moved up from prior posting
The AP reports:
Proposed bans on same-sex marriage are on the ballot in three important states this fall, rousing passions on both sides, yet neither John McCain nor Barack Obama seem eager to push the issue high on their campaign agendas. . . . [Joe] Solmonese [head of the Human Rights Campaign] said there is broad support for Obama among gays despite his hesitancy on same-sex marriage.
Well, he is the chosen one for whom we have been waiting, isn't he?
Elsewhere, Roger L. Simon pens an "Open Letter to My Fellow Jews," stating, "The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody's)." But in this race above all others, politics has taken on deep religious connotations, with Obama self-cast as the long-awaited bearer of salvation. You can then guess the roles that are assigned to McCain and Palin (well, this video makes it fairly clear -- next up, Obama's devotees will be singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me").
Furthermore: Imagine the outcry from LGBT Democrats if McCain had done this:
Barack Obama's Faith, Family and Values Tour will feature Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic legal scholar who will be stumping for Obama. Kmiec has written an op-ed in support of anti-gay Proposition 8. "On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California amend its Constitution? Say 'no' to the Brave New World," is his essay's title.
Kmiec supports Obama, so he's not really anti-gay, see, he's just opposed to our legal rights. Got that?
Addendum: Despite prior misleading reports, McCain never returned the contribution from Manhunt co-founder Jonathan Crutchly.
And then there's this, via Signorile and friends. Not sure what to make of it, because there are so very many untruths about McCain and Palin's records on gay issues in so very little space. But if it is true, I suspect it will help McCain-just the opposite of what the LGBT Democratic smear-mongers hope to achieve.
More. James Kirchick pens an even-handed piece on Sarah Palin in the Advocate. His take isn't positive, but he avoids the kind of unfounded hysteria that the gay left has been spewing.
59 Comments for “The Continuing Circus”
posted by ETJB on
One has to admire the great mental health problems that come from a man being able to write, with a straight face, that Jewish people should not call any part their religion, while also sprouting off conservative spin and basically endorsing the FOX NEWS spin machine.
I do not feel that the ‘civil rights’ movement is over — certainly not for LGBT Americans –.
Also, if the GOP was serious about competing with Democrats for the Jewish vote, it would note that most Jewish Americans are progressive on social issues — i.e. civil rights, civil liberties poverty, reproductive rights.
We can be more hawkish on foreign policy issues, but that does not mean that we are blindly going to endorse any fool who claims to be a policy hawk or attempts to justify incompetent decisions by claiming to be doing it all in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ or ‘justice’.
We tend to be leery of authoritarian governments — left or right and the religious right.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, well written piece and it’s not hard to imagine why gayDemocrats are all a-sweat and ‘titters right now about the viability of BarryO’Biden.
It seems the gayDemocrat Left here is fully willing to ignore BarryO’s opposition to gay marriage, his 20+ year embrace of homophobic black minister Rev Wright, BarryO’s embrace of homophobic black politicians like Rev Meeks, BarryO’s unrepentant pitching for black homophobic entertainers like Donnie McClurkin… all because (get ready) BarryO is a Democrat.
Imagine that?
gayDemocrats voting for Democrats no matter what they do to the gay civil rights movement?
The only ones who need to be outed are the gayDemocrats who continue to sell out their gaybrethern for scrapes at the Masta’s table.
Oh-Baam-AH, OH-Bamm-AH. Can’t you just hear the drums?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
sorry, part of the comment was left off… 2d p should read
“It seems the gayDemocrat Left here is fully willing to ignore BarryO’s opposition to gay marriage, his 20+ year embrace of homophobic black minister Rev Wright, BarryO’s embrace of homophobic black politicians like Rev Meeks, BarryO’s unrepentant pitching for black homophobic entertainers like 50 Cent and Ludacris, promoting homophobic ex-gay ministers like Donnie McClurkin… all because (get ready) BarryO is a Democrat.
”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones in from the whirling spacecraft covered in tinfoil: “One has to admire the great mental health problems that come from a man being able to write, with a straight face, that Jewish people should not call any part their religion, while also sprouting off conservative spin and basically endorsing the FOX NEWS spin machine.”
One only has to admire your inability to both read and comprehend, ET. And put together a coherent sentence.
Stephen quoted Simon who wrote: “The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody’s).”
You, evidently, see Jewish as a hyphenated word with Democrat. Simon, like lots of other writers rebelling against the VictimHood Industry at the DNC, think that being a Jew is a bit more than just being a good voting Democrat.
Of course, for someone who mocks other people’s religious beliefs, you’d have a hard time understanding that concept, ET.
Don’t miss your flight back home. Phone first.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Signorile piece is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of gay and lesbian liberals like Rosendall and ETJB. These are the same people who claim they want to be “bipartisan” and work with Republicans…..but then attack and try to destroy those gay and lesbian people who are doing exactly that.
Probably because it ruins the narrative when someone who the gay left screams is a homophobic bigot who demands that all gays be fired from their jobs has one who has been working for him for years and has been repeatedly praised as doing a stellar job.
Wonder if “LGBT For Obama” is going to point that out? Probably not; after all, it doesn’t point out that Obama, while screaming that anyone who pays women less than men is evil and awful, practices such himself — as opposed to McCain, who believes that workers should be paid fairly based on performance and not on gender, who pays his female staffers on average MORE than his male staffers.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I’m old enough to remember the evil that guys like MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis and CharlesWilson played on gay Republicans in order to demean, belittle and humiliate gaybrethern all for the benefit of some short-term partisan gamesmanship points.
