The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund says it's a nonpartisan organization that supports gay candidates of whichever party if it deems them sufficiently electable. But next week in Washington it's honoring comic Margaret Cho, a comic who is a rabid hater of the GOP, with its leadership award. Gee, doesn't that make gay Republicans feel welcome in their club.
"I think [Palin] is the worst thing to happen to America since 9-11," Cho recently told the Washington Blade. "Someone who has no thoughts about women's rights and who wants to send women back to the Stone Age? You might as well not let women vote." Cho, the Blade reports, also singled out Palin in part because, as it paraphrases Cho, "the Alaska governor's church has encouraged discredited reparative therapy techniques to help gay people become straight."
Reality check: Palin has been condemned for not staying home and raising her kids-by progressive liberal supposed feminists. But she's a setback for women's rights because....she has an [R] after her name and is personally pro-life. Also, she has never expressed any support for reparative therapy and her church is not leading a crusade against gays. One worship program at her church carried an ad for a Focus on the Family conference on overcoming homosexuality. If that makes Palin a homophobe, then Obama can be said to hate this nation based on his attendance at a church where his spiritual mentor preached "God Damn America."
Is honoring Cho likely to promote gay participation within the GOP, and thus advance gay equality by making inroads with both parties? Hardly. Gay Republican candidates who might accept Victory Fund money are going to have to explain to Republican voters why they're being supported by a gay Democratic group.
The Victory Fund ought to be shamed for honoring Cho with its leadership award and calling itself nonpartisan at the same time. To quote Obama, how stupid do they think we are?
44 Comments for “Shame on the Victory Fund”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Who cares if Cho rabidly hates the GOP? It’s crime enough that she rabidly hates writing new material almost as much as she rabidly hates missing each and every opportunity to ass-lick uncritical gay audiences for easy applause.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, you’re right to call out the “non-partisan” claims of groups like the Victory Fund –but really, even around IGF we have writers and quite a few commenters who claim the same thing… to be non-partisan or independent and use their claim to buttress their supposedly unbiased perspective.
Margaret Cho is Jon Stewart in drag minus the yammuka. She makes G Gordon Liddy look sane.
Let the gayLeft have their fun –which means ripping on gay GOPers. I mean, it’s positively an Olympic sport around here most days… if there isn’t a Catholic to bash.
posted by Mike A. on
Margaret Cho drags whatever she touches into disrepute.
GLVF has shown poor judgment. This isn’t about partisanship, it’s about the VF being completely out of touch with the audiences that it needs to reach.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place.
Stephen, other evidence of “turning the tide” within the GOP can be found in an interview day before yesterday of Veep 2nd Lady, Lynne Cheney.
She was asked by Harry Smith of ABC, a guy who appears to have problems getting out the word “gay” in a question to Lynne Cheney, if Mrs Cheney wished that her daughter Mary should have the privilege to marry like George Takei and Brad Altman.
http://www.georgetakei.com/
Lynne, just like her hubbie, said forcefully and strongly that the freedom to marry and be happy is a freedom that ought to extend to all Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44yDTwo9oI&feature=user
We often hear on IGF, especially from the gayLeft and gayDemocrat apologists, how evil the GOP is and it’s no secret that the farLeft loathes Mr Cheney for his unparalleled defense of American safety, the military and conservative principles.
But here we are, in the midst of a campaign in which there is no difference between the two leading candidates on the #1 issue of gay marriage, and we’ve had a staunch, proud advocate inside the White House for 8 years with little support or recognition from the gay community for Cheney’s position.
Lynne reminds Harry Smith that her hubbie made his opinion on gay marriage very clear during the 2000 Veep debates.
It’s too bad neither BarryO nor McCain can make such a forceful, honest statement about the value of freedom and its application to all -gay, str8 or inbetween.
The other thing is that Harry Smith must be pulling for the smae award for condescending sneers that went last week to Charlie Gibson in his pompous “gotcha” game with Gov Sarah Palin.
Listen to the dismissive derision in Harry Smith’s uberLiberal “uh-huh” when Lynne answers his attempt at gotcha.
posted by ETJB on
I would agree, in part, with the overall complaint. Yet, I would also like to point out that part of the problem is that they may not be too many conservative comics for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to honor. I do not think that its wrong to honor Cho per se.
From a basic business perspective, the gay and lesbian victory fund probably knows that roughly 70% of gay voters support center-left or progressive candidates, typically Democrats. That most of the people in the audience, who probably paid good ticket prices, will probably be center-left or progressive politically and so forth.
