GOPhobia

by Jennifer Vanasco on September 11, 2008

I've recently discovered something about myself: I'm not a partisan.

I thought I was. I'm a stalwart Democrat. I have strong opinions.

But even though there are issues I feel strongly about - gay civil rights, universal health care, abortion rights, the role of government in society - I tend to believe that a person's political party doesn't define them as a person.

And that means that a person's political party doesn't necessarily reveal their positions on political issues.

Sometimes they do.

In the way that you can generally guess that if someone is gay they are also a Democrat, you can guess that if someone is a Republican they are more likely to be socially conservative.

The company we keep does define who we are, to a limited extent. After all, who among us hasn't found that our views on some issues were influenced by the political party we choose to support?

But not all gay people are Democrats (hence the Log Cabin Republicans), not all Republicans are socially conservative, and not all Democrats believe in gay civil rights.

Americans like labels.

I'm thinking about this because I work in a mostly gay office, where almost everyone follows politics closely and has strong opinions.

Last week, during the Republican National Convention, many of my colleagues dropped by to ask me what I thought of the speeches, what I thought of Sarah Palin, what I thought of John McCain.

And one of them said: "I just don't understand the Log Cabin Republicans. How can someone be both gay and Republican?" Someone else, commenting on a news story on the web, compared gay Republicans to Jewish people who worked for the Nazis.

I understand the feeling here.

Many Republicans have proven themselves to not be friends on our issues. John McCain, for example, has never voted for any gay rights bill. Sarah Palin's church is one that tries to convince gay people that they can become ex-gay - and that this would be healthier, more fulfilling and more pleasing to God.

But just because some Republicans feel this way, and because the party as a whole does not accept the fight for gay civil rights as part of its platform, doesn't mean that Republicans are de facto evil. Republicans are not, in fact, Nazis, and it is offensive to call them so.

I grew up with Republicans. My mother, my father, most of my neighbors, the parents of my friends - pretty much all Republican. Only a few of my high school teachers admitted to being Democrats.

I myself thought I was a Republican until just before my 18th birthday, when I registered as a Democrat.

Most Republicans, I think, want what most Democrats want: a country that is prosperous, with people who are able to work, own homes and have families. A country where everyone has an equal shot at the future they choose for themselves. A democracy where we can criticize the government, make fun of our president, and choose the leaders who best represent us.

Republicans and Democrats just have different visions for how you get to that place. As for socially conservative issues - well, the Log Cabin Republicans are clearly on the right side of those. It's not an oxymoron to be a socially liberal Republican. Think Abraham Lincoln. Or think of my mother, now canvassing for Obama because it makes her sick to think of her party not allowing her daughter to marry.

There are times when it is worth staying in a party or a city or a country in order to help it move forward.

If I had to define myself politically, I'd say I was a pragmatic centrist. I believe that to advance our civil rights, we need to work with everyone who will work with us. I believe that we need visionary idealists to set goals that are high above us and far away, but that change itself is often slow and incremental. Large successes are built on a stepladder of smaller ones.

Republicans are not the enemy. They are not crazy and misguided by definition, though there are crazy, misguided Republicans just as certainly as there are crazy, misguided Democrats.

Republicans are just members of a party we have not converted yet. But we will never convert them to the support of gay civil rights if we dismiss everything they say as being idiotic and morally wrong.

No, Republicans are not the enemy. They are simply Republicans. They comprise about half the country. And if we want our rights, we need to work with them to show them why they should want our rights, too.

68 Comments for “GOPhobia”

posted by Michigan-Matt on September 11, 2008

Jennifer, I guess your piece is about as close to tolerance and acceptance as any gayGOPer could hope to find from someone, who once again (sigh), is yet another gayDemocrat who says they “aren’t partisan” and then says “Sarah Palin’s church is one that tries to convince gay people that they can become ex-gay”. I guess that open hand you’re stretching out to gayGOPers is actually a closed fist still ready to hammer.

Fact check it, Jennifer. Even the radical farLeft gayblogs are ONLY claiming that the church ran an ad –one of 63 other ads in that bulletin/newsletter– informing churchmembers about a meeting. Hardly a basis for running down the slippery slope of logic, slickened with some red meat for the gayLeft crowd here I think, and concluding that Sarah’s church is promoting ex-gay ministries and, implying, that Sarah Palin must –MUST– be anti-gay.

Rather than speak about the need of the dominant gay community to accept gayGOPers or the GOP and work with them (while holding that non-partisan nose of course)… how about we begin a honest conversation: why is it that gayDemocrats and the gayLeft assume everyone who is gay ought to be a Democrat? And why have we allowed the gayDemocrats to hijack our civil rights movement for the gain of their Party.

Why is it that gays tolerate our gay civil rights agenda getting hijacked by gayDemocrats who won’t even hold their own Party responsible for 1) ScreaminHowieDean’s anti-gay purge of the Party’s headqtrs; and 2) a Dem prez candidate who doesn’t agree with the #1 gayLeft issue of gay marriage rights?

You say you aren’t a partisan. As a gayGOPer, I’ve heard that a million times from some of the most partisan, shrill voices in our community.

Maybe we ought to begin the discussion with, why have gayDemocrats hijacked the gay civil rights movement for partisan gain or advantage?

I guess you’d need to go a bit farther than “I’ve known Republicans… they aren’t all baby-eating monsters” on the scale of tolerance and acceptance.
posted by ETJB on September 11, 2008

Many LGBT people have bad experiences with the Republican Party and organized religion.

That does not mean that LGBT people are, or need be, opposed to organized religion or the GOP.

Yes, Democrats stereotype Republicans and both groups often exclude and stereotype Independents and minor party Americans.

Yes, LGBT Democrats and Republicans should be actively involved in their respective party, especially trying to challenge anti-gay prejudices and stereotypes.

Yes, LGBT people of faith should be actively involved in their religious institutions….
posted by Priya Lynn on September 11, 2008

Michigan Matt – such a whiner about reality. You ask why rational LGBTs assume every LGBT should be a democrat and you know the answer:

Obama wants to repeal DOMA, Mccain wants to keep it. Obama opposes the FMA, Mccain supports it if DOMA is repealed. Obama wants to repeal DADT Mccain wants to keep it. Obama opposes the california amendment against equal marriage, Mccain supports it. Obama favours civil unions with all the rights of marriage, Mccain thinks gays should be “allowed to make contracts”. The vast majority of Democrats opposed the FMA,the vast majority of republicans supported it, the vast majority of democrats supported ENDA the vast majority of Republicans opposed it. The vast majority of Democrats supported the Mathew Shepard Act, the vast majority of Republicans opposed it.

You laughably ask why LGBT democrats fail to hold the Deomocratic party responsible for not supporting full marriage rights when you yourself have never held your party responsible for a worse position, nor for all the other aforementioned positions they’ve taken that are dramatically anti-gay in contrast to the Democrats.

You’re living in a self-deluded dream world Matt, rational LGBTs are never going to support a hideously anti-gay party over an alternative that’s only slightly anti-gay. No rational LGBT is going to have much tolerance for people like you who work to elect the party most determined to oppress gay people and make their lives as difficult as possible. Wake up Matt – you’re never going to fool any rational LGBT with your insane claims that Republicans are just as good on gay rights as Democrats.
posted by ETJB on September 11, 2008

It is ironic that someone calls for greater tolerance or respect for gay Republicans by blindly bashing, attacking and being rather mean to gay Democrats or gay Independents or gay minor party supporters…

America is a weak, two-party system-cartel. This means, among many things, that (1) what a Democrat or Republican voter or candidate believes can be very, very relative and fluid as you go across a state or region.

This is especially the situation in the states with an open primary and no formal party voter registration.

If you want to know what a candidate things about LGBT-issues you can check their voting record, speeches they have made, contact them directly, etc.

(2) It is very difficult for LGBT voters to hold either party ‘accountable’, when we have limited meaningful choices and when their are, at least, fifty different Republican and Democratic parties.
posted by tristram on September 11, 2008

According to Sarah Palin’s pastor (of the church she moved to because it is less extreme than the AOG church she belonged to for years), he personally approved the ‘Love Won Out’ ad because he thought the program would present a more balanced and compassionate view of homosexuality than the view that is common, if not prevalent, in his church. Given this background, it is fair for queers to ask Sarah Palin to clarify her beliefs about and attitudes toward us. If she doesn’t believe in the effectiveness and rectitude (something about that word sounds wrong in this context) of reparative therapy, if she doesn’t believe that same-sex attraction is a Satanic trap for weak-willed people, if she doesn’t think that acting on one’s same-sex attraction is a sin in God’s eyes and should be a violation of man’s laws, all she has to do is activate that lipstick-encircled orifice and say as much. I’m not holding my breath.
posted by shandy on September 11, 2008

What tristram said. If only someone could refute the statement in the name of honest discussion…sigh.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 11, 2008

ET spins like a Dervish with this one: “It is ironic that someone calls for greater tolerance or respect for gay Republicans by blindly bashing, attacking and being rather mean to gay Democrats or gay Independents or gay minor party supporters…”

Who would that be, RichardJ?