Signorile is no different than those other protectors of the OneTrueGayCreed… he just uses a mic instead of a keyboard… I understand he has $5.40/hour gay houseboi do the typing for him.
Evidently, fair pay for labor spent isn’t a pick-up line Signorile uses at the bar at 2AM on Saturday night.
posted by ETJB on
Gay Republicans cannot seem to be a logical case for why we — LGBT Citizens — should vote for McCain-Palin. Instead they engage in deception, malicious and hateful comments and even tell wild and outright lies.
No one but a fool would argue that Obama is a savior or even perfect on LGBT rights issues. Yet, his policy record is miles beyond McCain and Palin.
A political party — Democrat or Republican — should not be anyone’s religion. Yet, it would seem that blind faith is a more accurate description of gay Republicans who insist that voting for McCain-Palin will advance gay rights legislation.
I have never said that being Jewish is a ‘hyphenated word’ — another slur to add to your belt — for being a Democrat or a Republican.
The author of the article is clearly trying to persuade Jewish Americans to vote Republican, but does not have the decency to make the case honesty, instead he poses as some sort of non-partisan, independent writer.
Perhaps you go to different meetings, but I never seen ‘victimhood’ as a major theme among Democratic Party political clubs or groups.
I do not ‘mock’ (although I may disagree with) other people’s religious beliefs and have been involved in several interfaith community, public-private initiatives.
BTW, “house boy” is a rather racist term, of coarse it was said here by a Republican so I do not expect any civil rules to apply.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said “I’m old enough to remember the evil that guys like MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis and CharlesWilson played on gay Republicans in order to demean, belittle and humiliate gaybrethern all for the benefit of some short-term partisan gamesmanship points.”.
LOL, how ironic and hypocritical for Michigan matt to complain of the very thing that dominates his comments in this forum. Matt and Northdallas live to demean, belittle, and humiliate those who disagree with them and the LGBT community. Just recently in Northdallas style Matt made up a story that I’m into bondage, water sports, and humiliation. That’s typical of their style of “argumentation”. They can’t make cogent arguments so they attack the person. Just watch, this is their cue to do it again:
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I don’t think there is much chance that Steve Miller seriously, honest-to-God believes that Obama’s gay supporters think he is “the chosen one.” This particular Republican talking point is just a ploy to turn a few of Obama’s strengths (his popularity and charisma) into weaknesses. If I were blindly following Obama as “the chosen one,” would I have noted in published articles his opposition to SSM? There, I did it again.
Speaking of which, MM referred to “BarryO’s opposition to gay marriage”
All the major candidates (which excludes Kucinich and the like) oppose SSM, so that is not a distinguishing fact. But as I have cited, and which naturally MM ignores, Obama is demonstrably better on a host of gay-related issues, including legal protections for civil unions, than his Republican opponent. Sadly, I feel it necessary to point out that I have given Sen. McCain credit in a published column for his opposition to FMA and for something else that most people had forgotten, which was his key role several years ago in repealing the forced discharge of HIV-positive servicemembers. So, unlike some others hereabouts, I do not attempt to portray the candidate I oppose as bad in every respect. It is just that on balance, Obama is far better on gay issues.
MM continues, “his 20+ year embrace of homophobic black minister Rev Wright”
Not true. Kindly cite evidence of Rev. Wright being homophobic. In fact, Wright presided over a gay-welcoming congregation. MM may have been confused due to the fact that ministers of Wright’s ilk often ARE homophobic. But Wright is a particular person, not a generic minister. And bringing up associations with wacko ministers doesn’t seem smart at this point, MM, given Gov. Palin’s own associations.
MM continues: “BarryO’s embrace of homophobic black politicians like Rev Meeks”
You can use words like “embrace” all you like, but the point is that he has accepted support from some anti-gay people. As I pointed out in a recent column, so did Hillary Clinton (who was supported by Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia, Georgia). I of course am aware that MM has little more use for Hillary than for Obama, but the point is that such political pragmatism is no surprise. And if we are talking about candidates getting into bed with people they disagree with, how about McCain’s pandering to the Christian right he previously criticized? In any case, I thought that boycotting people you disagree with was supposed to be a leftist approach to the world.
Obama does not “embrace” homophobes, he challenges them. A leading gay rights lobbyist in Illinois some years ago came upon Obama rebuking Meeks in a stairwell of the state capitol for Meeks’ opposition to the gay-rights bill that Obama was championing. And Obama has challenged black congregations on their homophobia as well as on anti-Semitism and xenophobia. If he were nothing more than the pandering, cynical cipher portrayed by MM, there is no reason he would have done this.
I realize that there is no chance that MM will stop his absurdly dismissive and derisive mischaracterizations, but I hope that most others can see through his relentlessly nasty nonsense.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard, Michigan matt and northdallas’s nonsense is readilly apparent to all rational readers, their reputation for lying, distorting, spinning, and attempting to “demean, belittle and humiliate” precedes them. Just watch the lies they are about to tell about us.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Priya Lynn wrote, “how ironic and hypocritical for Michigan matt to complain of the very thing that dominates his comments in this forum.”
Amen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just recently in Northdallas style Matt made up a story that I’m into bondage, water sports, and humiliation. That’s typical of their style of “argumentation”. They can’t make cogent arguments so they attack the person. Just watch, this is their cue to do it again:
LOL.
What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
That’s why no one would be surprised if you had an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest.