Roughly about 20% of exit polled gay voters vote Republican and roughly another 5% vote for Independent/Minor Party candidates.
Cho has been a longtime supporter of the LGBT community and probably brings in cash for the organization. The problem is not so much that she is being honored, but that they probably did not also bring in some conservative comic who is supportive of LGBT rights.
Heck, the group is probably even harsher to Independents and supporters of minor political parties.
In ‘shaming’ the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund it would be proper to make some logical suggestions about the type of conservatives, Independents or third party supporters that they could also honor. But who? Keeping in mind the budget the group has to pay some one from the public speaking.
Well, Penn & Teller are — I think — libertarians. Um. Who else?
posted by Doc on
And yet, if they chose a conservative that bashed Democrats Stevie would be praising them as being ‘true independents’!
Give me a effing break dude.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never seen anyone punt so graciously as Cheney did in that clip–but she punted.
posted by Rob on
That’s a good question ETJB. I can’t think of anyone. Penn & Teller don’t really count because they’re not fans of the GOP, and they’re registered with the Libertarian Party. Plus, they have serious issue with the social conservatives that have plagued GOP internal politics.
So who else could they get? Maybe Drew Carey, but again like Penn, he’s recently been quite critical of the GOP. As for the other conservative comedians, I can’t think of any that have been supportive of gay and lesbians. Most of them would be booed and heckled on stage, even by centre-right gays. But it still wouldn’t make any sense to have them on, since not a single one of them qualify for a gay leadership award.
Yea Penn & Teller is the closest thing to real conservative comedy that would qualify for the award. Too bad M&M here would whine about their anti-Christian views.
How about you M&M, do you know of any conservative comedians that would qualify for the Victory Fund’s leadership award?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Honestly, ET, Doc and Rob, you guys get the award for thickest blockheads stuck up someone’s butt… and not in a good way, either.
The point isn’t the the VictoryFund (who hasn’t had a victory in a Hell of long time) should have picked a conservative comic to appease gay GOPers, the point is that they selected a sleazebag foul mouthed gutter grrrrrl who will bash, bash, bash and more bash any gay who doesn’t tote the gayLeft’s DemocratParty pink waterpail.
It isn’t about picking a conservative comic. It’s about paying tribute to a comic who makes her daily bread bashing anyone who isn’t of the OneTrueGayCreed.
It’s why the gay civil rights movement is struck in reverse… blockheads who STILL don’t get it.
Blockheads. Can’t live with ’em, can’t have a gayLeft without ’em.
(wink)
posted by BobN on
“Lynne, just like her hubbie, said forcefully and strongly that the freedom to marry and be happy is a freedom that ought to extend to all Americans.”
I guess you hear what you so desperately hope to hear.
posted by Jorge on
The point isn’t the the VictoryFund (who hasn’t had a victory in a Hell of long time) should have picked a conservative comic to appease gay GOPers, the point is that they selected a sleazebag foul mouthed gutter grrrrrl who will bash, bash, bash and more bash any gay who doesn’t tote the gayLeft’s DemocratParty pink waterpail.
That means no.
posted by Rob on
Honestly, ET, Doc and Rob, you guys get the award for thickest blockheads stuck up someone’s butt… and not in a good way, either.
Starting with an ad hominem, yep, that’s M&M.
The point isn’t the the VictoryFund (who hasn’t had a victory in a Hell of long time) should have picked a conservative comic to appease gay GOPers, the point is that they selected a sleazebag foul mouthed gutter grrrrrl who will bash, bash, bash and more bash any gay who doesn’t tote the gayLeft’s DemocratParty pink waterpail.
I wouldn’t know that since I’ve never seen her skits. Not really my kind of comedy. Penn & Teller is though.
It isn’t about picking a conservative comic. It’s about paying tribute to a comic who makes her daily bread bashing anyone who isn’t of the OneTrueGayCreed.
So which comic would you pick then?
posted by Throbert McGee on
So which comic would you pick then?
I would make funniness an absolute prerequisite.
posted by Michgan-Matt on
ET/sockpuppet et al, “blockhead” is an apt description of your “take” on the Cho tribute because, after Stephen explained his concerns in the article, you missed the point of article.
Now, attacking the man (do sockpuppets have a gender?) might be the way you’d LIKE to spin it, but when the shoe fits, you gotta being willing to wear it, dude.
Blockhead, thick, unable to comprehend simple, concise, clear explanations… we’ve seen it before in you ET and Rob.