I didn’t ask for tolerance or sympathy or empathy for gayGOPers. I asked why is it that Jennifer is supposedly writing about greater tolerance of gayGOPers and then she bashes SarahPalin with some gayLeft red meat distortions about her church?

When BarryO was in the midst of defending his racist, bigoted anti-gay spiritual mentor and 20+ year reverend friend who “brought him to Jesus”, Rev Wright, and then had to toss the Rev under the ObamaBus as it shifted into “politically expediency” gear… it was howls and screams of outrage from the gayLeft and gayDemocrats here.

I guess it’s the dual standard of political expediency.

I asked why don’t we begin the discussion with why the gayDemocrats have hijcked the gay civil rights movement for their partisan Masta… I asked why our gayDemocrat friends have been unwilling to hold their own Party leaders to account?

Frankly, the kind of tolerance that Jennifer would like to project here isn’t that at all –you’d be a fool to think gayDemocrats would ever turn their backs on the Party and for them, being gay is all about being Democrat.

Just like you and Princess, Richard… I mean ET.

Right now, all gayDemocrats have from BarryO’Biden is the whisper of promises. Meanwhile, McCain is standing in the fields of Pennslyvania honoring a fallen hero of 9-11… a gay hero exclusively.

Face it, McCain is proving himself to be a better man, a better candidate and more friendly to gay interests than all the whispers of promises from the Temple of Barack.

And BarryO is on his knees showing SlickWilly –the guy who signed DOMA and DADT– how good he can worship at the feet of political conmen.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 11, 2008

tristam, you got an axe that is so big, it’s going to be grinding til Christmas before you get it anywhere near sharp. Give it a rest.

shandy, here’s what the “evil” pastor of “Sarah Palin’s” church had to say on that subject this Wednesdayl his name is Rev Kroon:

VAN SUSTEREN: One of the things that has caught attention is the prayer, the gay prayer — I don’t know if that — explain that to me. Has that been taken out of context…

KROON: Number one, we’re not doing — I mean, we’re not sponsoring that here. we’re not running (ph) that here. I don’t even know where that phrase comes from. I don’t even know if it’s — I mean, Focus on the Family is the group sponsoring that seminar in Anchorage.

VAN SUSTEREN: Not you?

KROON: Not us.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK.

KROON: And they’re in Anchorage and they’re — I mean, they’re going to be in Anchorage. They’re going to be sponsoring it. And if you look at their literature and stuff, I don’t know that they even use that phrase.

VAN SUSTEREN: So the media has gotten this one wrong? As far as you know.

KROON: As far as I know. I don’t know what — I will say this. We did make — we did let our people, in just a simple notice in the bulletin, that, yes, that seminar’s going to be in Anchorage. And some of them may go, some of them may not go. I could give you a long explanation as to why, and that was my decision to put that in the bulletin, why I did it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why did you do it?

KROON: I don’t know how much you can just do this, but I’ll just — I’ll say it.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK.

KROON: And this may take a long time. I mean, you can decide what to do with it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right.

KROON: When the subject of homosexuality comes up, people that matter to me come to mind. And over the past year, I’ve had different people in our congregation speak of homosexuals in ways that I did not want to hear our people speak.

VAN SUSTEREN: Unkind?

KROON: I would say not with understanding and without any sense of the dynamics of same-sex attraction and all those kinds of things. And I felt like there was (INAUDIBLE) understanding and I don’t think there was appropriate use of terminology.

And this wasn’t in the church, it was outside the church. Two individuals who are within the Christian faith, they wrestle with this same-sex attraction and their Christian communion. I mean, and these people were real. They were not a dog and pony show or something like that, that they’ve been called. I mean, these people were real. And I wanted my people, if at all possible, to hear somebody in their tone and their manner because I don’t think the church has done a very good job of speaking of this issue in a gracious tone and manner.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420093,00.html

Gosh, kind of shoots the gayLeft and gayDemocrats’ ranting about the evil pastor and anti-gay Sarah Palin in the foot.

So, she’s not even a member of the church?

Hey, maybe BarryO should have used that defense… it would have saved him running over his pal Rev Wright.

Hope that helps shandy… I know the gayDemocrats here will be smarting and blistered.
posted by ETJB on September 11, 2008

M&M;

Gay Republicans who wanted to be treated with dignity and respect, should not go around spreading hateful and malicious garbage. Decent people, of which you do not appear to be one of them, understand this to be part of the Golden Rule.

Yet, I find that gay Republicans seem to be upset when they are excluded or otherwise mistreated or stereotype by gay Democrats, but see nothing wrong with doing similar things to gay Democrats or Independents.

Palin’s Church probably does support the ex-gay movement. Many Conservative Religious Institutions do. Because she is a Republican, gay Republicans rush to defend her.

Of coarse, many of these gay people were outraged over racist and bigoted things said or implied by preachers who supported Democrats.

“Why the gayDemocrats have hijcked the gay civil rights movement for their partisan Masta.”

Ah, so it is OK to refer to gay Democrats as living on a slave plantation, but Good forbid gay Democrats or Independents refer to gay Republicans as equal to Gays for Hitler. No, hijacking has occured.

In the free marketplace of ideas, most LGBT people prefer center-left and progressive politics. As hard as it may be for you to understand, minorities tend to be a tad bit senititive to the downtrodden and disadvantaged.

Few Republican center-left or progressive get elected to state office and even fewer to federal office.

“I asked why our gayDemocrat friends have been unwilling to hold their own Party leaders to account?”

Well, I explained this already. How do you suggst LGBT voters hold party leaders accountable? Exit pollimg puts the gay vote around 4-5%. Elections are often not terribly too compeititive, voters have few meaningful choices and, you fetish for quoting polls aside, we do not have national elections in this country and people need not receive a majority of the popular vote to win public office.

“McCain is proving himself to be a better man”,

Um, no, not really know.

Mcain is, “more friendly” to gay interests then Obama? Man, you must be really young, really naive or incredibly inept. Or perhaps you are just a liar.

Mcain has consistantly voted against adding sexual orientation to federal civil rights and hate crime laws. He opposes lifting the ban on gays in the armed forces. He supports judges who hate Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. He opposes giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity.
posted by tristram on September 12, 2008

MM – thanks for posting Pastor Kroon’s statement verbatim. Did you read it? He said he posted the “Love Won Out” ad because he thought that organization and its reparative therapy theories would present a more sympathetic view of queers than he was observing among his parishoners. What does that say about him and them?
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 12, 2008

tristam, did YOU read it? Take off the partisan-I’m-gay-but-I-work-4-daMasta blinders and read two points: 1) Sarah Palin isn’t a member of the church as sooooo many gayLeft and gayDemocrats continue to claim and 2) Pastor Koon has more compassion for gays in crisis and emotional turmoil than I think you’re capable of… “reparative” therapy, my ass. Is that your only bloody red shirt you can wave, tristam. You’re more of tool than I thought.

He allowed an ad to run in the bulletin!

He wasn’t pushing it. He wasn’t rounding up gays with a shotgun and dropping ’em off in Anchorage in handcuffs. Sarah Palin didn’t pass out cookies and punch while the breeders turned another fag over to Jesus.

Gheez, tristam. I give you the truth right from the Pastor’s mouth and you still want to play the gayLeft-trash-politics game.
posted by ETJB on September 12, 2008

M&M; Allow me to make the point that some one else made very well;

He said he posted the “Love Won Out” ad because he thought that organization and its reparative therapy theories would present a more sympathetic view of queers than he was observing among his parishoners.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 12, 2008

ET, like I wrote above for tristam, “I give you the truth right from the Pastor’s mouth and you still want to play the gayLeft-trash-politics game.”

ET or RichardJ, you may be the only guy here who works hard for an “F” grade… tristam and patrick and our outed troll MMMM get those grades because they don’t have the capacity to know better… you do if we’re to believe all the claims you make about being an author of some note and an intellectual beyond any comparison to me or others here.

Like I said, if you want to have a debate again (sigh) about reparative therapies and linking them to the farRight religious and linking them to the GOP and then trying to link an ad in a church bulletin that, in your partisan limited mind, is somehow endorsing a roundup of Alaskan gays for deprogramming and gotcha-evidence of Palin’s inherent anti-gay nature… we can do that.

It seems silly on it’s face. Especially in a thread about the gayLeft’s and gayDemocrats’ phobia about the GOP… sort of like your conduct here continues to bear witness to the thread’s very point.

You guys should have stopped when you learned that Pastor Kroon says Sarah Palin isn’t a church member. That sort of shoots your #1 proof of her anti-gay sentiments (by linking her to her church via a bulletin ad) right in the ample ass.