What’s funny is that Priya Lynn supports and endorses the ACLU, which believes that polygamous marriage is a constitutional right — after she has screamed that anyone who would support polygamy is a hateful misogynist and a pervert. Kind of like how she supports Obama and the fact that his female staffers are paid less — after she has screamed that anyone who pays females less than males is a hateful misogynist and a bigot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I of course am aware that MM has little more use for Hillary than for Obama, but the point is that such political pragmatism is no surprise. And if we are talking about candidates getting into bed with people they disagree with, how about McCain’s pandering to the Christian right he previously criticized?
Typical Rosendall; support and endorse the Democrats as “pragmatic” for doing things that you then criticize Republicans for allegedly doing.
As for associations with ministers, Rosendall, I seem to remember gay liberals like yourself criticizing and characterizing Rick Warren and TD Jakes as “theocrats” and “homophobes”.
Care to explain why Obama gushingly endorses and supports them?
Or to explain why gay and lesbian people who bash Palin for allegedly claiming she was doing God’s work have nothing to say about Obama EMPHATICALLY saying it?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “Typical Rosendall; support and endorse the Democrats as ‘pragmatic’ for doing things that you then criticize Republicans for allegedly doing.”
Nope. I was pointing out someone else’s hypocrisy. Nice of you to try to turn it back on me, but that just amounts to a claim on your part that I have no right to defend myself. As I said already, Obama hasn’t just “embraced” anti-gay people, he has challenged them on their homophobia. McCain used to slam the right-wing agents of intolerance, but now he has named a member of the Christian Right as his running mate, putting his political interests before his country in the process.
Nd30 wrote, “As for associations with ministers, Rosendall, I seem to remember gay liberals like yourself criticizing and characterizing Rick Warren and TD Jakes as ‘theocrats’ and ‘homophobes’.”
Kindly hold me responsible for my own stated views, rather than treating me as a stand-in for others. As a matter of fact, I think Rick Warren is rather decent for a megachurch pastor. I don’t know T.D. Jakes as well.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Let’s see, King Richard… you asked to for proof that the BarryO-Worship site you recommended is deceitful and misrepresents or spins for partisan advantage… we give you two perfectly full & pregnant examples and YOUR response is to attack the messenger… how, how, well, how gayLeft of you. Going for a spot on the gayLeft’s Honor Roll of Rogers, Avarosis and Signorile?
Then, if that isn’t enough, you call upon the pitbull-but-no-lipstick machinations of IGF’s own outed troll, PrincessPriyaLynn. Who, like the perfect snapping dog, accomodates your needs.
Hey, it’s cool. We’ve come to expect it from you.
You asked for a single example of where the BarryO-gayDemocrats-United website was wrong, we gave you two examples. We predicted you’d spin. You did. You never disappoint in your efforts to carry the waterpail for the Democrat Masta.
I think, though, for a longstanding religious bigot like you to even mouth “Amen” may be tempting the gods (small “g” there Richard for you gay secularists) a bit more than your karma warrants. I’m not sure PrincessPriya will know what “Amen” means, though.
We’ve proven well and often enough for the IGF troll CharlesWilson to slither back under the bridge, that Rev Wright was and still is a racist homophobic bigot. We’ve been over that ground and even gay media news services contend Rev Wright was making lots of anti-gay remarks earlier this summer. Before BarryO drove the ObamaBus over his sinewy black rump.
We’ve proven that Rev Meeks was so upbraided by the new & improved BarryO as state senator that he was appointed by BarryO as Prez candidate to the PrezCampaign advisors committee. Maybe you can get along with a little undocumented chitchat in the back stairwell of the state Capitol… but then, your standards are fairly low.
We’ve proven that BarryO, despite what you think may be the case, holds an identical policy position to GOPer McCain on the #1 gayLeft agenda item, “Gay marriage or nothing, damn it”. The big difference there is that BarryO, your gaySavior, doesn’t care what you think; he ain’t changing. At least McCain is open to change.
And the case is fairly well settled that the best hope for progress in defeating the gayLeft’s “enemies” on the farRight is to support the takeover of the GOP by moderate GOPers and support the efforts of political independents in the open GOP primaries to advance McCain… but you’d rather have gays toss away their votes on another losing Democrat team.
It’s cool. We know the score. Now, go fetch some water for the Masta, boi.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriya writes: “Richard, Michigan matt and northdallas’s nonsense is readilly apparent to all rational readers, their reputation for lying, distorting, spinning, and attempting to “demean, belittle and humiliate” precedes them.”
Well, Princess, I hate to break this one to you but you’ve been corrected by far more IGF commenters than just NDXXX or me.
Your fang & foam & froth approach doesn’t quite meet your feminine ideals. We get. It’s ok. It’s another red pad day for you.
===========
ET, the spaceship landed, eh? What did you mean by “The author of the article is clearly trying to persuade Jewish Americans to vote Republican, but does not have the decency to make the case honesty, instead he poses as some sort of non-partisan, independent writer”.
I think that’s been the tack of guys exactly like you and RichardII and PatrickGryphmon and others here… “I was going to vote GOP this time but the Devil is running for Veep, so…” or “I’m a registered Independent and will vote for Obama this time…” nonsense.
It’s an old game you guys play out. Try to contend you’re an independent and, therefore in your limited vision, unbiased and non-partisan (note, ET, it’s “non-partisan”, not “bi-partisan” which you’ve repeatedly gotten confused of late), you claim some type of intellectual leverage when all you have is fake positions.
