IGF contributing author James Kirchick has a strong op-ed in the L.A. Times (also posted here) about the uproar that ensued when Jonathan Crutchley, co-founder of the website Manhunt, was discovered to have contributed to McCain's presidential campaign, leading to his dismissal by the board. Writes Kirchick:
The hue and cry over Crutchley's politics is all too familiar. Why can't gay activists countenance the idea of a "Massachusetts Republican"? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise-that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don't follow the left-wing line-is to be a traitor to the gay "community."
For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don't agree a "bigot" does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.
The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can't come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people-and straight supporters of gay equality-need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.
But did he not commit heresy against the one true party? And shall we suffer heretics? Nay!
Editors' reminder: Comments that contain name-calling directed at other commenters (i.e., "idiot," "liar," etc.) are subject to deletion.
35 Comments for “One Party State (of Mind)”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, fair enough points made by Kirchick and the most important one, in my book, is when he contends that
“Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Aside from their sexuality, gay people are no different from heterosexuals. There are gay people of all races, income levels, occupations, body types and, yes, political beliefs. Gay liberals are always crowing about the importance of “diversity” and lauding its importance on matters of race and gender. Too bad diversity doesn’t count when it comes to politics.”
Here on IGF we’ve had a host of gayLefties, gayDemocrats and fake gayIndependents assail gays who take a different approach to politics and governance… in fact, those who dissent have been subject to attempts by gayLefties and gayDemocrats at revoking their gayCard, comparing their conduct to Jews selling our compatriots to the Nazi concentration camp leaders, and on and on.
Often, it’s using the “self-loathing” label to intimidate dissenters from fair, free exchange of ideas… which is pretty sad when one considers that for years str8 therapists used the self-loathing label to catergorize gay conduct and isolate gays from mainstream folks.
But hey, for gayLefties and gayDemocrats here and elsewhere in blog-o-land, what’s most important is maintaining their grip on the “one true gay voice” and making sure, in politics, those gay fingers push the Democrat levers on Election Day.
That’s why, for gayLefties and gayDemocrats, being gay is all about being a loyal Democrat.
One final point: for the gayLeft activists here, you have to break out of the closed mindset that speaking to “your” enemy isn’t a violation of your liberal elitist principles. You should be able to take a page from BarryO… heck, he’s willing to meet with any American enemy, anytime, without preconditions, right? If it’s good enough for the Masta, it ought to be good for enough for the (gay) slave?
posted by Bobby on
Show me one republican in office who has tried to shutdown Manhunt, Gay.com, Bear411 or the men looking for men section on craiglist? There isn’t one.
So what does Obama offer Mr. Crutchley? Nothing. In fact, Obama is likely to raise the taxes Crutchley pays.
Obama is no friend of free speech, which means he’s a natural enemy of Crutchley. One only needs to look at the letters Obama’s been sending to the justice department just because some guy is airing an ad about Obama’s connections with terrorist Bill Ayres.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/fighting-back-against-obamas-thugs/
Mr. Obama’s actions are no different than that of the nazi book burnings of 1933. Bush has dealt with far worse than commercials that tell the truth, yet I don’t see Bush writing a letter to the justice department.
The truth is that Obama is a fascist. He wants unity at the expense of democracy, he wants to change the political discourse by censoring his opponents. Change for the Worse!
posted by BobN on
“So what does Obama offer Mr. Crutchley?”
Well, among other things, federal recognition of his Massachusetts marriage. I assume that the business and life partners are married — a legal condition offered to them due to the hard work of Massachusetts liberal polticians. If they’re not now, surely they would be if they faced some serious health issues. Or would Mr. Crutchley prefer that Uncle Sam get his “death taxes”?
posted by Richard on
I suspect that voting for a candidate with a horrible record on gay rights, is probably what bothers people, more then having different views on ‘non-gay’ issues or trying to deal with homophobia in th GOP.