You can try to hide behind whatever legends you’d LIKE to spin, but the truth is still there: you missed the entire point of Stephen’s article.
Blockhead may be generous in your case.
posted by anotherSteve on
The Victory Fund is giving Cho it’s LEADERSIHP AWARD. It’s not a question of hired entertainment for their party. Blockheads who don’t get this are, indeed, BLOCKHEADS.
posted by bls on
I’m not really clear on why a particular organization should tailor its award-giving in order to “make gay Republicans feel welcome.”
Cho may be a perfect idiot – but there’s plenty of that to go around. Should we all be weeping because organizations we don’t even belong to give awards to people we don’t like?
Sheesh.
posted by Jorge on
I think some tensions are inevitable, but there are times when it’s necessary to take a stand.
Gays were pretty offended when the NAACP, our ostensible allies in the progressive coalition, gave a major award to an actor who had called another actor a faggot (something like that?).
Here we have this organization honoring someone who has a very recent history of shocking, over-the-top partisan rhetoric. Oh, and it’s a nonpartisan organization.
Steve seems to believe that all gays who believe in certain gay rights should at try to respect each other regardless of their political orientaiton. Well whatever but an organization that identifies itself as nonpartisan has a responsibility to exemplify that.
This isn’t very high on my list of concerns, though.
posted by ETJB on
M&M/S&M/Richard II/Blockhead;
I am not sure about you, but I never given ‘head’ to a block. Maybe, that is some sort of kinky sex game that certain gay conservatives are interested in — aside from sex in airport restrooms and sexually harassing young interns — but I will admit to knowing nothing about it.
Cho was given a ‘leadership award’ and she has been strong supporter of LGBT rights, in fact I think she recently came out as bisexual, which should qualify her. If the point of such an award to to highlight people who have been supportive of gay rights and dealt with it in their career, she fits the bill.
It is not the job of the Victory Fund — I am not sure how many victories they have or not had — to avoid highlighting or honor people who may offend Republicans, Independents or minor party supporters. That is not what being ‘bi-partisan’ really means and frankly I am not in favor, generally, of such a term, given its exclusionary nature to people outside the two major parties.
It should mean Victory Fund has a relationship with and can publically honor people who have been supportive of gay rights from both major parties. That means Democrats and Republicans. Although, I am not sure what party Cho may formally belong to.
A progressive comedian is probably going to take shots at the conservative administration and the conservative side of Repuublican politics. A conservative comedian would do a similar thing. The solution is not to censor or refuse to deal with one side, but try and find Democrats and Republicans and Independents and minor party supporters worth of recognition and honor.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, I see you phoned home and got new & improved, “No Matter What, Defend the VictoryFund” talking points.
First, you confuse bi-partisan with non-partisan. Youo’ve proven here repeatedly that you’re language challenged… so, time to teacher the teacher… bi-partisan means you work with other equally committed political partisans to resolve an issue… non-partisan means you assiduously avoid favoring any party and try to remain above the partisan fray.
Honoring Cho, who is a rabid anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-McCain, anti-religion, anti-American and probably over-the-top rabid anti-Palin loon, sort of, kind of breaks the non-partisan “cover” the VictoryFund tries to hide behind.
Heck, honoring Cho also breaks the bi-partisan label you’d like to now shift and affix to the group because Cho’s legendary inflammatory rhetoric toward GOPers will destroy even the bi-partisan fiction of the VictoryFund you’re trying to construct here.
You make a little funny with “I am not sure what party Cho may formally belong to” –um, right. And you’d probably be “shocked” to hear the Chris Matthews is a Democrat, Herr Keith Olbermann is a Democrat, BarryO’Biden are Democrats.
Well, at least you’ve gotten the concept straight that the article was about a supposedly non-partisan (not bi-partisan, ET) gay political action group acting like the typical gayDemocrat workhorse anyone finds down on the Masta’Plantation helping the slaves hoe da rows.
Bi-partisan. Non-partisan. There’s a significant difference, ET, even if you came to Earth in a space craft.
Of course, the non-partisan fiction of the VictoryFund is almost equal to its claims of success over the years. But that’s a different article for the future: Why all this money, staff, G&L alerts and our gay civil rights movement is still stuck in Reverse?
posted by Jorge on
It is not the job of the Victory Fund — I am not sure how many victories they have or not had — to avoid highlighting or honor people who may offend Republicans, Independents or minor party supporters. That is not what being ‘bi-partisan’ really means and frankly I am not in favor, generally, of such a term, given its exclusionary nature to people outside the two major parties.