Come on, anyone who’s read a single comment from you knows you’re a gayLeft knuckle dragger. Usually, you’re so quick to defend the Democrats, you don’t even bother defending your own lies these days.
All hat, no cattle. When you have something to contribute to the discussion, come on back.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard tries to put on some clothes, but he’s still naked as a jay bird perched on an Arkansas trailer hitch pecking at FrootLoops… “Obama does not “embrace” homophobes, he challenges them”.
Ahhh, sort of the challenge that involves putting the ex-gay minister and violently homophobic McClurkin on the stage with BarryO? On a “Values March” no less?
Ahhh, sort of the challenge that involved trumpeting the “artistic” contributions of black rappers who reduce ALL women to ho’s and employ anti-gay rhetoric in their music and speech?
Oh yeah, King Richard, that BarryO is a real stand-up guy for gays. He even mentioned in his DNC speech that gays want hospital vistation rights! Oh yeah, the #1 issue for all!
Hey, do you have a website where inquiring gays could look at and see what a great guy BarryO really is?
What a farce. And to think you consider yourself “enlightened” above the average gay voter? Gheez, I gotta give you a couple of handclaps for pushing the envelope of credibility to its limit once again.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “What’s funny is that Priya Lynn supports and endorses the ACLU…she has screamed that anyone who pays females less than males is a hateful misogynist and a bigot.”.
I’ve never made any such statements – you lie yet again.
Northdallas quoted me saying “What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
That’s why no one would be surprised if you had an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest.”
Thanks for this rare telling of the truth on your part. Of course it doesn’t make up for your lies claiming that I have multipe sex partners, demand to have public sex, and assault christians and heterosexuals in every possible manner including murder, sexual assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, and shooting.
What’s really funny is you’re too stupid to know where to draw the line with your lies, you go so far over the line as to make it painfully obvious you aren’t telling the truth.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt said “It’s another red pad day for you.”.
LOL, another good example of how you stick to rational arguments rather than attempting to “demean, belittle and humiliate”. Thanks for once again demonstrating your hypocrisy in such short order matt. The “fang & foam & froth approach” is once again all yours, not mine.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I stand by my previous statements, but not MM’s characterizations of them. He must know by now that I do not for a moment regard Obama as my “savior.” Nor do I see why my being confident in my own views deserves the appellation “King Richard” any more than MM’s views (to the extent one can discern them through all the bile) merits a similar monicker for him. Plowing through all of MM’s relentless and pointless nastiness is more trouble than it’s worth. He is too obsessed with shooting people down and spewing venom indiscriminately to conduct a productive discussion. He thinks he has proven more than he has. What he has proven is his own boorishness and little else.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard, here’s the problem with Michigan matt and northdallas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html
“A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.”
posted by Patrick on
Michigan-Matt | August 18, 2008, 10:28am | #
Patrick, I wonder if you can stay on the thread’s topic just this one, tiny little time and not resort to your usual and predictable personal smears?
HMPH I guess that doesn’t apply to my stalker MM
Michigan-Matt | September 23, 2008, 4:57pm
Blah blah blah chortle snort blah blah blah drone blah blah blah…think that’s been the tack of guys exactly like you and RichardII and PatrickGryphmon and others here…
Michigan-Matt | September 23, 2008, 4:57pm | #
PrincessPriya …blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..
Your fang & foam & froth approach doesn’t quite meet your feminine ideals. We get. It’s ok. It’s another red pad day for you.
MM complains about others “gutter language” but he’s all GIGO. I guess birds know birds/ dogs sleep with dogs.
Having read one on MM’s posts I now feel very dirty, I think I will go wash the filth off. Keep puttin on the lipstick MM!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope. I was pointing out someone else’s hypocrisy.
Since you were referring to Obama and Clinton, does that mean you were stating publicly that they are hypocrites?
McCain used to slam the right-wing agents of intolerance, but now he has named a member of the Christian Right as his running mate, putting his political interests before his country in the process.
So, Rosendall, you apparently believe that Palin’s religious beliefs disqualify her to serve in office.
Unfortunately for you, our country’s Constitution has protection against the sort of antireligious bigotry that you and your fellow liberal gays and lesbians practice — mainly because our founders were wise enough to recognize that a person’s religious beliefs had nothing to do with their fitness to serve.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ve never made any such statements – you lie yet again.
Poor Priya; rather than stand up for what she believes and condemn the ACLU for supporting polygamy and the Obama campaign for pay discrimination against women, she tries to pretend it’s all OK with her.
And again, Priya, in case you and your supporter Richard Rosendall missed this, you accused me of molesting children — which, by your own rules, indicates that you cannot make a cogent argument since all you did was attack.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, King Richard offers: “Plowing through all of MM’s relentless and pointless nastiness is more trouble than it’s worth. He is too obsessed with shooting people down and spewing venom indiscriminately to conduct a productive discussion. He thinks he has proven more than he has. What he has proven is his own boorishness and little else.”
Let us all recall how King Richard got his fancy title, throne and crown, shall we? It was one of those insufferably long and boorish posts where our King of Affectation pined away with lines like “one often thinks”, “whilst piddling thy toes in yon ocean”, “good gays will kindly recall whilst on holiday that the plight of international gays” and so forth.
And King Richard has the courage to plead others are boorish? Gad Zooks, has the Emperor no clothes?
Right, RichardJ, other people are the insufferable snobs with the affective faux Brit voice? You go girl, work it while you got it.