Yes, people — liberals and conservatives alike — do show a bit of intolerance to people who do not share their political opinions or affliations. People do use politics as an excuse to be rather petty, mean-spirited, intolerant or malicious in nature.
As an Independent, I have had many gay liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrast (not the same thing mind you) give me all sorts of intolerance and meanness because I question the two-party cartel.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or would Mr. Crutchley prefer that Uncle Sam get his “death taxes”?
Interestingly enough, a simple change to the tax code would eliminate death taxes — which would benefit BOTH married and single individuals.
Isn’t it amusing how gay and lesbian liberals whine about the death taxes, but staunchly, as good Democrats, oppose any attempt to eliminate them?
posted by Jeremy on
I was once told by someone that, by voting on the basis of gay rights, I was irresponsibly behaving as a “single-issue voter.”
I replied, “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize my life had been reduced to a single issue.”
I will stop giving gay Republicans a hard time when their party stops making my sub-humanity a major part of its platform.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I will stop giving gay Republicans a hard time when their party stops making my sub-humanity a major part of its platform.
LOL….or so says the Democrat Party gay who fully endorses and supports state constitutional amendments, the FMA, workplace discrimination, and endorsement and support of people whom Democrat gays call “theocrats”.
Seems like you don’t mind “sub-humanity” much at all, Jeremy. Indeed, seems like you and your fellow Democrat gays not only like it, but endorse it and support it with your dollars, votes, and cries of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when your Democrat masters do it.
posted by Rob on
Before making any conclusions NDT, let’s see what each individual candidate rather than party affiliations can offer to gay voters, something that you have failed to accomplish when you voted for anti-veteran Rick Perry.
BTW Matt, I’m waiting for your reply in the ‘A Pragmatic Pick’ article.
posted by BobN on
“Isn’t it amusing how gay and lesbian liberals whine about the death taxes, but staunchly, as good Democrats, oppose any attempt to eliminate them?”
I’ve noticed in reading these threads that you amuse easily.
This gay liberal doesn’t whine about the estate tax. I think it’s quite reasonable to tax estates with an exemption for close family and a cap which covers 95% of American families.
I whine about the fact that the feds won’t recognize my family relationships, married or not.
“which would benefit BOTH married and single individuals”
Uh… I thought your party and your movement think married couples (well, heterosexual ones) deserve all sorts of perks, what with their preserving the species, etc….
posted by Richard II on
As an Independent, I find it cute how gay Republicans and gay Democrats bend over backwards to try and paint their party as pure and just, while the other party is evil and sinister and probably in league with Satan.
Where is the public sympathy for Independent and minor party supporters who refuse to toe the cartel state of mind?
posted by Jeremy on
North Dallas Thirty,
Did I ever say I was a Democrat? Please respond to what I actually said and not to what you assume to be true.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Uh… I thought your party and your movement think married couples (well, heterosexual ones) deserve all sorts of perks, what with their preserving the species, etc….
They do. But taxing people merely for dying doesn’t make any sense and, if anything, it hurts the perpetuation of families and passing on assets to children and relatives — which is why Republicans have so strongly opposed a death tax.
I whine about the fact that the feds won’t recognize my family relationships, married or not.
Ah yes, the old, “Beyond Marriage” argument, about how Democrat gays believe the government should be recognizing everything they want, including, quote, “households with multiple conjugal partners”.
Please respond to what I actually said and not to what you assume to be true.
I did — by pointing out that you seemingly have no problem with being treated like a “sub-human” if the Democrat Party is doing it.
posted by LeBain on
I can’t believe every has fallen for this. The donation was as a publicity stunt from the beginning. The McCain campaign did not publicize the donation, Manhunt did. Then they claimed the donor was fired. Then after the publicity, the McCain campaign returned the check. Then Manhunt said it would go to some other candidate.