I’ve never seen a self-described intellectual (who said he had no peer and was superior to commenters on IGF) actually go for the “F” grade so often.

With “leaders” like you, it’s no wonder the gay civil rights movement continues to flounder, flail and falter in the face of simple truth.
posted by Ed-Dallas on September 12, 2008

Priya Lynn, you make the mistake that so many in the democrat camp make. Just because a politician says he opposes something or will repeal something doesn’t mean that they will. How many times have we heard that line and nothing ever happens. The republicans say that they are opposed to those issues that you brought up. I have spoken to my congressman and have heard that they are primarily opposing our position because they view their base as opposing our position. We are loosing because we can not unify. I believe that Jennifer is correct, until we unite for the common goal, we will ge no where regardless of which party is in charge. They are, after all, mere politicians. They are only interested in getting elected.
posted by Priya Lynn on September 12, 2008

Ed Dallas, republicans and Democrats voted on the FMA, the Matthew Shepard act, and ENDA. The vast majority of Republicans voted against the interests of the LGBT community and the vast majority of Democrats voted in favour of the interests of the LGBT community. Democrats typical support of our community and Republican’s typical oppression of it is historical fact.

While its true that Obama’s promises to the LGBT community are no guarentee its a cinch that Mccain won’t be acting in our interests when he’s clearly stated he won’t. Better to vote where you have a chance of success than to vote for where you have none at all.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 12, 2008

Gee, it sounds like PriyaLynn is trying hard to recycle BarryO’s whispers of promises and the Democrats’ record of do-nothing for gays with her general hate and loathing of GOPers… McCain/Palin in particular.

McCain stood in the midst of a nat’l moment of tribute to the saviors on 9/11 and who did this evil anti-gay GOPer invoke?

The memory of the probably the greatest gay hero in the last 20 yrs… Mark Bingham.

McCain did more for gays in that moment of nat’l mourning and media attention than all the self-righteous, pretty sounding words BarryO has uttered in the last 20 months… including his now famous “gays only want to visit their sick in the hospital” nonsense.

And still –and still– the gayDemocrats here can opine that McCain is a bad choice for gay civil rights.

What the gayDemocrats here mean is: McCain’s bad for the gayLeft’s agenda; McCain’s bad for gays who hoe da row for da’Masta; McCain’s bad for Democrats.

Why we continue to let the gayDemocrats hijack our civil rights agenda ought to be the #1 question for our community this election.

They made us hold our nose for Kerry. They made us ditch the real pro-gay Democrat in the race, HillaryClinton. And now they have the temerity to offer it’s BarryO or no one!

OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam-AH.
posted by ETJB on September 12, 2008

M&M or Richard II;

It is rather cute to see gay Republicans rushing around and eagerly bending over on the question of Palin’s religious background and the ex-gay movement.

Most conservative Christian institutions DO support the ex-gay movement. As a general rule, something does not get into a private, church newsletter unless the powers-that-be have no moral objections to the content of the ad or article.

Palin, like Mcain, is probably being a bit coy with her religious background in an effort to appeal to socially conservative Christians while still having plausible denial as an option for the more socially moderate and liberal Republicans.

Not being Christian, I am not too concerned without what Church the candidates belong to, as much as I am in what they feel — policy wise — about important issues.

Palin could quickly end (clear up) any speculation by stating what she feels about the ex-gay movement and gay right issues in general.

Yet, doing so would run the risk of eroding her carefully crafted ‘maverick’ media image or alienate socially conservative voters.

Thus the Mcain-Palin says very little in the way of policy about LGBT rights issues, and thus lots of rumors and speculation arise.

With people such as yourself, it is little wonder why, based on exit polling data, only a small minority of LGBT vote Republican and most LGBT people identity with center-left or progressive politics.

Your name calling, malicious and hateful comments, and eagerness to pretend like you can read people’s minds all make you a rather poor salesman for your philosophy.
posted by Patrick on September 12, 2008

Is McSame hiding Sara in his cheeks or did he just eat a baby ?
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 12, 2008

ET writes: “It is rather cute to see gay Republicans rushing around and eagerly bending over on the question of Palin’s religious background and the ex-gay movement.”

“rather cute”, “bending over”… I think you need to check yourself at the Are-We-Gay door, ET… sounds like you’re not gay enough to be posting here.

Nawh, nothing like that Ol’ Richard-boi.

Here’s the rub of it: gayLefties like you and some of the more scummy blogs like BlogActive and AmericaBlog and Daily-Kos have been saying Palin is anti-gay because 1) she’s a member of a fundamentalist church that hates gays; 2) the proof is in the fact the church promotes “gay reparative” programs; 3) they’re just a bunch of evil GOPers hiding behind the cloth.

Well, turns out she’s not a member of the church you NEEDED her to be. Opps. Don’t let reality or facts get in the way of your partisan spin.

Turns out the church simply ran and ad for informational purposes because –shock of shock– the pastor didn’t like the adverse way some of the members had spoken about homosexuality in the past. Opps. Don’t let reality or facts get in the way of your partisan spin.

Morover, turns out the pastor has more empathy and Christian concern for gays and the spiritual needs in his community than a bucket load of community organizing gay activists have ever had for their own gay brethern. Opps. Don’t let reality or facts get in the way of your partisan spin.

Now, let’s compare that record with your ChosenOne from the Temple of Barack.

BarryO WAS a member of the TUCC, a chruch known for it’s racially bigoted, anti-Semitic, homophobic agenda. No dispute.

Rev Wright was THE spiritual mentor who brought BarryO to Jesus (like that really happened), presided over his marriage –which BarryO won’t allow gays to have, btw– and blessed his little girls. No dispute there.

So let’s see:

Palin -not a member.

BarryO -member and mentored soul.

Rev Kross -kind, Christian pastor

Rev Wright -bigoted, racist, homophobe

TUCC -springboard in Chicago for radicals

WBC -created to advance God’s love

You guys –stuck without a paddle

The good guys –vindicated by the facts

You really need to pick your battles and topics a whole lot better, ET-RichardJ. You don’t want everyone to know you’re the village fool in the Court of King Richard.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 12, 2008

Patrick, sweetie, you’re going to hurt yourself. Go back to the kiddie’s wading pool and engage in some parallel peer play.

Floaties on the arms, Patrick?
posted by tristram on September 12, 2008

M-M said “tristam, did YOU read it? Take off the partisan-I’m-gay-but-I-work-4-daMasta blinders and read two points: 1) Sarah Palin isn’t a member of the church as sooooo many gayLeft and gayDemocrats continue to claim and 2) Pastor Koon has more compassion for gays in crisis and emotional turmoil than I think you’re capable of… “reparative” therapy, my ass. Is that your only bloody red shirt you can wave, tristam. You’re more of tool than I thought.”

MM – you seem to have as much trouble with your facts as with your logic. Unless you are playing some Clintonian semantic game with the church SP “attends” as opposed to being a “member” of? I was using information quoted in Stephen H. Miller’s Sept. 9 post on this website and not refuted by him. Also the following from the NY Times, which I have not seen refuted:

“Larry Kroon, who has been the presiding pastor at Wasilla Bible for the last 30 years, declined to describe Ms. Palin?s beliefs or the role she plays in the church, but suggested that she is more of a back-bencher than a leading light.

?Todd and Sarah come in as Todd and Sarah ? they?re very discreet about it,? he said, referring to Ms. Palin?s husband.

One of the musical directors at the church, Adele Morgan, who has known Ms. Palin since the third grade, said the Palins moved to the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church in 2002, in part because its ministry is less ?extreme? than Pentecostal churches like the Assemblies of God, which practice speaking in tongues and miraculous healings.”

I assume that’s the same Larry Kroon whom you quoted, and he seems to think SP attends his church. And, again, Kroon did say as you quoted him that he made a conscious decision to post the “Love Won Out Ad” in the hope that that organization’s explanation of the “dynamics of same-sex attraction” would moderate the apparently virulent homophobia that he encountered from some members of his congregation. I never said that he’s a monster, or that he had no sympathy for the (apparently queer) couple who were the target of his congregant’s comments. I did find it sad and disturbing that “Love Won Out” is his idea of a compassionate approach to understanding and dealing with queer people.

Regards, Tris-the-tool

ps – I’m a bit flattered that to have made it onto your tool-o-meter. Kind of like Ben Stiller “Somebody said they’re close to me?”
posted by ETJB on September 12, 2008

M&M/S&M/Richard II;

Son, your motto seems to be; avoid, attack, avoid, attack, squirm and then run and hide.

Now, you are questing if I am gay or not. Yup, like I said. Anyone who says, “No” to you, in your mind, must not be gay. Must hate America. Must be every evil thing you can think of. Truly, the sign of a very selfish child.

You continue to act like you have power to read people’s minds. Not terribly too odd, but you are not a terribly good mind reader.

Palin is anti-gay because she opposes giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity. Even meager DP benefits are too much for her.