The simplest truth remains: BarryO and Mac-the-Knife are no different on gay marriage with the exception that BarryO doesn’t give a rip what gayDemocrats want because he knows you’re a captive audience. He drove the ObamaBus over his homophobic mentor Rev Wright. He drove the ObamaBus over his political ally and campaign advisor the equally homophobic Rev Meeks. He drove the ObamaBus over his promise to immediately retreat from Iraq (so sorry, CodePink). He drove the ObamaBus over gayDemocrats when he decided not to give another GOP race the edge on ValuesVoters… except, with McCain in the drivers seat, the gay marriage card would have never been played so BarryO ran over gayDemocrats when there wasn’t even a reason.
But go on, King Richard. Live that lie you love to embrace: BarryO’Biden’s whispered promises AFTER the election will be our Salvation. The Masta has spoken.
Question for you King Richard: Do you even remember the ObamaBus headlights coming toward the gayDemocrats before he ran your sorry butts over?
I doubt it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Patrick” is it? Let’s see, the last claim of “stalker” came from Charles Wilson’s camp was here:
http://forum.cplsanchez.info/user/Discussion.aspx?id=93242
And the blogmaster, none other than Charles Wilson, IGF’s discredited troll who’s been bounced more than once on IGF wrote there:
“It’s a lot of crappin’ around, but I did manage to demonstrate that both of these guys are liars; that “North Dallas Thirty” has posted at least six times as many messages about Sanchez around the Internet as I have; that by their own definitions of “stalker” they are stalkers; and that “Michigan Matt” is the one who was hot for Sanchez. Ha! Wingnuts are sooooooooooo easy.”
Gheez, Charles Wilson, why don’t you come out from under the bridge and act like an upright human. I’m betting it’s because you’ve been banned from yet another site for your continued intemperate remarks.
Good News! Hey King Richard, one of your beloved sockpuppets is back to do your bidding… ahhh, the company you must keep to man the castle battlements, eh King Richard?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I guess when Stephen Miller was writing about “The Continuing Circus”, he didn’t know that King Richard, PrincessPriya, the VillageIdiot-ETJB and a common variety bridge troll (CharlesWilson, nee Patrick) would make the circus a royal playground for the Lefties.
Funny how life imitates art, no?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You sound bitter, Stephen: “Well, he is the chosen one for whom we have been waiting, isn’t he?”
Of course Obama is not the chosen one. Neither was Clinton.
Obama’s support was stronger than Clinton’s (Obama supports full legal equality through civil unions, a cause you constantly champion as the preferred political alternative to pushing for civil marriage, while Clinton was less forthright on the issue, and Obama supports repealing DADT flat, dead cold, while Clinton supported a partial repeal) but BOTH are light years ahead of McCain, who favors state-level amendments banning civil marriage for gays and lesbians and favors continuation of DADT.
You might also want to compare the platforms of the two parties at http://www.equalitygiving.org/Party-Platform. It isn’t exactly an eye-opener, but it does lend a bit of perspective about which party is more supportive for gays and lesbians.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never heard of an outing of a Republican staff member that’s hurt the candidate or politician in turn.
posted by ETJB on
No one, but a total fool, would call any politician — Democrat, Republican or Independent — a ‘Chosen one’. If most LGBT Americans support Obama-Biden, despite their faults, it is because he has a much better voting record and policy positions on LGBT rights then McCain-Palin.
If you want to make the case for LGBT voters voting for McCain-Palin then make the case openly, honestly and like a mature adult (with civility and common sense) Referring to most LGBT voters as slaves or cultist because they do not share your political beliefs is not only incredibly malicious, stupid and immature it is also not likely to enlarge the ranks of LGBT GOPers.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, phoning in from the spacecraft, claims: “If most LGBT Americans support Obama-Biden, despite their faults, it is because he has a much better voting record and policy positions on LGBT rights”
Well, on the issue of better voting records, you’d be as hard pressed as King Richard and his Apologists-Posse, to provide anything on a voting record for BarryO. I know, I know, BarryO has whispered those promises in your ear… we must believe, we must!
BarryO drove the ObamaBus over the gay civil rights movement by adopting McCain’s position on gay marriage –and BarryO doesn’t give a rip what gayDemocrat elites have to say on the subject.
He drove the ObamaBus over the gay civil rights movement when he directed the sanitization of the DNC Platform from certain impolitic gay language, the gay-sanitization of the speakers schedule and his own gay-sanitized attempt to rally the fanatical, adoring base in Invesco Field.
Hey, wasn’t Invesco field named after Obama’s other mentor?
No, not Rev Wright, the bigoted homophobic black minister spiritual mentor of 20+ yrs.
No, not his political activist mentor Bill Ayers, the bombthrowing terrorist pardoned by SlickWilly for trying to blow-up the US Capitol.
That fundraising mentor who was recently indicted for corruption… BarryO’s buddy. The guy Michelle Obama described as “dreamy”.
Oh wait, that’s not Invesco. That’s Tony Rezco. The slick, corrupt Chicago real estate developer.
Wow, when you think of it, someone would have to be a village idiot to think BarryO will deliver the promises he’s given the gay community. And he’s not the celebrity-glittered “Chosen One” for gays?
OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam-AH.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Obama supports full legal equality through civil unions, a cause you constantly champion as the preferred political alternative to pushing for civil marriage
But unfortunately, Tom, gay and lesbian liberals like yourself have for years screamed that that was “second-class citizenship”, that it was akin to “separate but equal”, and that anyone who didn’t support gay marriage, especially if it was because they believed marriage was a “sacred union” that should be limited, was a bigot and a homophobe.