This isn’t a mere “people who may offend” Republicans. Saying that Sarah Palin is “the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11” is about as disgusting and personally nasty as you can get. It’s so egregious, so above and beyond the standards of civil disagreement, or even strident partisanship, that it does call the judgment, non-partisanship, and credibility of the G&LVF into question.
I wonder what non-partisan is supposed to mean. You know, that’s a label they may have to give themselves for financial or other reasons.
Still, it erodes the brand.
posted by ETJB on
M&M/S&M/Richard II/Gives Head to Blocks
I generally do not give money to the Victory Fund, or to any other LGBT organization.
I volunteer my time, sometimes other resources or skills, but not my money. So please, cut out the “I going to be mean and outrageous” gay boi act because it is sooo last century.
In the US. bipartisan and non-partisan tend to mean the same thing. Political organizations, beliefs or thoughts beyond the two major parties tend to not exist in most people’s minds.
Few organizations are truly ‘non-partisan’ because, well they probably support [or do not even question] the social and legal prejudice against Independents and minor party supporters.
Unless some one is willing to take on such prejudice, they are technically not non-partisan.
Cho was honored for her longtime support of the LGBT community. Unless I am mistaken, the Victory Fund was not endorsing her comedy or comments.
If you can come up with some conservative comedians worthy of the Victory Fund’s honor, please do make your suggestions.
posted by ETJB on
Legally, nonpartisan basically means that you will not endorse a candidate or party, but that you can compare how a candidate or party deals with issues. It has certain tax advantages.
Yet, most of the time bi partisan and non-partisan end up meaning the same thing, because very few people or groups really challenge or deal with the social and legal prejudice against Independent and minor parties.
posted by avee on
The Victory Fund’s mission is to elect openly gay Democrats and opely gay Repbulicans (don’t know if they ever endorsed an openly gay Libertarian; probably not). That’s why honoring a rabid Republican hater is so shameful — and (as Steve argues) so counter-productive. If they had any integrity, they’d come out of the closet as the gay Democratic front group that they are.
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
The Victory Fund mission is to elect Democrats-only. They haven’t even made token attempts to seriously support any Republicans in the 2004, 2006 or 2008 election-cycles. In private corresponence with the VF, they made it clear that they’ve be seriously-pressed to support ANY Republican candidate…straight or gay. Like the NGLFT and the HRC, it’s just another Democratic Party support group.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET writes: “generally do not give money to the Victory Fund, or to any other LGBT organization.”
No one said you did, ET. I’m not really surprised that you don’t support G&L organizations… like JoeyBiden’s record on charitable contributions on his own (which is miserably criminal), gay liberals tend to talk a lot, but fail to walk the talk. You’re no surprise, Dorothy; grab Toto and hitch a ride.
ET confuses all with “volunteer my time, sometimes other resources or skills, but not my money. So please, cut out the “I going to be mean and outrageous” gay boi act because it is sooo last century.”
Umm, you need to take a class in writing for English comprehension, ol’ boy. The latter half of your paragraph makes no sense given the first sentence.
ET offers an insight appropos of RichardII: “In the US. bipartisan and non-partisan tend to mean the same thing. Political organizations, beliefs or thoughts beyond the two major parties tend to not exist in most people’s minds.”
Ummm, no again ET. Bi-partisan and non-partisan are different and have different meanings as I instructed you above. You may not know the difference, but please don’t try to scapecoat “everyone else” as your equal in the confusion and ignorance, just because you want to diminish your error.
ET misdirects: “Cho was honored for her longtime support of the LGBT community. Unless I am mistaken, the Victory Fund was not endorsing her comedy or comments.”
You are mistaken, ET. When a group like the Victory Fund pays tribute to someone with an honorary award, dinner, fundraiser and keynote event, it sort of means they endorse their group being intimately associated with the honoree. Now, for someone who just wrote they didn’t know much about Cho –like which party she might belong to (ha, ha)– you seem to be equally ignorant about the work of the Victory Fund and their highly un-non-partisan (if that can be coined) activities in the past.
ET confounds all with a return to the nonsense that got him his blockhead label: “If you can come up with some conservative comedians worthy of the Victory Fund’s honor, please do make your suggestions.”
OK, ET. Here’s the problem for you once again: 1) it isn’t a question of the VF doing a conservative comic; 2) it’s that they chose a comic who is notoriously anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin, hate-spewing, unrepentant leftwing militant… the likes of whom have given all gays a bad name in public and continue to set us back in the PR war to win public support for the gay civil rights movement.