As for her religious affiliation. She could very easily clear this all up. Both Mcain and Palin could make a clear public statement on the matter. Will they? Probably not.

When you allow an ad to be run in your Church newsletter you clearly have no moral problem with its content.

Unless they were doing a point and a counterpoint. Does not appear to have been the case.

Opposing being verbally malicious to gays by advocating the ex-gay movement is kinda like opposing anti-Semitism by advocating for conversion.

Despite your claim, there are many faith based LGBT organizations. In fact, some of the largest LGBT organizations in the nation are Christian Churches or associations.

LGBT people with, ‘spiritual concerns’ need only to do a quick search online to find an association or Church of LGBT people of their religion or sect.

LGBT Religious and sectarian based groups are a regular and welcomed presence at most of the gay pride festivals I have been to.

Obama rebuked his pastor’s prejudice and made a passionate plea for confronting racial and ethnic bigotry and stereotypes.

Palin and Mcain have not done so and will probably not do so.

It would not be so bad, in my opinion, if Palin at least tried to have half the decency and character of Obama.

She can come out against anti-gay prejudice. She can be a real independent thinker and endorse, at least, gay rights legislation that has mainstream, bipartisan support.

Will she do this? Probably not. The buzz about being an Independent and a Maverick is just that; buzz.

Mcain had a shot at picking a VP who would be a true Independent leader and represent a real shift for the GOP. Instead he chose an ad campaign.

Yeah, Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but HE SUPPORTS CIVIL UNIONS. Compare that to Mcain-Palin; No Marriage, No Unions, No DP.
posted by Drew on September 12, 2008

If one/tenth of the gay of the community was as tolerant of Republicans as you, GLBT rights would have far greater chances of being defended.
posted by Jorge on September 13, 2008

Wow. I wish I had watched the Van Susteren special. Or interview. Whatever that was.

So let’s see, the pastor told about that Love Wins Out conference because he didn’t like hearing Christians referring to gay Christians as fags or something?

Humph. Is ANYTHING that’s being said about Sarah Palin true?

It’s a serious problem when you combine genuine Christian evangelical goodness with a genuine belief that homosexuality is an abomination in one person or group. I don’t think we’ve really learned how to deal with it. I’d rather have the Catholics and their selective deafness and blindness.
posted by Sockpuppet exterminator on September 13, 2008

^^^^^^^^

Look one of MM’s sockpuppets
posted by Jorge on September 13, 2008

Excuse me but I was around longer than he was.
posted by barry youngerman on September 14, 2008

I’m overjoyed that the media are finally beginning to focus on what goes on in the churches that the candidates frequent.

The church that Obama attended and loudly supported for 20+ years (he gave it a huge financial donation just last year), promotes hideous anti-white, and anti-Jewish demagoguery, in sermons by the pastor and visitors, in newsletters, and in the books promoted in the church bookstore. Not to speak of the famous “God Damn America” sermon by Wright after 9/11, which the church proudly recorded and widely distributed. Obama continued to praise Wright to the heavens, and only distanced himself when the media began to notice early this year.

As a Jew whose aunt and uncle were murdered by the Nazis, and whose father had to flee from Hitler, I still cannot believe that this issue has been buried by the mass media.

Palin’s church newsletter had an ad for an ex-gay ministry? Obama’s church newsletter just this year included an article (not an ad) by a pro-terrorist Black Muslim who accused Israel of building a bomb that would kill only blacks and Arabs. Are the Obama’s stupid enough to believe that? No, but they fiercely and emotionally defended the church that taught such hateful rot to its less educated members.

As a gay man, I will take my chances with McCain and Palin. After all, the staggering progress we have made since Stonewall in 1969 has been in the context of Republican dominance (which began when Nixon took office that very year). By all accounts, McCain is a very decent human being, and Palin has spent eight years in executive offices without once insulting or harming anyone for being gay.

Liberals and Democrats have shown not the slightest concern that “Minister Farrakhan,” as Obama continues to call him, was formally honored by Obama’s church last year. Farrakhan, a close associate and friend of Reverend Wright, has said publicly, “Never Again? When God puts you in the furnace it’s permanent.”

All you phony humanitarians who get into such an uproar because Palin’s church welcomed ex-gay activists, don’t give a shit that Obama’s church promotes pro-Holocaust activists, and that Obama and his wife have raised their children in such an atmosphere.

The Democratic Party that my parents taught me to adore, the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and other great leaders, has indeed taken a steep moral slide.

But thank you all for raising the issue of the candidate’s church. The mass media tried to make this a forbidden topic. Now that it’s on the table, I hope to God that the Republicans stop being sissies and start speaking truth to power on this matter.
posted by Jorge on September 14, 2008

I can’t say I agree with you by much. I do think the media raised questions about Obama’s church, forcing him to dissociate from it. He condemned Wrights comments, and I’m pretty sure the media asked him about Farrakhan. In this campaign full of identity group politics, Jews have been silently grumbling while women and gays have been livid. Blacks made their presence known, too.

Jews have been becoming less championed by liberals and Democrats in recent years. Still, my impression is that Jews as an identity group have taken their grievances directly to Obama and have not been running to the media to publicize them.
posted by LCRW on September 14, 2008

Gee, you state you are not partisan, you would never know that from your articles on 365gay.com.

They are pretty much straight out the Democrat playbook or taken from the left-wing blogger scrawls.
posted by ETJB on September 14, 2008

BTW, my own personal web page demonstrates my wiling-ness to be fair and non-partisan.

I have to work on it some more, as time allows.

http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown/

It has non-partisan voter information, news and opinions and bloggers from the left, right and center.
posted by JB on September 14, 2008

Even if the Republicans’ platform on GLBT issues was completely in sync with mine, I could not support them. Other issues are more important to me, and might always be. This year I supported Ron Paul, who addressed the real challenges this country is faced with. Yes, there are some issues I disagree with him on. I do not plan to vote in the general election as a matter of principle. Spare me your sermons – the founding principle of this country is liberty, not democracy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 15, 2008

ETJB/KingRichard sockpuppet rebuts with: “Palin is anti-gay because she opposes giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity. Even meager DP benefits are too much for her.”

Well, that’s not what the majority of moderate bloggers are saying now, in light of Palin’s comments to CharlieGibson about being non-judgmental of gays and their views. She sounds more like the welcoming, compassionate kind of pol you’d rather NOT have in this race… because you want to be able to paint McCain or Palin as being evil -irrespective of whether that continues to work in your plan of personal destruction politics.

And it’s also not what many people are saying given that Palin’s pastor cleared the air on the matter… or when we cut through the gayLeft BS of her veto of the domestic benefits legislation based on the legal advice of the Alaska Atty Gen.

You see, ET, it really doesn’t matter to you or your gayLeft pals here what Palin or McCain say or do… I guess I can understand that given you’ve had to twist yourselves into pretzel carnage just to stay sane in the presence of BarryO’s opposition to gay marriage.

There’s no squirming here. But I bet that pretzel necklace that BarryO has placed tightly around your neck is cutting off the blood flow… no other way to explain your illogical rantings.

Palin’s not anti-gay. The biggest evidence you had until truth whacked you in the face was the WBC being anti-gay because of the ad. Opps, it didn’t hold and couldn’t make muster.

That lie didn’t pan out. Neither do your others. Try eating your way out of the pretzel necklace, get some air and then we can chat.

Like I said, ETJB or KingRichard, you guys are all hat, no cattle and the cinch isn’t even tied.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 15, 2008

LCRW pointedly points out: “Gee, you (Jennifer) state you are not partisan, you would never know that from your articles on 365gay.com. They are pretty much straight out the Democrat playbook or taken from the left-wing blogger scrawls.”

Unfortunately, LCRW, around here at IGF we have lots of gayLefties and gayDemocrats who parade as “independents” or “moderates” or “nonpartisans” or “progressives”.

Then, after the disclaimer is posted and they ramble on, it turns out they are solidly, unequivocally dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.

Moreover, like RichardJrosendall and some of his sockpuppet artistry, these guys don’t even care about advancing the gay civil rights agenda. They just want a Democrat elected because of reasons OTHER THAN gay civil rights.

But by highjacking the gay civil rights movement and imposing their agenda on the community, they’re able to keep their Democrat controllers happy and feeding ’em scrapes from the BigPoliticsTable at the Temple of Barack.

It’s surprising how far they’ll go.

I think this article’s title of “GOPhobia” underscores just how far… make gays fearful of the GOP’s evil intent.
posted by barry youngerman on September 15, 2008

Jorge-

Obama only separated himself from Wright after his association threatened his political fortunes. Previously, he was a very supportive member, extolling the church and the pastor publicly with the highest possible praise, giving him large sums of money,after sitting in the pews and hearing Wright’s racist and anti-Semitic hate-mongering for over 20 years. His response to Farrakhan was utterly beneath contempt– he condemned certain views of “Minister Farrakhan,” as he continues to call this pro-Holocaust SOB (who most experts believe murdered Malcolm X, by the way), but otherwise praised his accomplishments.