If you’ve decided to change the rules and admit publicly that it is not antigay to support civil unions, to oppose gay marriage, and to insist that religious beliefs are perfectly acceptable grounds to deny gays marriage, please state so now.
And finally:
If you want to make the case for LGBT voters voting for McCain-Palin then make the case openly, honestly and like a mature adult (with civility and common sense) Referring to most LGBT voters as slaves or cultist because they do not share your political beliefs is not only incredibly malicious, stupid and immature it is also not likely to enlarge the ranks of LGBT GOPers.
What’s funny is watching you wag your finger about this, ETJB, when behind you gay people like Signorile and Priya Lynn are doing exactly that which you condemn.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
ND40 quotes me: “Obama supports full legal equality through civil unions, a cause you constantly champion as the preferred political alternative to pushing for civil marriage.”
N$0 then comments: “But unfortunately, Tom, gay and lesbian liberals like yourself have for years screamed that that was “second-class citizenship”, that it was akin to “separate but equal”, and that anyone who didn’t support gay marriage, especially if it was because they believed marriage was a “sacred union” that should be limited, was a bigot and a homophobe.”
I have consistently said that civil marriage is not a “sacred union” and that folks who make that argument confuse religious marriage and civil marriage. I have consistently argued that gays and lesbians should seek and fight for marriage equality under the law. I have consistently argued that civil unions, which create a “separate but equal” status, are inherently unequal. My views have been expressed in this forum, and on my blog, in public, for years. See the blog post “Straighty Cats” (http://tinyurl.com/zwnn5) as an example.
I have not, however, argued that folks who oppose civil marriage equality are “bigots” or “homophobes”.
N$0 then comments: “If you’ve decided to change the rules and admit publicly that it is not antigay to support civil unions, to oppose gay marriage, and to insist that religious beliefs are perfectly acceptable grounds to deny gays marriage, please state so now.”
I don’t think that a politician who supports legally equivalent civil unions can be described as “anti-gay”. That’s no change in position on my part, nor a change of “rules”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Nor do I now argue that “religious beliefs are perfectly acceptable grounds to deny gays [civil] marriage”, nor have I ever taken that position. See my blog “Frustrated” (http://tinyurl.com/4kl79c) for example.
As seems to be your pattern, ND40, you like to put words in others’s mouths.
I don’t like Obama’s position on marriage, and I think he ought to know better, but you and I don’t get to vote for a perfect candidate. Elections are a binary choice, and, unless you think that Bob Barr is a serious candidate, then it comes down to Obama or McCain.
Of the two, it seems to me that the differences with respect to legal equality for gays and lesbians are telling.
I’m voting for Obama.
What I find almost unreal is the argument that because Obama, who is strongly supportive of gays and lesbians on all fronts but one, is not the perfect candidate, then gays and lesbians should vote for McCain, who stands opposed to us on every issue. It makes no sense to me.
posted by avee on
Marriage is the issue; that’s why Obama’s lack of support is so glaring, in light of the devotional support he’s receiving from lgbt activists.
Obama has said he opposes don’t ask, don’t tell, but will defer to the military brass. This is equivalent to McCain’s position.
ENDA is now opposed by lgbt progressives, since it’s not going to be presented with transgender inclusion anytime soon. McCain’s muted opposition is not a big deal.
That should mean that gays are entitled to vote on a range of non-gay issues that are meaningful to them. But when gay who support McCain do so, they are branded as idiots and traders by Obama’s lgbt brigades.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Scharbach offers: “What I find almost unreal is the argument that because Obama, who is strongly supportive of gays and lesbians on all fronts but one, is not the perfect candidate, then gays and lesbians should vote for McCain, who stands opposed to us on every issue. It makes no sense to me.”
Let’s set aside for a moment your gross misrepresentation of why gays should vote for McCain… and it is a grossly distorted reposit.
The reason why nothing is going to make sense to you, Scharbach, is because you think BarryO’Biden is the right choice for gays… kind of proving, once again, that there is a special kind of gaybrethern for whom the OneTrueCreed means the OneTrueParty. Starting from there, it’s no wonder common sense is so uncommon in gayDemocrats like you.
Right, right… now take a page out of King Richard’s or RichardII’s book and tell us how you are a registered Republican or Independent and you were all set to vote for McCain because your good friends, who just happen to all be LCRs, think it would be really cool to have John as, you know like, Prez.
Here’s the rub, Scharbach.
The number one reason gays shouldn’t vote for Obama is he –just like SlickWilly– can’t be trusted with our gay civil rights.
All the whispered promises he’s made to gays that YOU’D LIKE TO BELIEVE is a “record” of accomplishment has been run down and driven over repeatedly by the ObamaBus and political expediency and you never even saw the headlights coming.
But gayModerates and gayGOPers can see the bus’s tire tracks up and down your backside.
gayDemocrats have been telling gays for 20+ yrs that the #1 boogeyman and threat to gay civil rights hasn’t been society, hasn’t been the voters, hasn’t been reason or truth or fair play in politics, hasn’t been the MSM… it’s been the whack-o farRight religious influence within the GOP.
With McCain’s ascent and his heavy support from political independents, moderate GOPers and fellow gaybrethern from Center-right, your vote can be better leveraged by helping McCain win and destroying the 20+ yr historical influence of the farRight religious types inside the GOP. It’s a seachange moment.
Just like the political independents in many open GOP primaries, gays have the opportunity to help chart a new course for acceptance in society –real progress on gay civil rights– by defeating what gayLefties have termed the “enemy of gay progress”… the religious right and their influence within the GOP.