Cho, like the VictoryFund hyping and praising and honoring her, do a great disservice to our broader efforts to win, what Dick Cheney called “freedom for all”, gays included.
Get a clue or hitch a ride home, ET.
posted by ETJB on
I doubt that the Victory Fund is opposed to endorsing Republican candidates perse.
I suspect that they are prejudiced against candidates outside of the two party cartel.
The problem is that there are few Republicans running for public office who have a good, let alone great, platform when it comes to LGBT rights. Why not change that?
All these gay Republicans who complain have a clear option; run for public office as a openly gay, socially liberal Republican and seek the Victor Fund’s endorsement.
As a member of the low-income/working class my decision to rarely give money to LGBT rights is a simple economic reality.
When I got involved and donate my time, skills and or money to a gay right cause, it is probably going to be more local.
Ah, good to see that M&M + S&M + Richard II is still blowing on his little wood block.
The fact that bipartisan and nonpartisan have different meanings, in truth, is correct. However, if you bothered to pull your head out of your {bleep) once in awhile you you note that I was talking about how things really are, commonly and legally.
In the U.S., most people and groups often associate the two as being, more or less, the because there is rarely much serious thought or attention paid to politics beyond the two cartel parties.
Case in point; you laugh at the notion that a person could not know what political party Cho belongs to.
She could easily be an Independent or a member of some minor party, but in your mind there are own two political parties. Thanks for, once again, proving me point.
The simple way to prove your assertion is for you or other gay Republicans to run for office, as social liberals, and seek the Victory Fund’s endorsement.
Likewise the Commission on Presidential Debates are often spoken of as being non-partisan, when in fact they almost always exclude anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican.
Yet, I suspect that you and your gay Republican friends do not have the guts to do this.
You complain, you scape goat, you engage in conspiracy theories, but you are all too busy, apparently, to do anything about it.
Too busy doing what? Cheating on your taxes? Sexually harassing the ‘help’ or whomever is in the bathroom stall next to yours?
posted by Jorge on
This was very interesting.
I’m not going to be able to say anything else without going over old ground.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ETJB, since part of your claim as a sockpuppet is that you were “away” from IGF for a while but used to post here –but you have the uncanny ability to locate out of thousands of comments deep in IGF a singular sentence that another sockpuppet imposter tried to link me to racist commments– you offer: “You complain, you scape goat, you engage in conspiracy theories, but you are all too busy, apparently, to do anything about it”.
Well, ET you need to get back on that phone and call up to the alien space craft because the ground you’re on is pure mud and you’re sinking fast.
Already done that “it” you contend is important; twice as a candidate, three times as a campaign manager. Also, if indeed you have “been away from IGF but use to post” here, you’d know that in the midst of retreating gayLefties and gayDemocrats in Michigan back in 2004, I organized a solid corps of independents and moderate GOPers to fight the State’s FMA to our Constitution via a speakers’ bureau, visits with editorial page staff, lobbying of local govt officials for support, etc. That, while the Democrats twittled away energy and resources on a losing Kerry race.
Sort of an unwise choice for you to pick me as an example of “not doing it”. Dumb, actually.
Additionally, UNLIKE JoeyBiden “I aint got to give to no freakin charities” and you, MM partner and I do give –financially and in volunteer time to our community’s issues here in A2 –about 11% of our combined incomes and 5-8 hours/month. Last summer we hosted the 1st Annual G&L Picnic for Parents. We’ll be doing it again this summer and our goal is bring together 750 G&L families at the community park named after my Dad.
So, while I can understand that you don’t seem to have any disposal income in which to help your gay brethern in their struggle for gay civil rights… which flies in the face that gays have more disposal income than any other segment in society… let’s not get in the habit of jumping on your mighty, whitie high horse and lecturing others, eh? Especially those who have done better, repeatedly, than you.
Because when you do, you just confirm for everyone there’s more than a little RichardJ being channeled through this latest sockpuppet of the moment.
By the way, you didn’t fool anyone with the fake “web site” documenting your years of writing, ET… as if to prove your sockpuppet artistry isn’t a venture into the dramatic arts. There wasn’t anything there besides common links to search engines on the Net… for someone who said they’ve been posting there for years, it was dismal evidence that you’re not a sockpuppet du jour.
posted by ETJB on
M&M + S&M + Richard II + Gives Head to Block + Sex With Sock Puppets;
Your accusation — totally without merit — was that I do not believe in God or the aftermath. As a Jewish American I find such comments to be incredibly bias, malicious and hateful. Apparently, you assume that people are either conservative Christians or have no faith at all.