For zero money, Manhunt has now been a national sideshow for weeks. That’s more pulicity than they ever could have afforded if they tried to buy advertising.
posted by Bobby on
“Well, among other things, federal recognition of his Massachusetts marriage.”
—McCain supports states rights, which means that if California wants same-sex marriage, McCain won’t stand in the way. Just like Obama. So he can vote for either.
“I assume that the business and life partners are married — a legal condition offered to them due to the hard work of Massachusetts liberal polticians.”
—So because liberals are right on a few issues, does that mean conservatives and independents should vote for them? That’s like saying, “hey, let’s legalize gay marriage,” but let’s also pass a bunch of other laws we don’t agree with.
“Or would Mr. Crutchley prefer that Uncle Sam get his “death taxes””
—Frankly, I think everyone should have the same tax rate, and nobody should have to pay death taxes. Death taxes have hurt many Americans, sometimes the family of a farmer is forced to sell the farm because they can’t afford those death taxes. The last thing the government needs is more money.
posted by Richard II on
“McCain supports states rights, which means that if California wants same-sex marriage, McCain won’t stand in the way. Just like Obama. So he can vote for either.”
No, not really no. McCain supports ‘states rights’ – an all too familiar term to people of color such as myself – as long as the result is not extending any legal recognition to same-sex couples. If that happsn, then he supports a federal constitutional amendment.
Obama supports, ‘states rights’ but also wants to give federal recognition to same-sex couples who live in a state that extends recognition to such couples.
Beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, McCain seems to oppose gay rights issues, while Obama is supportive. Yes, you can certainly vote for either candidate, but people are probably going to be critical of your choice.
“I assume that the business and life partners are married — a legal condition offered to them due to the hard work of Massachusetts liberal polticians.”
—So because liberals are right on a few issues, does that mean conservatives and independents should vote for them? That’s like saying, “hey, let’s legalize gay marriage,” but let’s also pass a bunch of other laws we don’t agree with.
“Or would Mr. Crutchley prefer that Uncle Sam get his “death taxes””
—Frankly, I think everyone should have the same tax rate, and nobody should have to pay death taxes. Death taxes have hurt many Americans, sometimes the family of a farmer is forced to sell the farm because they can’t afford those death taxes. The last thing the government needs is more money.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jeremy says: “I was once told by someone that, by voting on the basis of gay rights, I was irresponsibly behaving as a “single-issue voter.” I replied, “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize my life had been reduced to a single issue.””
Compare that old, tired, stuck-in-the-political-activism-of-GaysAsVictims-mentality of Jeremy with Kirchick’s view: “Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Aside from their sexuality, gay people are no different from heterosexuals.”
I don’t think your gay brethern are worried about you being a single-issue voter, Jeremy, the concern is over gays being a SINGLE PARTY voter.
There’s that old devil in the details problem that haunts nearly all gayDemocrats… for them, there is no other choice possible.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, anyone reading your posts here now know that you are nothing other than a gayDemocrat hiding under the sheepskin of an independent. Like the last two dozen posts, that last one says gayDemocrat better than even King Richard, an avowed BarryO supporter, could muster with a sly str8 face.
posted by Jorge on
As someone who’d probably be a Joe Lieberman Democrat (if I were a Democrat), this is pretty repulsive to me. This kind of behavior on the part of fanatical anti-Bush people (not gays) is one of the reasons I am not a Democrat.
If people do not like the political affiliation of someone they’ve barely even heard of, that’s their prerogative, but they’re wrong. I dare anyone to question my political affiliation to my face without the anonymity of the internet or some radio talk show to protect them.
I don’t think Kirchick goes far enough. The expression of Crutchley’s identity and beliefs is doing nothing to harm anyone. In fact, contributing to a political campaign is part of good citizenship, so long as there is an opportunity for everyone else to contribute to the campaign of their choice as well.
