or a candidate who is interesting.
posted by Randy on
T”he GOP base is in opposition to equal rights.
This is very true. The Democratic base is in opposition to equal rights as well.”
And yet, recent polls have shown that abnout 70% of Americans support gays serving in the military openly, and support ENDA.
So if they aren’t the base of either party, then the bases must be very small and not worth worrying about.
posted by TJR on
Are the Log Cabin Republicans and Stephen Miller out of touch with reality or what? Mayor Guiliani has mentioned absolutely nothing about gay rights since starting his presidential campaign. He is running away from the issue as if it’s the plague.
Mayor Giuliani does not even support the repeal of the US Military’s ridiculous “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
The good Mayor also has stated he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges (code word) anti-gay, anti-civil rights jurists if he is elected president.
At least the Democrats have the courage to address gay rights issues directly by appearing on a gay themed forum.
Rudy Giuliani would be no different from any other Republican president, being on the wrong side of history.
posted by Randy on
This video really got under the skin of Stephen Miller, because he posted about it twice, and he makes sweeping statements this this one piece of art is representative of how ALL liberals behave.
Apparently, what really got him is the fact that the actors acted a little femmy. I think that says a lot more about Mr. Miller than anything else.
Imagine if one of the interviews at the recent HRC forum was a little femmy — Mr. Miller would no doubt have gone ballistic. Well, I have a message for you: I don’t care if you are butch, femmy, a drag queen, transgendered, a butchy lebian, or whatever. Get over it — we are all part of the same struggle. Pretending all these types don’t exist wont’ really get us very far.
It’s like blacks who don’t want representatives whose skin is coal black because that’s just too threatening to white America — better to have an Oprah who skin is fairly light. I say BS to all that — people are people, not matter how dark their skin, or how loose their wrist, and we all deserve the same respect and rights as anyone else.
posted by Jim C. on
McWhorter’s column was spot on. Mormonism’s other bigotry flaw is in its creation myth, which describes a group of dirty sinners living in North America who were punished by God by — you guessed it — having their skin turned dark. Unless Romney denounces the white supremacy of his faith’s sacred text, The Book of Mormon, he’s condoning it.
posted by ETJB on
Brian;
The Democratic Party is supportive of a greater degree of equality (i.e. civil unions) then the Republican Party.
It may not be perfect, but until we have substantive campaign law reform, their are only two choices.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Democratic Party is supportive of a greater degree of equality (i.e. civil unions) then the Republican Party.
Which would be why the Democrats in the debate — most of whom are either sitting Senators (or were, until recently) have introduced legislation in this session to make this happen, right?
Gawd, you Democrats are *so* gullible.
until we have substantive campaign law reform, their are only two choices
They’re your only two choices as long as you remain blind. Voting between a Democrat or a Republican is like saying “I have a two choices — shooting myself in my left temple, or shooting myself in my right temple.”
As long as you give money, support and votes to people who haven’t earned them, you’ll get more of the same — that is to say, “support” that is meaningless and ephemeral.
You’d figure that 15 years of Clintonian politics since 1992 would have taught you guys that — are you actually going to squander *another* generation on this?!?
posted by BobN on
Yeah, yeah, Dems and the GOP are exactly the same. Afterall, we haven’t gotten where we are with the support of either of those two parties. Our real friends, those who started voting FOR us two and three decades ago and who still do so today are the… uh… uhm…
Now, I can understand that gay conservatives think liberalism is bad and that conservatism has something important to offer, but seriously, do you think stupid arguments actually help your cause???
posted by Randy on
Hate to burst Steven Miller’s bubble, but here is a recent news story on Guiliani. Looks like more flip-flopping:
A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer. Giuliani has described himself as a backer of civil unions and is frequently described that way in news reports. But he began distancing himself from civil unions in late April, when his campaign told The New York Sun that New Hampshire’s new law goes too far because it is ‘the equivalent of marriage,’ which he has always opposed for gays. Giuliani’s aides offered little explanation of what specific rights he would support for same-sex couples.”
The Globe notes that in 2004 Giuliani told Bill O’Reilly: “I’m in favor of . . . civil unions. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn’t have.”
But now, according to Maria Comella, Giuliani’s deputy communications director, the candidate’s stance has changed: “It’s about rights and benefits more than the title. The mayor supports the benefits and rights as they are written in the domestic partnership law in New York City.”
Said Joe Tarver of the Empire State Pride Agenda: “It’s really disappointing he’s stepped back from his position on civil unions. It’s quite obvious he’s playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination.”
So, we still can say anything bad about Rudy?
posted by Avee on
Randy bloviates: “This video really got under the skin of Stephen Miller, because he posted about it twice, and he makes sweeping statements this this one piece of art is representative of how ALL liberals behave. Apparently, what really got him is the fact that the actors acted a little femmy. I think that says a lot more about Mr. Miller than anything else.”
Yes, Randy, using lisping anti-gay steroetypes is just dandy if the aim is to attack pro-gay conservatives. What’s a little homo-hatred when it helps the Democrats, after all?
posted by Randy on
Perhaps one can view the video as offensive, Avee, but Miller made the comment that this is representative of how ALL liberals behave. And they certainly do not.
What Miller also said was that we shouldn’t knock Rudy because they others republicans are much worse on gay rights. So, again, does that mean we can’t point out his flip flopping?