You also are fond of referring to people who disagree with your politics and, apparently, your faith, as having a ‘masta’ (a rather crude version of uneducated slave speech) and thus by implication are slaves. Frankly, anyone should be such comments to be malicious and hateful.
Of coarse, the civility oversight at the IGF does not seem to have any problem when such malicious, hateful and bigoted comments are made, as long as they are directed at people who are not conservative Republicans.
I do — as I have said — volunteered my skills and other resources to local organizations (two come to mind), but I am rarely in a financial position to donate money to such groups. I — unlike you — do not parks or streets named after family.
I have also run for public office, twice, and campaigned against anti-gay marriage initiatives.
My personal web page is hardly fake and its been around for several years. As has another web page I work on for an LGBT association called Prairie O.A.S.O.S.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, even when you get up on that mighty whitie high horse and sound indignant… it just comes off as insincere shrill fist-pounding.
Let’s remember that you were the one to demean and discredit the memory of Mark Bingham AND the singular tribute of John McCain on 9/11 to that great gay hero by dismissing it entirely and saying no one even knows that Mark Bingham was gay… and the only reason McCain spoke of a gay man was because Bingham is dead and not able to dispute the tribute. Just like when you said that Sarah Palin could say she would love a gay child because she knows it isn’t a reality for her.
Right, that mighty whities high horse –whether you’re religious or not– seems to be bucking you off a lot these days. Or is this the time when we hear that you’re actually an independent still thinking about who to vote for???
Save the faux outrage, ET. And spend some time putting up a website that would match your claim that you’ve “…been writing about gay issues for a long time and I have a web page proving it”.
Honest, we’ve had enough faux outrage from indignant gayDemocrats here this month… you’re just adding unneeded calories to an already oversweetended self-righteous cake.
Dude.
posted by ETJB on
M&M + S&M + Richard II + Give Head to Block + Have Sex with a sock puppet;
I did not demean and discredit the memory of Mark Bingham. Nope, never happend and shame on you for continual inistence on such a bold, face, outright dirt lie.
As I have said, it is McCain who has demeaned and discredited and insulted Mark Bingham and his boyfriend by his continued refusal to support gay rights legislation. He credits the man for saving his life, but still votes against every single gay rights bill that comes his way.
I am deeply religious person and you comments to suggest otherwise and your insistence that anyone who does not argree with (read: worship) you — politically or religiously –must be living under a ‘masta’ is incredibly malicious, hateful and bigoted.
My personal webpage does have some of my articles on LGBT rights, history, culture and community affairs. As does my volunteer work with three regional associations and co-foundeing a second human rights organziation and doing fundraising for AIDS/HIV charities and PBS/NPR.
posted by jake on
not to step into a public pissing match, but both you and MMatt are big boneheads
you, for trying to make mccain’s nice words about bingham seem unimportant and inconsequential and cheney’s support of gay marriage equal to nothing
I still think it is great and very unusual that mccain would give that much credit to bingham
MMatt is wrong for not understanding this isn’t a debate, it’s a discussion forum and his failure to appreciate that being passionate about the republicans is just like the democratic party gays here being unforgiving about anyone who disagrees with senator obama as the best thing going for gays right now
you both need to grow up
ETJB needs to get a little tougher skin too
posted by Jorge on
Don’t be so hard on him. Even the King failed to resist responding to Michican-Matt again in that other topic.
posted by ETB on
(1) How important are McCain nice words, when he continues to oppose gay rights at every single turn? How do you honor, who you believe saved your life, by refusing to give them their human rights and dignity?
(2) Dick Cheney does not support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Nope, he does not. In previous VP debates he expressed support for something — possibly civil unions or just plain old legal contracts — but said that he would defer to the president on the matter.