In trying to cut him off from his business and set other people against him en masse for nothing more than expressing his identity, the radical blogger and talk show host and others like them are engaging in borderline fascism. It is unacceptable and they should be shunned.
posted by another Steve on
Let me paraphrase the view of many of our commenters: IGF is a lousy site that I visit every day (or several times a day) to tell the bloggers what a lousy site it is. Don’t get me wrong; I, too, am "independent" in my thinking. I may even occassionally have a problem with the far left wing of LGBT Democrats. But criticizing mainstream LGBT liberal Democrats is crossing the line.
I would suggest that perhaps these commenters would be more happy visiting Andrew Sullivan’s site (andrewsullivan.com); he, too, has some problems with the far left but sings the praises of John Kerry (4 years ago) and Obama (today). But then, he doesn’t allow comments on his site.
posted by Richard II on
The gay Republicans that I have known, befriend and even dated all seem to have one thing in common; they put gay rights way below other issues. Political experts tend to refer to this as being the salience factor.
Gay Republicans seem to feel that gay rights is not really as important as policy “x,y’z”. Among the more economically upscale, it tends to be a focus on tax cuts for the rich or giving big business a pass.
Among those few gay Republicans I met who were actually working class, they tend to care more about opposing abortion, gun rights or killing (or converting) as as many
Muslims as possibly.
Most gay people are going to vote for the Democratic Party because (1) the rules are set up against independents/third parties and (2) the GOP is largely hostile to gay rights. Now I have no problem with changing both of these, in fact I would agrue that we should, but lets not pee on my leg and try to pass it off as lemonade.
Onto Manhunt itself. We can go back into the records as see how McCain or his VP voted or made comments about Internet Censorhip — CDA or the anti-gay criminal laws. That may settle the issue of whether or not th Manhunt fellow is an utter fool.
Legally, the courts have not come out and found a constitutional right to vote, seek or hold office, political orgs or give money to anyone. In fact they often uohold a number of restricions, often in my mind, on shaky legal grounds.
Yet, if we want to solve that problem then we need to talk about election law reforms.
How do people want to deal with political peference based discrimination? Civil rights laws? A voluntary ethical code of conduct?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, the gay “independent” offers this insight: “Most gay people are going to vote for the Democratic Party because (1) the rules are set up against independents/third parties and (2) the GOP is largely hostile to gay rights.”
So, with his gayDemocrat skirts hiked up over his head, Richard2 says gays will vote for Democrats because our electoral system is rigged against 3rd parties AND (this isn’t an either or situation to Richard-the-gayDemocrat-in-hiding) because the GOP is hostile to gays.
Right. No question about that supposed independent political status, eh?
Here’s the rub, my gayDemocrat friend… for a long time liberals like you cheered McCain on when he stood up to the GOP establishment and fought his own way to a maverick’s policy… you guys measured him a maverick, a reformer and your political counterweights on the whackedOut farRight called him a RINO –Republican In Name Only.
Now that he’s the candidate challenging BarryO -Savior of the GayLeft and Temple HighPriest of AllThingsLiberallyConsidered- suddenly the GOP and McCain are the evil force in society –a thing which is in dire need of purging.
Guess what? Unlike the surge, the Purge ain’t working.
Like it’s been well demonstrated here on IGF, the political hegemony of the gayLeft isn’t a smart or effective strategy, no matter how many gayPorn sites gayLefties put up to seduce innocent, unaware gays toward the DarkSide of gayLeftie political hate speech ideology. (paging DailySlab, JoeMyGod, etc)
It simply isn’t working. McCain will likely get upwards of 35% of the gayVote this fall… eclipsing even the most gay friendly Prez ever, George W Bush’s 26% in 2004.
The security fence at the Democrat Plantation has been broken while da’ Masta was away… the gay slave vote is free. Thank God Almighty, free at last! (sarcasm there)
posted by Richard II on
I believe that it is critically important for LGBT Democrats and Republicans to be actively and openly involved in their respective political party’s, trying to educate fellow party members and candidatse about LGBT issues.