Why do you think that “Jews as an identity group” (who the heck would that be?) have taken their concerns to Obama privately? I have heard nothing about that.

Palen’s pastor believes that gays (or some of them) can be cured. As as a gay man, this to me is a triviality. Now if the pastor had preached for 20 years that straight Jesus was murdered by a conspiracy of anti-straight homosexuals, that would be a real story. And that is exactly what Wright preached: white racists murdered the black man Jesus. He also says that the Jews of today are imposters who “stole” away the identity of blacks.

I have yet to hear anyone ask Farrakhan to deal with these issues.
posted by Jorge on September 15, 2008

Why do you think that “Jews as an identity group” (who the heck would that be?) have taken their concerns to Obama privately? I have heard nothing about that.

Well they certainly haven’t raised a big stink! Actually I may have confused some separate things. I was thinking of Obama’s trip to Israel. I’m not sure if he met with any Jewish groups at any other time.
posted by tristram on September 15, 2008

M-M: Let’s hear one more time what your proof is that Sarah Palin does not attend Pastor Larry Kroon’s Wasilla Bible Church. You were just plain wrong on that one – but “Nevermind!” you’re blithely on to the next set of misstatements and tortured interpretations (pretty much everything you said at 1:56 p.m.). It’s pretty obvious that you hear what you want to hear without regard for what people are actually saying and doing.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 16, 2008

tristam, your problem (and it’s a big one)is that you’ll only see and hear what your Masters have allowed you to see and hear. Truth is not a friend to your positions.

I didn’t say she didn’t attend WBC. I said Pastor Kroon attests that she isn’t a member. I gave you HIS words, verbatim. Now that’s different in a major way for BarryO who was a member of the bigoted, racist, homophobic TUCC. Different in a major way with JoeyBiden who can’t remember the last time he was in a Catholic Church and doesn’t know his hometown pastor’s name. Ouch.

“Member”, tristam, not “attends”.

Just like Palin isn’t a member of the Alaska Independence Party as some gayDemocrats here contended –and when caught in their lies, changed it to the more ambiguous “Third Party” or “secessionist party” –I loved the subtle reference to slavery & the Civil War in that squirming attempt to wiggle out of a self-inflicted lie.

Just like she didn’t cut special ed funding as some gayDemocrats contended.

Just like she didn’t ban any books as some gayDemocrats contended.

Just like she didn’t try to drown her Downs Syndrome child in a hotel bath tub as some gayDemocrats contended.

And on and on and on you guys go with the deceptions… because that’s ALL you’ve got left. The politics of personal destruction as practiced by the gayDemocrats.

Hey tristiam, care to work on that homework assignment of ETJB/RichardJ’s sockpuppet… find 5 conservative pundits who said to “leave Palin alone” because she was a woman?

You might get more traction than trying to instruct a church-going and observant Catholic like me on the moral value in truth-telling.
posted by Patrick (gryph) on September 16, 2008

Its amusing that those who spout the GOP’s laudible values of personal responsiblity love to jump up and hang themselves on the victims cross at the first sign of any critism. Michigan-Matt truly only belongs to the political Party of Outrage. His emotional volume control must be permanently set to “11”.
posted by ETJB on September 16, 2008

FACT: SARAH PALIN OPPOSES GIVING SAME-SEX COUPLES ANY LEGAL RIGHTS. THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

SHE SUPPORTED THE STATE BALLOT MEASURE THAT BANNED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. SHE ALSO SUPPORTED A SECOND BAN ON LIMITED DP BENEFITS.

WHAT DOES SHE HAVE TO HIDE? “While campaigning for election as Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning gay marriage”

“Palin opposed state covered health and retiree benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, but complied with an Alaska Supreme Court directive to do so.

She later signed a bill ordering a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits. Although the referendum passed in April 2007 with 53% of voters supporting a constitutional amendment, a bill to place such an amendment on the ballot in November 2008 stalled in the state legislature.
posted by ETJB on September 16, 2008

I a slight bit of irony;

Governor Sarah Heath Palin REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY

RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006

NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY…

John McCain, Republican Senator
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 16, 2008

Hey Patrick, it’s the old Gryphon man from the past, is it? The guy who got blocked, banned and blacklisted on countless gay blogs and military sites? Wow, you just missed a literal soulmate on IGF… a guy called Charles Wilson who flamed, sputtered and ultimately also got banned.

So are you the little gayLeft troll that’s been botching up the works here? That makes sense because I recall that got you kicked off a ton of other sites, too. I got hand it to you, you really did punk RichardII royally. He took your bait of anti-Semitic and racist words and ran with it. Unfortunately, when uncovered as a fraud, he also took his tail between his legs and ran for the hills in shame. Hasn’t been seen since.

You naughty little troll.

What an incredible delight to see you back on yet another blog harassing people with your small-minded drive-by smears.

Glad the ol’ Klansman’s hood is off, Patrick. Are you still nursing that wound from being exposed as an unpatriotic, army deserter on GayPatriot?

I really got a good laugh when you wrote on your blog “I was going to vote for McCain”… that’s a rich one, that is.

I figured that whoever was doing the troll-like work couldn’t keep their ego in check for long. You thrive on the recognition and attention… like an ADHD kid seated in front of NickCartoons. That ego, Patrick, continues to write checks your brain can’t cash.

Still up to those old tricks and deceits of yours.

—————————————-

ETJB writes: “FACT: SARAH PALIN OPPOSES GIVING SAME-SEX COUPLES ANY LEGAL RIGHTS.”

Not true, ETJB. She’s said she’s in favor of granting same sex couples all the legal rights that voters approve but it’s the voters’ role to approve, not judicial nor executive fiat. She’s said repeatedly that she doesn’t judge gays and won’t judge them; it’s not in her makeup. She was asked in 2002 what she would do if a child of hers was gay? She said, “Love them with all my heart.” She was asked in follow-up, “Is that all?”

She said, “Yes.”

Why do you think it’s beneficial for gayDemocrats to continue down this road of trying to paint her as an evil, anti-gay witch? It didn’t work on the book banning lies. It didn’t work on the teach-creationism lies. It didn’t work on the governor cuts spec ed funding lies. It didn’t work on the she’s a secessionist lie. It didn’t work in trying to make her out to be a failed Mom. It didn’t work when you tried to say she belonged to an anti-gay church. It didn’t work when you tried the BarryO sexism lies that worked so well against Hillary.

The best pro-gay candidate we had in the race was Hillary Clinton. But the gayDemocrats knocked her off the map because the Masta’ at the DNC decreed BarryO should be the nominee. And all Jennifer Vanasco and other gayDemocrats could do was “cheer”.

http://www.afterellen.com/blog/trishbendix/gay-agenda-video-blog-09-05-08

What we should have had was Hillary Clinton on the ticket… BarryO as veep. Then Sarah Palin would have stayed Alaska’s governor and not have been put in the position of likely election to the US VP and President of the Senate.

I guess we have gayDemocrats to blame for that… right?

Sarah Palin isn’t anymore anti-gay than BarryO who thinks gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

She loves us. Just like you’d expect from a kind-hearted, honest Christian woman who believes in God’s miracles on Earth. And you know what, ETJB, she’ll love us long after the election is over and she’s unpacking boxes at the Naval Observatory.
posted by tristram on September 16, 2008

M-M: You said –

“I didn’t say she didn’t attend WBC. I said Pastor Kroon attests that she isn’t a member. I gave you HIS words, verbatim. . . . “Member”, tristam, not “attends”. . . .”

[You’re going to have to help me here – please isolate the line from the Kroon/Susteren interview in which he stated that SP is not a “member” of the Wasilla Baptist Church.]

“Just like she didn’t ban any books as some gayDemocrats contended. . .” [No, but she gave it a try according to some very credible accounts, and then tried to fire the librarian who would not accede to her suggestions.]
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 16, 2008

tristam, you’re a flailing fawn these days; look up the interview and the quote is contined therein; I didn’t include it here because of the length of Pastor Kroon’s comments about the FOF advertisement.

And Palin didn’t ban a single book; not on the city council, not as mayor, not as governor. Not as a parent of kids in public school. Not as an NRA gun owner either.

In fact, even her discredited and once-fired campaign manager from her mayoral race –still smarting after the breakup– creatively remembered an entire conversation and statements Sarah Palin made on the eve of her campaign in 1996? Just like it was yesterday?

Oh yeah, real credible there. Sure, she did.

And the commentary that Palin’s mayoral campaign manager provided the NYTimes says Sarah wanted to ban a gay book, at that! How convenient, eh?

Guess what, tristam? Did you know that the exact words and phrases attributed to Palin’s mayoral campaign manager showed up on MyDemocratUnderground prior to them showing up in the NYTimes piece?