But of course, you can’t see that because those whispered promises from the Temple of Barack –despite the fact that he’s driven the ObamaBus over gay interests repeatedly– are so compelling, so seductive and play to your lowest common denominator with other gays… namely your victimhood… you can’t see it any other way. And, of course, you’d like to impose that “way” on other gaybrethern… it’s what the audacity of hype is all about.
You probably do need to go vote for BarryO. I hear his former bosses at ACORN are giving away special treats for anyone who votes twice… or three times.
You know those corrupt Chicago political types like BarryO –they appreciate all the faithful who don’t respect vote integrity.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The IGF comment areas have deteriorated to the point where there’s not much reason to log in except to see what mud MM will throw next. However, I needed a break, so here goes.
avee, who is actually trying to stick to the substance, wrote: “Marriage is the issue; that’s why Obama’s lack of support is so glaring, in light of the devotional support he’s receiving from lgbt activists.”
As one Obama supporter, I have pointed out multiple times evidence showing that my support cannot fairly be termed “devotional.” This sneering is tiresome and pointless. You support your candidate, and I support mine. I have noted in published articles my unhappiness with Obama’s position on SSM. But, contrary to the constant crap being thrown about “the one,” I am a reality-based activist and therefore am used to dealing with imperfect choices. As I have pointed out many times, Obama’s record and position on legal protections for same-sex couples are far better than McCain’s. And again, to show my fairness, I will repeat the fact that McCain has, quite commendably, opposed FMA. I will also mention that he supports anti-gay state ballot initiatives, which dampens my euphoria over his opposition to FMA. For those like MM who persistently suggest that Obama is all talk (despite his pro-gay voting record in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate), and is only pandering to gays for our votes, I wonder why in that case he defends gay people in front of general audiences, including (for example) his comments from the pulpit of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church last January.
“Obama has said he opposes don’t ask, don’t tell, but will defer to the military brass. This is equivalent to McCain’s position.”
Wrong. Obama wants to work with the military brass, which does not equal surrendering to them, but his main point is that the repeal of DADT must be legislative. In fact, since DADT is a law and not merely an executive-branch policy, it does need to be repealed legislatively. Obama wants to repeal it, and McCain doesn’t.
“ENDA is now opposed by lgbt progressives, since it’s not going to be presented with transgender inclusion anytime soon. McCain’s muted opposition is not a big deal.”
I guess that means I am not an LGBT progressive, which I am afraid will distress MM, who doesn’t like people to climb out of the pigeonholes he has assigned them. My group, GLAA in DC, went on record supporting Barney Frank’s gay-only version of ENDA last fall after it became clear that the trans-inclusive version did not have the votes to pass. And I personally wrote three columns on the subject, in which I strongly defended the view that the best achievable bill is what should be supported and pushed through Congress. The noise from the GLBT left notwithstanding, their all-or-nothing stance does NOT represent either the views or the interests of most GLBT people. The opponent’s of the gay-only version of ENDA passed by the House last November have still not, to my knowledge, responded in substantive detail to Barney’s masterful ten thousand word speech on the House floor of 9 October 2007, which you can find in the Congressional Record online. I do not know what Congress will do next session if it turns out they still lack the votes for a trans-inclusive version, but even if the gay left is so committed to foolish pandering that it abandons a legislative goal that goes back more than 30 years, that does not make McCain’s opposition to employment protections the equivalent of Obama’s support for them. Nor does it make it not a big deal, unless (strange for an IGF denizen) you have turned responsibility for your opinions over to the gay left.
“That should mean that gays are entitled to vote on a range of non-gay issues that are meaningful to them.”
That was always true. I have cited some of my own non-gay concerns.
“But when gay who support McCain do so, they are branded as idiots and traders by Obama’s lgbt brigades.”
I assume you mean “traitors,” unless for some reason you are bringing up the opposition by many Democrats to free trade. There certainly are gratuitous insults made by some Democratic partisans; but it seems disingenuous only to mention the name-calling from that side of the aisle on an IGF comments board, given the endless name-calling in these parts by MM–not to mention the continuing lies and slanders of the McCain campaign. I’d love to see you guys refute George Will’s criticism of McCain’s unpresidential temperament.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have consistently said that civil marriage is not a “sacred union” and that folks who make that argument confuse religious marriage and civil marriage. I have consistently argued that gays and lesbians should seek and fight for marriage equality under the law. I have consistently argued that civil unions, which create a “separate but equal” status, are inherently unequal. My views have been expressed in this forum, and on my blog, in public, for years.
No, they haven’t, Tom.
You need to state publicly the following:
— Obama confuses religious and civil marriage.
— Obama opposes gay marriage
— Obama supports an inherently-unequal structure that would treat gay and lesbian people like second-class citizens.
— Obama believes that marriage is a question of “states’ rights”, which means he believes that states have the right to ban gay marriage.
I don’t like Obama’s position on marriage, and I think he ought to know better, but you and I don’t get to vote for a perfect candidate.
Ah, but according to your fellow gay liberals, any gay person who votes for a candidate who is less than perfect is a self-loathing Jewish Nazi and a hypocrite.
Of course, as we’ve seen in the past, the definition of perfection is always suitably lowered for a Democrat.
Of the two, it seems to me that the differences with respect to legal equality for gays and lesbians are telling.
That’s because, Tom, you have a warped perspective on what constitutes “legal equality”.
For instance, you define special employment protections based on your sexual orientation as being “legal equality” — even though now, under current law, you have exactly the same legal protection against sexual orientation as does a straight person.