I believe that LGBT conferences and interest groups that want to be bi-partisan should make a sincere effort to work with both major parties and welcome LGBT Democrats and Republicans.
I believe that LGBT people should place a high value on political rights (expression, voting, candidacy, orgs) and be generally leery pf discrimination or intolerance.
I believe that the records of the candidates should be objectively made public, studied, discussed and debated.
I believe that it is possible for LGBT Democrats and Republicans to deal with each other as civil, mature and responsible adults.
MM:
Exit polling data shows that roughly 4-5% of American voters are gay and willing to be open out it on a survey. Most of these voters tend to vote for the Democratic Party (roughly 70%) 20% vote Republican and %5 vote for Independent or minor party candidates.
For what it is worth. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents and some third party candidates.
Beyond LGBT rights, both Obama and Mcain have — in view — their own pluses and minuses. Yet, on LGBT rights, Mcain seems to only have minuses.
I am probably a bit more hawkish on defense and foriegn policy then the ‘gayleft’. I probably support the 2nd Amendment more then the ‘gayleft’. I probably support more economic dergulation then the ‘gayleft’. I also tend to consider moral and ethical values to be important.
Yet, I am very much pro-choice, think that health care is a human right, think that the private sector has been given too much of a blank check under Bush Co, and think that the foreign policy has made some serious blunders.
As a person of color, I also tend to favor civil rights and affirmative action. Although I feel that AA probably needs to have greater emphasis on class and hope that AA is no longer needed within my lifetime.
Why do most — polled — gay Americans vote for the Democratic Party? Well, the GOP has been largely hostile to gay rights. Yes, their are some greate exceptions but the party has gotten a reputation, not entirely inaccurate, as being the party of big business and the religious right.
I suspect that a great many LGBT Americans — who are part of a professional or educated middle class are probably more
classical or neoliberal; socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I suspect that LGBT Americans who are disabled or at the loewr end of the socioeconomic ladder are probably a bit more populist on ecnomic issues.
Yet, most of the time — especially in federal races — voters are stuck with, at best, two viable candidates, neither of who need a majority of the popular vote to hold office.
As an Independent I ‘cheer’ when a candidate or incumbent does or says something that I agree with and ‘jeer’ when they say or do something that I do not agree with.
Barry Goldwater said lots of things that I would cheer and jeer about. So has Mcain, so has Obama.
Mcain toyed with a maverick image in the 1990s, but his current camapign seems to be very alien to this earlier image.
Obama is hardly by ‘savior’ and neither is Mccain.
As a gay person of color I find the notion that Democratic Party is keeping gay people on a plantation to be racist and deamning. Both major parties maintain a two-party cartel, but membership in either party is pretty much voluntary and fluid.
If you want more LGBT people to vote for Mcain or other Republicans then you need to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Insulting people is probably not the most effective plan.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, it’s ok to come out of the closet and admit you’re a gayDemocrat and drop the pretense of being an “independent”… you’re anything but independent as your posts here show over and over.
And no, doing the King Richard thing of saying something nice about McCain doesn’t erase your gayDemocrat credentials.
Frankly, I really don’t care if you pretend you might vote for McCain and that there’s serious merit in trying to convince YOU of his value… I don’t have a split second doubt you’ll pull the Democrat Party lever at your summoned time and do the Masta’s bidding.
Real political independent voters have proven, in state after state, the strong desire to have McCain the GOP’s nominee. Unlike the caucus-hogging Democrats, most states hold open GOP primaries because we think that diversity is important and will better select a candidate for the nomination.
McCain is as big a maverick today as he was in the 1990s, 1980s. It’s an intrinsic part of who he is and your assessment won’t change that reality.
Now, come on, step out of the closet and admit you’re a gayDemocrat. You’ll feel better afterwards… and isn’t that what we’ve all been told it’s all about?
posted by Bobby on
Hey Richard,
“If that happsn, then he supports a federal constitutional amendment.”