And guess what else, tristam, the MyDemocratUnderground reference contained said language –prior to the NYTimes publication– is flickering in and out on the partisanDemocrat site; sometimes it tags a 404 contact, sometimes you can read it. You can check it out yourself until the citation is excised… google Palin, books, Laura Chase, democrat underground.

Now, does anyone believe that the MSM and the NYTimes isn’t working hand-in-glove with the Democrats?

Real credible sources there, tristam. Real credible.

Not quite equal to the whopper that she banned Harry Potter books nearly 2 years before they were published in Britain. But that lie had the wiccans up in arms and ready to storm the moat.

Real credible, yeah.
posted by ETJB on September 16, 2008

M&M/S&M/Richard II;

Um, Yeah, Palin is anti-gay because she is opposed to giving same sex couples any legal recognition, even the limited domestic partnership package that state employees got. She had the opportunity to show a modicum of leadership on the issue, argue on behalf of civil unions — like Obama has, but does not believe that same-sex couples deserve even a modicum of equity.

Palin may very well publicly claim to love a gay child that does not exist. Just like McCain can publicly honor a gay man who also does not exist. Yup, as long as they have got no pulse, or a voice, these two Republicans just love gay people to death.

Yet, if that child does — some day — come out or if some one suggest that it might be a good idea to honor a gay hero, by actually support (gasp!) gay rights, well, both of them get silent or stand in opposition.

You love your child by stating that he or she is entitled to human rights and dignity. You honor a fallen hero, by stating that other men and women like him are entitled to their rights and dignity.

I am not sure if Hillary Clinton was the best pro-candidate. I suspect that some Independent and minor party candidates probably support more LGBT rights issues. Even among the Democrats, or the most electable ones, it is difficult to find many policy differences between the three front runners; Edwards, Hillary and Obama on gay rights issues.

Hillary’s campaign made several mistakes that candidates (men and women) have been making for decades. However, I doubt that he views on gay rights helped or hurt her too much in the Democratic party primaries. To argue that it did, you would need to show that her position was somehow substantially different from the front runners in the campaign and it was not.

The downside to having Hillary on the ticket, was that (rightly or wrongly) a lot of people strongly disliked, mistrusted or outright hated her. The Clinton’s, as political families go, have been demonized as much as the Bush family.

The second problem was that the Hillary campaign made a lot of very common, even sloppy mistakes. Mistakes that many a candidate has made and will likely make again. I.e. underestimating your opponent, failure to build grassroots support, letting an issue (especially the war/foreign policy) end up being an anchor rather then a golden opportunity.

Obama supports civil unions, Palin does not. That is a pretty big difference.

You do not mistreat people that you love. You do not deny them their human rights and dignity and call it, love.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 17, 2008

Well, ETJB, it didn’t take you long to demean the memory of Mark Bingham once again with your dimissive, elitist, arrogant line:

“Just like McCain can publicly honor a gay man who also does not exist. Yup, as long as they have got no pulse, or a voice, these two Republicans just love gay people to death.”

You may not believe in God and the afterlife, but I have to tell you that Mark Bingham’s family still thinks his presence can be felt and his memory as a gay man and hero, honored by all.

That you would demean his memory -again- and belittle McCain’s touching tribute of a singularly strong gay man acting on behalf of his fellow Americans, is revealing.

In another thread I mentioned the recent interview of Lynne Cheney by Harry Smith. I also noted how many of the rabid gayDemocrats here –like you– can’t quite find it in their mental capacity to recognize the legitimacy that VP Cheney’s position on gay marriage connotes for our community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44yDTwo9oI&feature=user

Instead, for you and others here, it’s bash away, bash away, bash away all when it comes to the GOP. No wonder the gay civil rights agenda is stuck on reverse… with guys like you, we’ll never get it moving in the right direction.

Thanks for making it abundantly clear.
posted by ETJB on September 18, 2008

M&M/S&M/Richard II/Gives Head To Block;

Well, whoever you happen to be this time, it did not take you long to totally distort something I said.

I have not, “demeaned” the memory of Mr. Bingham or the other heroes that were on the plane. Nice attend to dodge a basic fact; McCain and Palin prefer gays without a pulse or a voice.

You said: You may not believe in God and the afterlife,

I do believe in God, but my faith is a tad bit unsure about the existence of the afterlife.

Another one of your gimmicks about how poorly you can read people’s minds or were you going for a not to subtle racial or ethnic slur?

I do not recall making any statement about his family. Was that another lie or a slur? I would hope that they love and cherish his memory. I would hope that they are supportive of his boyfriend.

McCain is the one who demeaned his memory and he does so every time he voted against LGBT rights. Every time he has had an opportunity to honor the man who saved his life, he has cut and run.

I also do not recall making any sort of comments here about the VP’s lesbian daughter, her marriage or baby. Once again you are either slurring or being a poor mind reader.

The LGBT-rights movement is hardly stuck in reverse. When exit polls put you in a minority that is roughly 5% of the population, and a larger percentage of the population either hates you or is indifferent about you, its hard to get politicians to move forward.
posted by Bright Side on September 19, 2008

Very interesting book here, I would say- ‘Homosexuality Why Not’ http://www.lulu.com/content/4070576
posted by ClydeOnline on September 19, 2008

I think the term “social conservative” is a vague term. I think “relgious conservative” or “Christian conservative” are accurate terms and should be used instead of “social conservative.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 19, 2008

ET, now we’re getting lectures on credibility from a sockpuppet who fakes webpages?

You can claim just about anything… maybe like BarryO saying he wasn’t in the TUCC during all the racist, bigoted, anti-American rantings of the homophobe Rev Wright… you can try to claim you didn’t demean Mark Bingham or John McCain’s touching, honest tribute on one of our Country’s most sacred days of mouring and memory. You’d be violtaing reality and tempting an implosion of the universe, but you can try to do it. You’ve shown time and again, truth doesn’t matter.

Just like BarryO doesn’t think the surge in Iraq is working… you can claim anything and think you’re getting away with it when everyone knows it’s spin & whirl, ET.

As for the gay civil rights movement having been stuck in reverse by gay militants and gayDemocrat apologists like you… well, yeah, I guess in your little piece of reality we’re moving ahead.

Of course, we aren’t. We all know it.

We’ve had 2 years of a do-nothing Democrat Congress that gayDemocrats were telling us in 2006 if we’d just vote for them, reform and change is on the way for gays. Ummmm, yeah. I guess I mistook change for the ObamaBus’s headlights running us over with his anti-gay marriage stance.

We’ve had a generation of do-nothing gayDemocrats running our national organizations. And now we get to be subjected to lectures from guys like you, ET, who won’t even get off their collective duffs and support meaningful, real gay civil rights progress but take loads and lots of time defending the gayDemocrats’ political action groups like Victory Fund and others.

Of, and of course, carrying the waterpail for BarryO.

Careful, it’s so full you’re slopping most of it out of the pail… how will you get it back to the spacecraft, ET?
posted by ETJB on September 19, 2008

M&M + S&M + Richard II + Give Head To Block + Sex with Sock Puppet;

The truth seems to hurt you, perhaps that is why you respond to it by avoiding it and lashing it with malicious, hateful and deceptive comments.

McCain demeaned Mark, ever time he voted against gay rights legislation. Every time he sided with the bigots to score some political points or advance his own career. Palin demeaned Mark, ever time she opposed giving same-sex couples even the small bit of equity.

Maybe, you take comfort in siding with people who demean Mark and the gay heroes of 9-11-01, but I do not. Maybe, you hate America, but I do not.

The gay rights movement has to face certain political political truths.

(1) Exit polling data says that, at best, 5% of American voters are gay. Compare this to the percentage of socially conservative, evangelical Christian voters who make up any between 14 – 23% of the voters.

(2) Polling tends to show strong, tri-partisan support for most gay rights issues, except same-sex marriage. Yet, it is also not the most important issue for most votes and national public opinion poll does not always translate into electoral success or public policy.

The Democrats in Congress faced opposition from conservative Democrats and Republicans.

Note, that even less legislative policy happen, that was positive, when the Republicans were charge.
posted by MiMatt38@yahoo.com on September 19, 2008

Truth is my constant companion, ET; you run from it at all costs. Like here:

ET phones in: “McCain demeaned Mark (Bingham)”

Fact Checked: McCain said this at a memorial service for Mark Bingham, a 2000 McCain supporter:

“I never knew Mark Bingham. But I wish I had. I know he was a good son and friend, a good rugby player, a good American, and an extraordinary human being. He supported me, and his support now ranks among the greatest honors of my life. I wish I had known before September 11 just how great an honor his trust in me was. I wish I could have thanked him for it more profusely than time and circumstances allowed. But I know it now. And I thank him with the only means I possess, by being as good an American as he was.”

Yep, those evil GOPers are just demeaners first, patriots second… right?