(3) If we have civility rules, they should apply to everyone, even when they are using racially or ethnically charged language, codes or slurs at Democrats and or libeals or progressives.
posted by jake on
ETB, you’re wrong about Cheney on the issue of gay marriage and his own wife made a point of it in a answer to some morning TV host this week -he said freedoms means freedom for all and she repeated it even for the most dense boneheads in our midst. He also said that the president sets policy, not the vice president and i recall christian rightwing moralists going crazy over Cheney’s statements.
you are wrong and you are spinning and it’s misleading to the points made in this discussion
you claim, in hyperbole, that mccain is denying “human rights and dignity” to gays when that is a bald boneheaded lie even with the dramatic overstatements that would make drag queen upchuck on drama overload
i agree with MMatt, you are far beyond any reasoning or honest discussion and it is because core partisanship (not bipartisanship, not non-partisanship because those are different) guides your every move
someone here said it’s a shame with gays start acting as unreasonable as the christian rightwingers
you’ve gone far past that point ETB
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt or should I say, ‘Jake’ or ‘S&M’ or ‘Richard II’ or ‘Puppet Sex’ or ‘Give Head to Block’;
Nope. Cheney does not support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Nope, did not happen. Someone should kick you out of the “No Spin Zone”. Fact Check, What did he say:
2004: “People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to,” This can be seen as a criticism of the criminal laws against homosexuality that were largely struck down in 2003.
He went onto say that — he felt — the definition of marriage should be left up to each State that different States may come up with different results and this was all in response to the proposed FMA.
Yet, he said that he would defer to the President on the matter, meaning that his opinion was not going to influence public policy.
At most, he might be expressing a personal belief in favor of State level civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Yet, even that is rather vague because he avoid getting at the legal questions.
Fact Check: Yeah, McCain and Palin have a horrid record on LGBT rights. If their record means anything in terms of how much they honor gay heroes, like Mark, then they have been pissing on his grave.
You know it and I know it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
jake, if ET doesn’t speak in hyperbole, what is left for him? Facts don’t interest him. Truth is an enemy of his talking points. Honesty has long been a stranger to ET.
You’re right; ET’s beyond reasoning or honest dialogue because his job is to hold the gayVote enslaved on the Democrat plantation.
But thanks for taking a stab at rational argument with ET.
ET, my misshapened alien friend, there you go again demeaning Mark Bingham and Senator McCain’s loving tribute and honorable effort to highlight what may end up being this century’s greatest gay hero.
Not that that is enough even for a farLeft gayDemocrat zealot like you, you then try to dishonor VP Cheney’s singular and momentous stand against hatred and bigotry inside the GOP and society when he made clear that marriage is a right that ought to be available for all people, gays included. “Freedom means freedom for everyone” as Lynne Cheney reminded all of America just last week.
It really sticks in your voracious alien craw that Cheney –the gayLeft’s Darth Vader on 1st A rights– turns out to be the ONLY champion of gay marriage who is also a high ranking GOP federal govt official.
You can spin it, you can deny it, you can try to parse words like SlickWilly at an “Is” Convention of Trial Lawyers… but the truth remains that the only VEEP -either candidate or as a running mate– that publically supports gay marriage is Dick Cheney, GOP from Wyoming.
“Why couldn’t it have been a gayDemocrat from the Castro, first!” is all you have left to whine about.
And, it’s clear from the comments here, more and more readers are seeing through your deceptions.
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt is the only who speaks in hyperbole, engages in hateful, malicious and, possibly, racist comments.
Fact: Dick Cheneny has never come out in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage. His campaign comments, in 2004, may have expressed his personal belief in some sort of civil unions/domestic partnership. Yet, he never really opposed the FMA, or the DOMA and said that his personal beliefs did not matter.
Fact: McCain has a horrible voting record on LGBT rights and what little Palin has said, publicly (theories about book banning aside) has also been equally negative, and showing no respect for gay people or their committed relationships.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, you gotta get a better cellphone contract or connection… you keep dropping your line and missing the important bits.
GOP Veep Dick Cheney (psst> see how you should spell the Veep’s name?) said that his daughter should have the freedom to marry her partner, just like other Americans. Freedom means freedom for everyone.
Lynne Cheney, his wife, repeated the policy preference of the Cheney family just this past week on HarrySmith’s CBS GoodMorning interview.
Dick Cheney did oppose the FMA and DOMA, but, as he noted, the President is solely responsible for setting domestic policy in the Bush Administration… and, as Veep, his preferences are secondary. As Veep Cheney told all before the vote, “The President is well aware of what I think about gay marriage”.
McCain has the exact same identical (did you get that, ET?) position on gay marriage as BarryO, your GaySavior and the One-We’ve-All-Been-Waiting-For candidate.
That is: Marriage is a sacred union between 1 man and 1 woman. States are the best venue for deciding changes in marital laws.
The only difference between BarryO and McCain on gay marriage?
BarryO doesn’t give a damn what gayDemocrat elites think… he’s driving the ObamaBus over gay civil rights and anything else in order to save his losing campaign.