—McCain didn’t vote for the constitutional amendment when he had the chance. That proves to me that he’s independent thinker. In fact, when the democrats said that he voted 90% of the time with Bush, they don’t mention that a lot of those votes where stupid resolutions, like recognizing arbor day, things even Obama voted for.
“Obama supports, ‘states rights’ but also wants to give federal recognition to same-sex couples who live in a state that extends recognition to such couples.”
—Well, that’s simply wrong. That’s like saying that every state should have a state income tax. Unless it’s a federal issue like immigration, in which case all it would take is for the INS to allow domestic partners to sponsor their foreign lovers, I’m not down with Alabama messing with Michigan or vice-versa.
“Beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, McCain seems to oppose gay rights issues”
—There are no other gay rights issues right now. We can adopt in most states except for 2. We can’t serve in the military, although more troops admit knowing someone gay in the service and not caring, and the polls are in our favor to repeal the ban. Those are the only gay issues right now. We don’t even have sodomy laws to worry about anymore. Unless you have sex in a park or a toilet, the state government doesn’t care.
America has changed. There used to be a time when homophobia was mainstream. When the debate was between whether we’re evil people that deserve to die or disgusting that must be tolerated.
That’s not the situation right now.
posted by Jorge on
As a gay person of color I find the notion that Democratic Party is keeping gay people on a plantation to be racist and deamning. Both major parties maintain a two-party cartel, but membership in either party is pretty much voluntary and fluid.
Well, I’ll agree that people have a choice to leave the cotton farm.
Now, I’ll admit that Republicans in general have a lot of hostility to the gay rights movement, and a lot less than Democrats have.
However, if you were to take Republicans who support gay rights, or Republicans whose actions promote gay rights (the latter is a much larger list), and compare them to Democrats, I like the way Republicans think a lot better than I like the way Democrats think. I like the way Republicans will act without pretense, without identifying a certain group for special treatment, and just saying that an American should be treated as an American. Democrats call it gay rights, while Republicans (at their best, mind you) practice human rights.
posted by Rob on
Those are the only gay issues right now.
Wrong, there’s still a few more issues left to resolve at the federal level:
posted by Richard II on
MM seems to feel that he can gets to define himself and that he also gets to define — with an assortment of lies — everyone else. Um, no.
MM seems to feel that an Independent is anyone who kisses his ass and worships the ground that Mcain walks on. Well, I am sorry to burst your little bubble butt, but the former is probably your boyfriend and the later is called a yellow dog Republican.
Most States have open primaries? Care to back that up with some hard evidence. If it is true, it is because of the State’s election law.
Mcain supports the Federal Marriage Amendment — i.e. no same-sex marriage, no civil unions, no legal contracts. He opposes anti-discrimination laws. He opposes gays being allowed to serve in the military. He opposes gays adopting kids. On just about every issue, he strongly opposes gay rights.
It would seem that the IGF’s civility rules do not preclude people making overtly racist comments.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, not all. You’ve got it wrong, but at least you’re improving in showing us your true colors as a gayDemocrat.
My sense of independents are the REAL independent voters who showed up in New Hampshire and Michigan and California and Ohio and New York and other states to vote for McCain-the-Maverick. Not someone hiding under the cloak of an independent while espousing solidly gayDemocrat rhetoric; that’s just being intellectually dishonest –the primary character trait of gayDemocrats.
I know independents, Richard2. I’ve worked with them on political activism efforts to rally support for sweeping reform in govt. I’ve worked with them to encourage high school juniors and seniors to learn about our great democracy and get involved in govt affairs. I’ve courted them actively for various candidates on both sides of the aisle at local, state and nat’l elections. I reached out to them and enjoyed their support ini defeating anti-gay ballot measures in Michigan. I know REAL independents, Richard2.