ET still phones in: “McCain demeaned Mark”

McCain said this last week: “I spoke at the memorial service for one of them (the heroes of 9/11), Mark Bingham. I acknowledged that few of us could say we loved our country as well as he and all the heroes of September 11 had. The only means we possess to thank them is to try to be as good an American as they were. We might fall well short of their standard, but there is honor in the effort.”

At a time when the media was focused on remembering 9/11 and GOP candidate John McCain was standing in the bright light of truth and honor in the fields of Pennslyvania (and BarryO was on his knees begging SlickWilly for help), McCain took the moment to again pay tirbute to one 9/11 hero –singularly. Mark Bingham.

The guy you said no one knew was gay. The guy you said was only honored because he couldn’t refute the evil of GOPers. The guy you said was only worthy of tribute by McCain because he was dead and gone.

I said his family didn’t think being dead was “being gone” and being reduced to worthlessness. You did, though, ET.

Wild Dancing Dervish spinning might help you trance out of reality, but at some point you have to come back to reality and face facts -be held to account.

McCain didn’t demean Mark Bingham and he certainly has never demeaned gays –but you go ahead and keep saying it because your whirling Dervish Dance needs a chant zippier than just “OH-Baam-AH, OH-Bamm-AH”.

You know what, Sarah Palin would have loved Mark Bingham unconditionally –just like she does all gays, without judgment, without derision.

It’s telling that you would demean this century’s greatest gay hero because he didn’t supp at your gayDemocrat table… that you’d demean him and those who honor his brave sacrifice because, for you, it’s all about self, self-interest and making others sacrifice for you, worship your agenda, praise your OneTrueGayCreed.

It’s apparent you’re as tolerant and open as Margaret Cho toward Republicans because you can’t even acknowledge that for one moment, standing in the sun on that Pennsylvania field, John McCain helped move the public’s perception of gays forward… rather than in reverse as all your militant gay activists would prefer.

I know you can’t comprehend this, ET, but you are the perfect personification of why the gay civil rights movement is still stuck in reverse after 20+yrs of gayDemocrat leadership.

Just like the do-nothing Congress headed by all those pro-gay Democrats who promised would lead us from the plantation and slavery and into the promised land… if just voted for them in record numbers.

Stuck in reverse, ET. That’s not the gear you need to take that spacecraft back home.
posted by Kody on September 19, 2008

If people would just give up the theistic god delusion we’d be better off. I mean, really, haven’t we progressed enough as a species that we don’t have to resort to fantastical celestial dictatorships in order to understand our own existence? Why rely on faith when we have reason? It is superfluity at best and an ignis fatuus at least. It is OK not to have answers to everything. What is more likely, that the meaning of life is in the pursuit of knowledge and awareness, or in divine revelation? Irrationality is the sine qua non of religious belief. There is no substantive difference between Yahweh, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Amun-Ra, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Wotan, Bhrama, Jesus, Amaterasu, Jupiter, Viracocha, or any other deity invented by man. The greatest weakness in the GOP is their reliance on such an absurd demographic as devout religionists. This perpetuates their ridiculous political influence. The Republican Party needs to trash theology and theodicy as it tarnishes their ideology. Let’s move past this unfortunate phase in human psychological evolution and into the beckoning brave new world. The future awaits us.
posted by Jorge on September 20, 2008

I don’t want to burst your bubble, but the minute the Republicans do that, the Democrats will take their place on religion.
posted by ETJB on September 20, 2008

Michigan Matt;

Truth is the transsexual mistress that you kidnapped, serially raped, chain to a wall and put duck-tape on its mouh to keep it shut. Yes, it is certainly, your “constant companion”.

McCain did demean Mark Bingham. You know and I know it. He does so every time that he voted against gay rights legislation, even when it had mainstream, tri-partisan support.

He does so every time he opposes gay couples, like Bingham or his boyfriend, having any sort of legal equity. He does so when he endorsed the type of judges who oppose Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

Did McCain say in his speech, that he was gay? No. Did he note the he left behind a boyfriend? Nope. Did he say that, in light of this hero, he was changing his views on gay rights? Nope. Does he support treating gay people, like Mark or his lover, as equal citizens? Nope.

You keep on lying, claiming that I ‘deamned’ Mark or that I said his life had no value. Both are your lies. You do not honor someone by treating them as an animal. You do not love them by showing them disrespect. You do not thank someone for saving your life, by denying their right and dignity. Unless, of coarse, you care more about your career then you country or your morality.
posted by jake on September 20, 2008

i like this part most because it points out the deception of ETB throughout this discussion

MMatt “At a time when the media was focused on remembering 9/11 and GOP candidate John McCain was standing in the bright light of truth and honor in the fields of Pennslyvania (and BarryO was on his knees begging SlickWilly for help), McCain took the moment to again pay tirbute to one 9/11 hero –singularly. Mark Bingham.

The guy you said no one knew was gay. The guy you said was only honored because he couldn’t refute the evil of GOPers. The guy you said was only worthy of tribute by McCain because he was dead and gone.

I said his family didn’t think being dead was “being gone” and being reduced to worthlessness. You did, though, ET.

Wild Dancing Dervish spinning might help you trance out of reality, but at some point you have to come back to reality and face facts -be held to account.

McCain didn’t demean Mark Bingham and he certainly has never demeaned gays –but you go ahead and keep saying it because your whirling Dervish Dance needs a chant zippier than just “OH-Baam-AH, OH-Bamm-AH”.

You know what, Sarah Palin would have loved Mark Bingham unconditionally –just like she does all gays, without judgment, without derision.

It’s telling that you would demean this century’s greatest gay hero because he didn’t supp at your gayDemocrat table… that you’d demean him and those who honor his brave sacrifice because, for you, it’s all about self, self-interest and making others sacrifice for you, worship your agenda, praise your OneTrueGayCreed.

It’s apparent you’re as tolerant and open as Margaret Cho toward Republicans because you can’t even acknowledge that for one moment, standing in the sun on that Pennsylvania field, John McCain helped move the public’s perception of gays forward… rather than in reverse as all your militant gay activists would prefer.

I know you can’t comprehend this, ET, but you are the perfect personification of why the gay civil rights movement is still stuck in reverse after 20+yrs of gayDemocrat leadership.

Just like the do-nothing Congress headed by all those pro-gay Democrats who promised would lead us from the plantation and slavery and into the promised land… if just voted for them in record numbers.

Stuck in reverse, ET. That’s not the gear you need to take that spacecraft back home.”

stuck in reverse is exactly where we are as a civil rights movement and it is where we will be even if senator obama gets elected

we’ve got a better chance for greater change on gay issues with mccain
posted by Kody on September 20, 2008

I can’t disagree with you Jorge. Though I think we both would agree that such being true doesn’t make pandering to superstition and asininity any more palatable.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 22, 2008

Jake, nice try at bringing some reason and rational discussion to ET’s talking points, but he isn’t interested in discussion. He’s interested in keeping the gayVote down on the Masta’s Plantation… at any cost.
posted by Jen on September 22, 2008

Wow, I was going to say that it was nice to see an opinion about the Republicans that wasn’t hate filled…and then I read the comments. I’m a republican and I support gay rights, all of them, believe that abortion should remain legal though I don’t think I would ever choose to have one because I think killing one’s child is not the right thing to do, etc…I agree with Drew and jake that the republicans will further the gay rights movement sooner than the dems who can’t seem to get anything accomplished.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 23, 2008

Jen, welcome to the NewRevolution within the gay civil rights movement: gays of a moderate bent telling the radicals in our midst that enough is enough… BTW that’s a first-rate blog you’ve got there.

http://redheadranting.blogspot.com/

(Note to ETJB, check out what a real blog looks like… not a purported blog that, when I last looked, you only had generic links to Google, Yahoo, MySpace)
posted by ETJB on September 23, 2008

Some gay Republicans, it would seem, would rather promote their own spin, then deal with the truth.

John McCain demeaned Mark Bingham — a man who saved his life — by continuing to oppose LGBT-rights. By renouncing even the slightest bit of equity for this man or his longtime partner.

If McCain had an ounce of decency or honor, he would have actually supported mainstream, tr-partisan gay rights legislation.

Sarah Palin also feels that Mark and his longtime partner should not have any legal rights. No equity, no rights.

The LGBT rights movement has indeed moved forward in the past 20 years. Twenty years ago, circa 1988, we had no Romer v. Evans or Lawrence v. Texas.

Only one State, Wisconsin, had a anti-discrimination/equal opportunity law that included sexual orientation.

Their were few, if any, realistic LGBT characters in films, tv shows, comic books, or video games. The Internet did not exist, in the minds of most peope.

Their was little that could be done for people infected with AIDS/HIV but prepare for their funeral.

It is sad that gay Republicans seem hellbent to demean all the work, education and sacrifice that has occurred the past twenty years to make what progress — political, legal, social, health and cultural — has been made.