BTW my truth-challenged and long fingered botanist friend, local polling in Michigan –during the financial meltdown of last week– now has McCain moving up in Michigan 8 points… gaining to a near even 43/42 split with the great GaySavior. In the middle of the horribly depressed, Granholm-recession in Michigan.
Yet, in the land of No-Reality4Lefties (the DailyKos) has BarryO up by nine points in Michigan.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/22/12324/4128/658/606485
I’m guessing those more accurate, near dead even tallies don’t include the Bradley Effect as nearly 1/3 of white Democrat voters decide NOT to vote for BarryO on the basis of race.
In Michigan, we’ve been blessed with watching nearly 19 months of our black Detroit Mayor, his daytime sack partner and Chief of Staff claim that their perjury and cover up was nothing more than “whities trying to keep blacks down”.
Those hundreds of thousands suburbanite white hockey Moms who surround Detroit and their deer -hunting hubbies will probably find more than a single reason to vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain, eh?
Wait, wasn’t this the Year of Democrats?
Once again, our gay civil rights movement will remain stuck in reverse as the self-appointed gay “leaders” take the gayVote for a hayride on the Democrat Plantation.
posted by ETJB on
M&M
No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will still remain a lie. The current VP and his wife have not publicly endorsed legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
At most, they have expressed some civil unions or domestic partnerships, but they did NOT distance themselves from the Federal Marriage Amendment or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and have not involved themselves in any campaign to that effect and did not seem to much too much of a problem with the Bush White House on the issue.
McCain-Palin oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. They oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, unless they feel it is necessary.
Obama-Biden support legal recognition of civil unions. Not perfect, but far better then what McCain-Palin are offering to LGBT voters.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones in again from the tinfoil-covered alien spacecraft… “Obama-Biden support legal recognition of civil unions.”
Do you have a single instance where BarryO, the ChosenGaySavior, has voted to support civil unions?
Didn’t think so, ET. It’s all whispered promises and waiting until AFTER the election. Words on paper are meaningless when uttered by a celebrity candidate.
Last time I checked, BarryO said this about marriage: “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Sounds like another ObamaBus driving over the gayLeft’s and gayDemocrat’s #1 agenda item… plus, there’s that added problem for the anti-religion secularists here at IGF… it seems BarryO is inclined to impose his religious views on society and govt policy and gays. Wait, didn’t the gayLeft brutalize GOPers for doing that on a host of gay issues?
And you guys can still claim he’s the ChosenOne, the change we’ve been waiting for, the next “gay” President?
Wow, that’s a lot of fantasy running loose in gayDemocratLand this month.
I’ve written that the only Veep candidate, nominee who has ever endorsed gay marriage is GOPer Dick Cheney. Of course, you can’t fathom that because to the farLeft, Cheney is DarthVader.
I’ve written that there’s virtually no difference between BarryO and McCain on gay marriage –except that BarryO doesn’t give a damn what gayDemocrats think. No lie there, either, as other IGF readers have pointed out.
BarryO drove the ObamaBus right over you guys and our community’s collective interests and all you can do is brush off the tire tracks and repeat BarryO’s whispered promises in our ears.
No need to repeat lies, ET. The truth is doing a great job of destroying your baseless arguments and quieting your shameless cheerleading and hype for BarryO… even to the point of demeaning the honor and memory of Mark Bingham.
posted by jake on
i hate to admit this, but i think the michigan matt is right, etjb
the cheneys were all over this issue long before the democrats thought it fashionable or politically expedient
there is that strong reminder by his wife, mrs cheney, just this month telling morning news watchers that her hubbie was one of the first republican vp nominee to say gays ought to be able to marry and mrs cheney wants her daughter and partner to be able to pursue happiness however they define it including getting married
“freedom (to marry) means freedom for all” is what republican vp dick cheney said almost 5 years ago
just because you can’t accept it because it blows a mack truck-sized whole in the middle of democratic party reality for gays, doesn’t mean it is a lie
this isn’t a case of repeating a lie like you tell michigan matt
i think it’s that you don’t get it
that’s sad
posted by jake on
michigan matt, did senator obama say this
“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
it steams me to think that he’s getting away with imposing his religious values on gays in this instance when he generally doesn’t like to use his religious values like that
how dumb does he think we are?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
jake, thanks.
Obama did say exactly that –you can find more information and a direct link to the Chicago Trib article here
http://boifromtroy.com/?p=7077