You claim to be an independent but the antipathy and avarice you hold toward anyone with a partisan bent is apparent for all and clearly rises from your injured sense of not being able to advance your solution to the Nation’s problems: 3rd party viability.
It’s ok, toss around whatever slurs and misprisions of truth you can muster… but your real answer is to come out of the closet and admit you’re an ObamAcolyte and feel the fever of celebrity.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Oh, and Richard2, that last little jab about “racist” comment? Are you alluding to my use of the metaphor of the Democrat Plantation, Masta, gaySlave ho’ing the rows, etc?
Nothing racist in that but good job at trying to play the RaceCard… it’s still at the bottom of the deck.
Now, “draw, play or discard” Richard2 but don’t toss on a cloak of VictimHood over the sheepskin of an independent.
Cool?
posted by Bobby on
Hey Rob,
“cannot acquire federal marriage benefits and protections, including the right to spousal privilege in Federal courts.”
—More and more courts are supporting gay divorces, are awarding parental rights to non-biological parents, and they’re doing those things in states that are not necessarily gay friendly.
“Bi-national couples not being recognized by the federal government for immigration purposes due to the Defence of Marriage Act.”
—That’s not the reason at all. If a foreign man dates an American woman, he won’t be able to get his greencard until he marries her. And even after the marriage, there’s great scrutiny to make sure that he didn’t marry her just for the greencard.
“There are also asylum issues, specifically with gay refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq that has not been resolved.”
—Gays have been granted assylum in this country before. But this country isn’t going to let every foreign gay come her just like Holland was going to deport some gay iranian who ended up going to England and after a long legal process, finally won his assylum.
“Regardless of the numerous open secrets, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still has to be repealed, in order to avoid blackmail, and to allow gay solders and career officers the right to start a family without looking behind their backs (at home of course).”
—True, but I doubt that’s priority #1 for most gays. Most gays don’t serve in the military, most gays don’t want to serve in the military. This isn’t like sodomy laws that to an extent, affected all of us.
Look, things have changed a lot in the gay community. In the 1950s for example, you could find a sense of community in a gay bar or bathhouse. Now, all you find is potential tricks.
Gays today are more likely to fight and argue with other gays than with the breeders. Just count how many gay men write “not into the gay scene.”
In the 1970s, you could either be in the closet or in the gay scene. There was no either or. Now with LOGO you don’t even have to leave the house to be gay, although I do admit there’s only so many times you can watch Queer As Folk.
posted by Richard II on
Michigan Matt has made racist comments directed to two people here. He called me a ‘Negro’ and he called the other Richard a ‘Kike’ Such racist and bigoted comments should have no place here and I am calling for his removal from this place.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, well, you are either an unwitting dupe or intellectually dishonest or both.
The comments you refer to as mine in another thread are NOT; they are likely the comments of one of your fellow gayDemocrat pals who used to post as Charles Wilson… now he posts as DUMP.
He’s been kicked off at least 14 blogs in the last 2 years and his multiple IP addresses have been blocked by another 4 blogs who have battled his special, DirtyDemocratCampaignTricks tactics far longer than I’ve been around.
That’s why I commented before you raised the concern that those anti-semitic and racist comments at 8:59AM were NOT mine.
Do you even read, Richard2? Oh yeah, in a second we’ll hear that on your resume you were once also an english teacher… in addition to all the other jobs you’ve claimed here as proof of your special credibility on an issue.
Wow, I wonder why a gayDemocrat would work so hard to discredit another commenter on IGF?
Get a clue, Richard2. The comments weren’t mine and I noticed that fact for you and others to see… why do you need to spread such distortions?
Oh, I get it. It’s like the little game your side was playing with Sarah Palin… discredit with smearingly dishonest claims and hope no one checks them out?