No one, except a fool, would assert that all the Democrats or Republicans in Congress are good or bad, when it comes to gay rights.

I never claimed that Obama was my ‘savior’ — frankly, as a Jew I find such a concept a bit odd — nor do I believe that the Democratic party is my ‘religion’.

McCain and Palin oppose just about every single gay rights issue that exists and yet gay Republicans insist that if we vote for them, they will become our saviors and lift us up from prison…typical of them to support what they attack others for doing.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 23, 2008

I’m sorry to have to keep disabusing you of your silly, self-protective thoughts, ET, but you’re as wrong now as you were when you first claimed this nonsense.

No one can deny that at a time when the media was focused on remembering 9/11 and GOP candidate John McCain was standing in the bright light of truth and honor in the fields of Pennslyvania (and BarryO was on his knees begging SlickWilly for help), McCain took the moment to again pay tirbute to one 9/11 hero –singularly. Mark Bingham.

The guy you said no one knew was gay. The guy you said was only honored because he couldn’t refute the evil of GOPers. The guy you said was only worthy of tribute by McCain because he was dead and gone.

I said his family didn’t think being dead was “being gone” and being reduced to worthlessness. You did, though, ET.

Wild Dancing Dervish spinning might help you trance out of reality, but at some point you have to come back to reality and face facts -be held to account.

McCain didn’t demean Mark Bingham and he certainly has never demeaned gays –but you go ahead and keep saying it because your whirling Dervish Dance needs a chant zippier than just “OH-Baam-AH, OH-Bamm-AH”. Because if McCain did demean gays, he’d have to look at his trusted, loyal staff in the eyes and demean them too.

You know what, I bet it was McCain’s staff and senior advisors that helped him pay tribute to Mark Bingham by speaking about unconditional love.

Sarah Palin, too, would have loved Mark Bingham unconditionally –just like she does all gays, without judgment, without derision.

It’s telling that you would demean this century’s greatest gay hero because he didn’t supp at your gayDemocrat table… that you’d demean him and those who honor his brave sacrifice because, for you, it’s all about self, self-interest and making others sacrifice for you, worship your agenda, praise your OneTrueGayCreed.

It’s apparent you’re as tolerant and open as Margaret Cho toward Republicans because you can’t even acknowledge that for one moment, standing in the sun on that Pennsylvania field, John McCain helped move the public’s perception of gays forward… rather than in reverse as all your militant gay activists would prefer.

I know you can’t comprehend this, ET, but you are the perfect personification of why the gay civil rights movement is still stuck in reverse after 20+yrs of gayDemocrat leadership.

Just like the do-nothing Congress headed by all those pro-gay Democrats who promised would lead us from the plantation and slavery and into the promised land… if just voted for them in record numbers.

Stuck in reverse, ET. That’s not the gear you need to take that spacecraft back home.
posted by ETJB on September 23, 2008

demean: to lower in status or character; to degrade. That fits the bill for John McCain.

His voting record, even his more recent campaign comments demonstrates that he does not believe that Mark Bingham deserves even a shred of equality.

He [McCain] degrades Mark Bingham and his longtime companion every time he refuses to support civil unions or even domestic partnership benefits.

Every time he voted against mainstream gay rights legislation, he was helping to pull Mark, his boyfriend and every other gay American down lower and lower from equality.

derision – a deriding or being derided; contempt or ridicule. Sarah Palin certainly fits that bill.

She campaigned on her support of the state law banning same-sex marriage and actively campaigned against domestic partnership benefits. Her acts demonstrate that she holds gay Americans in contempt.
posted by ETJB on September 23, 2008

My personal web page — separate from my blogger — has extensive links to various topics; government, law, elections, politics, voting, news, opinions, etc.

Along with some of my published opinions. One of which can be found on the SodomyLaws webpage.

http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 24, 2008

ET, congrats on getting a barebones webpage up and running… finally. It almost looks respectably legit except that nearly 95% of your purported webpage (which you claimed proved you weren’t a sockpuppet of King Richard’s even though you and he have a uncanny similarity in grammar, syntax, word phrasing and match 91% on “shared vocabulary” aspect of the U-Mich Microfilm assay program.

The real problem for anyone looking into your “claim” of legitimacy is that your webpage still is 95% links to other generic search engines, links and web outlets.

And your visitor stats indicate 9 visitors have looked at your site over the last 18 months.

Yep, sounds like irrefutable proof that you aren’t a sockpuppet like some IGF readers have proposed.

I’m sorry that you find it necessary to demean the memory of Mark Bingham and belitte the tribute that JohnMcCain paid to this Nation’s greatest gay hero of the Century.

But then, that’s all you.
posted by ETJB on September 25, 2008

M&M;

My personal web page has been up and running for several years. I have modified it, as I do about twice a year or when time allows. The hit counter was much much higher, but I deleted it, so it has started over.

My personal research and writing files have also been their as well — film reviews, legal research, political and social commentary, etc. I also was a common contributed to the Gay Politics message board at World Crossing along with several other notable message boards.

Sodomy Laws published my report on LGBT rights in Iraq (circa 2005), which I have since been in the process of updating. So, it would not be too hard for someone to copy my writings or words.

Frankly, I would care a lot more about what your thought about me if you had not proven yourself to be a malicious, hateful, deceptive and bigoted man. Your credibility has gone down the tubes, especially with your outright lies about what I said and did not say about Mark Bingham and the record of McCain-Palin.

McCain demeaned the memory of Mark Bingham, not me. McCain belittled his own tribute to a man that he had little respect for.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 25, 2008

ET, you’re a little bit more like King Richard than even a sockpuppet has the right to expect with his master’s hand stuck up his backside.

We can go back and forth endlessly on Mark Bingham, John McCain’s tribute of Mark’s heroic sacrafice, Bingham’s and his ex-partner’s pride in McCain’s tribute and then McCain’s re-tribute to Bingham on the recent 7th Anniversary of that horrible day.

But for you, it would make zero difference because according to your bizzare judgment, Bingham didn’t matter, his memory is immaterial to gays because he supported a GOPer, and McCain’s twice played natl tribute to our Nation’s greatest gay hero doesn’t matter because you say so.

I guess IGF readers will never understand how you, who should have even modest self-respect for other gays and who ought to value of our march toward progress, can be so glib, so partisan, so closed-minded –you really defy reason.

Maybe we can leave the discussion with these two irrefutable facts:

1) Paul Holm, Mark Bingham’s partner, doesn’t think you are right in saying McCain dishonors Mark… Paul gave McCain $2900 so far this campaign cycle

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/paul-holm.asp?cycle=08

2) I guess you have more in common with those kooks in the “9-11 Truth Movement” who regularly trash Mark’s memory, family, his politics, his lover with all kinds of sleazy tabloid-like nonsense you seem to fancy.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=3488

It’s a fine bed, ET, you’ve crawled into with those other kooks demeaning Mark Bingham’s memory and contributions to our world.
posted by Michigan-Matt on September 25, 2008

ET claims: “McCain belittled his own tribute to a man that he had little respect for”.

PlanetOut reports: “Speaking before a crowd of 500 people who gathered at the University of California at Berkeley for the memorial service, McCain praised Bingham’s heroic sacrifice that may have saved many lives. “It is now believed that the terrorists on Flight 93 intended to crash the airplane into the United States Capitol where I work, the great house of democracy where I was that day,” the senator said. “It is very possible that I would have been in the building, with a great many other people.

“I may very well owe my life to Mark and the others who summoned the enormous courage and love necessary to deny those depraved, hateful men their terrible triumph. Such a debt you incur for life.”

Sen. McCain flew from Washington to honor Bingham, a former star rugby player for Berkeley who was also an openly gay supporter of McCain’s presidential campaign last year. “I know he (Bingham) was a good son and friend, a good rugby player, a good American and an extraordinary human being,” the senator said. “He supported me, and his support now ranks among the greatest honors of my life. I wish I had known before Sept. 11 just how great an honor his trust in me was. I wish I could have thanked him for it more profusely than time and circumstances allowed.” Speakers at the memorial service also included Bingham’s friends, relatives and former partner, Paul Holm.”

Care to reconsider another replay of the refrain: McCain don’t know jack about Mark? “McCain demeaned Mark”.

Nawh, that’s a honor you now hold with the dishonorable kooks over at 9-11 Truth Movement” with Rosie, Joy Behar, Charlie Sheen, MikeyMoore, CindySheehan and the other farLeft kooks…

Who just happen to be Obama supporters; who’d have thought, eh?

http://freedomfighterradio.net/wearechangegeorgia/?page_id=164
posted by Brian Miller on September 30, 2008

People who demand fealty to the old parties, in the name of “progress,” are ultimately more detrimental to the movement for equality under the law than any homophobe.

After all, when Democrats and Republicans know they can pursue — and persist with — their homophobic policies sans meaningful criticism… they will keep doing so.