How gayDemocrat of you Richard2. Taking plays out of their gamebook, eh?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Just to circle back around… Richard2 has indicated in other threads that, despite the fact he was fully aware that I have not called him racist names nor uttered bigoted comments about him or other IGF readers and it was the highkinks of an IGF troll (angry that he got booted and blocked at IGF), Richard2 will ignore the truth and facts and continue to spread falsehoods.
I expected Richard2 to admit his mistake, retract his fraud and we could have moved on.
He hasn’t and is unwilling to listen to reason or accept responsibility for his intentional misrepresentations.
The IGF editors are aware of Richard2’s conduct. They know the facts in this matter support me and the truth.
I’m sorry to say Richard2 will likely continue his unreasonable claims. On this, he’s as deceitful as his claim of being an independent.
My apologies to IGF readers for having to dwell on this matter but Richard2 gave us no other course.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard2, the cowardly lion, writes: “Such racist and bigoted comments should have no place here and I am calling for his removal from this place”.
Guess what, Richard2? I already briefed the IGF editors about the troll posting comments in my name. I also briefed them that you ignored the disclaimer posted right below those comments, clearly indicating they weren’t from me, hours before you launched into the current round of smears and distortions.
The IGF editors know you are wrong. I specifically asked them to keep those comments in place so IGF readers could see how you jumped reason, raped truth and sprayed those lies around this site.
You’ve been punked, Richard2, by a troll. And you can’t even find the little bit of character it requires to face your irresponsible acts and apologize?
The fact the I am still here and guys like Charles Wilson, DUMP and other trolls have been booted proves you wrong.
Now, grow a set and apologize for engaging in conduct to deliberately, maliciously and irresponsibly spread lies on this site.
It’s amazing you can’t even accept responsibility for your personal failures –let alone your past deceptions about being “independent”.
posted by Rob on
Hi Bobby,
—More and more courts are supporting gay divorces, are awarding parental rights to non-biological parents, and they’re doing those things in states that are not necessarily gay friendly.
Straw man. This argument has nothing to to do with federal benefits and rights. The presidential candidates don’t have control over state issues (at least directly…).
“Bi-national couples not being recognized by the federal government for immigration purposes due to the Defence of Marriage Act.”
—That’s not the reason at all. If a foreign man dates an American woman, he won’t be able to get his greencard until he marries her. And even after the marriage, there’s great scrutiny to make sure that he didn’t marry her just for the greencard.
Another straw man. I’m not arguing about immigration fraud here, I’m arguing about bi-national gay couples not being able to be together due to bad policy.
—Gays have been granted assylum in this country before. But this country isn’t going to let every foreign gay come her just like Holland was going to deport some gay iranian who ended up going to England and after a long legal process, finally won his assylum.
Maybe there is some progress, but it’s still an on-going issue: Iraqi gays and lesbians are still dissapearing and end up getting tortured and killed by militias with ties to Iraqi government and military officials.
—True, but I doubt that’s priority #1 for most gays. Most gays don’t serve in the military, most gays don’t want to serve in the military. This isn’t like sodomy laws that to an extent, affected all of us.
It still doesn’t matter if most gays don’t serve. Even if there’s only one that served, that one deserves the respect he merits for serving his country. McCain seems to disagree, and that doesn’t reflect well.
Look, things have changed a lot in the gay community. In the 1950s for example, you could find a sense of community in a gay bar or bathhouse. Now, all you find is potential tricks.
Sadly, I somewhat agree, but closeted types were much more rampant. This wassn’t limited to the 50s, I’ve written a report about the ‘protogay’ movement going back to the Georgian era in the UK.
Gays today are more likely to fight and argue with other gays than with the breeders. Just count how many gay men write “not into the gay scene.”
Breeders?
In the 1970s, you could either be in the closet or in the gay scene. There was no either or. Now with LOGO you don’t even have to leave the house to be gay, although I do admit there’s only so many times you can watch Queer As Folk.
I never really did care for that show, maybe the original English version was ok.