Furthermore, you define special treatment of criminal cases based on your sexual orientation as being “legal equality” — even though now, under current law, you have exactly the same treatment of a crime committed against you as does a straight person.
Is it really “equality” you want, Tom? Or, as this makes obvious, is it for you to enjoy job protections and special privileges based on your minority status?
Meanwhile, Tom, McCain has a gay chief of staff who has been in that role or a similar role for years. Obviously, he doesn’t need a law to hire or retain gay people and treat them with respect.
Not so Obama and his fellow Democrats.
You might want to ask about the Democrat Party’s commitment to equality when they are carrying out discriminatory hiring against gays. But then again, I would wager that you took to heart the lesson to gays who might think of getting uppity that Donald Hitchcock’s firing was.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard declares mudslinging is not civic-minded, is not respectful of the public square, is not conducisive to advancing thoughtful dialogue… and then throws mud like a 2 yr in a pique of childish anger. In the same sentence condemning others.
How regal of you, King Richard.
Let’s see, I know you dislike dissent from the OneTrueGayCreed. I know you dislike better armed and more intelligent gay GOPers. I know you’d rather people fall to the knees in front of your pronoucements and bow til they see the wisdom in your opinion (just like BarryO)…
Guess what our mudslinging, petulant King?
We don’t care.
In the last few lines, you asked for NDXXX to prove the Obama4Worship webpage said anything inaccuate or misleading. In the first 100 words, I pointed out two perfectly valid examples of the inaccuracies and misleading spin that characterizes the gayDemocrat line these days and really shows your famous webpage up for what it is: a sales piece.
You failed to muster even a bare bones refutation and conceded the point.
Then you pointed out, to prove your bonafides of being a diverse political thinker, two things. One, that LCR published your “works” (which is a joke –whether laughed out loud or just rolling around on the floor, Richard) and IGF readers made it clear that you got published by the LCRs when they were captives of the gayDemocrats inside the Beltway and you didn’t even know that… which we took your denial at its face value.
Then, you claimed your diverse political bonafides by claiming that you somehow “defended” the free speech rights of a group intent on being your adversary… and you asked, how can anyone discern that as being a Leftist. “It’s noble, I tell you; it’s noble”.
I pointed out that the ACLU, about as farLeft as you can get and not be in Moscow, does that sort thing routinely and gave you 1/2 dozen examples.
You got remarkably quiet for someone with such a heated, inflated sense of self importance on that final rebuke.
But the best King Richard’ism of the day is that you accuse others of mudslinging and then do it yourself within the same sentence.
There’s a hypocrite in training. Is that it, King Richard? For you, it’s the audacity of hypocrisy? Not audacity of hype? Not audacity of hope?
The audacity of hypocrisy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard posits: “I wonder why in that case he defends gay people in front of general audiences, including (for example) his comments from the pulpit of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church last January.”
Gee, King Richard, BarryO had dug a hole so deep and pushed the gay bodies into the hole with the ObamaBus, he sort of had to do something positive or lose yet another constitutency that week.
Hey King Richard, while you are all a’wondering about BarryO’s stellar performance in defending the good honor of gays… tell us why BarryO had the ex-gay homophobic bigot Donnie McClurkin participate as an entertaining preacher on BarryO’s Values Tour?
Tell us why, King Richard, it took BarryO nearly 5 weeks to drive the ObamaBus over Rev Wright’s bigoted, anti-American, homophobic torso?
Tell us why, King Richard, did BarryO promote another homophobic black minister to his Campaign Advisory Committee, the Rev Meeks, after –as you contend– BarryO “confronted” and “challenged” him in the mythical stairwells of the IL State Capitol?
Why, King Richard, does BarryO continue to associate with black rappers who demean all women as ho’s and are especially bigoted in their lyrics when it comes to gays? It’s been so bad in the past and of late that Kayne West took on the anti-gay rapper/hip hop crowd and they gave him enough bodyblows in the ensuing PR circus and lyrics war to make our American Civil War look tame.
I don’t recall you standing up for gay rights or trying to assist Kayne West in that culture war from the black community.
So, while you are all a’wondering, King Richard, and trying to distract IGF readers with your shameless hype of BarryO, let’s ask you to honestly evaluate BarryO’s “record” on gay rights… and not whispered promises, King Richard. Real, solid, actions on his part to advance gay rights.
You know, BarryO kind of reminds me of another famously touted “pro-gay” metrosexual Democrat contender, John Edwards, until we learned he couldn’t stand being around gays… and then there’s the last “Gay President” that gayDemocrats claimed would save us… SlickWilly… Mr DADT… Mr DOMA.
“We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep” -as the last Democrat Administration exited DC at the end of 8 brutally anti-gay years.
It’s a tall order, Richard, to be able to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.,, but you’ve been trying to exactly that with BarryO’s “gay” record.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
ND40: “— Obama confuses religious and civil marriage.
— Obama opposes gay marriage
— Obama supports an inherently-unequal structure that would treat gay and lesbian people like second-class citizens.
— Obama believes that marriage is a question of “states’ rights”, which means he believes that states have the right to ban gay marriage.
All of this is true enough, which is why I think that Obama’s views on same-sex civil marriage are abysmal. I’ve written as much, I think, in the “Frustrated” (http://tinyurl.com/4kl79c), to which I referred you, and other things I’ve written on the topic.
ND40: “Is it really “equality” you want, Tom? Or, as this makes obvious, is it for you to enjoy job protections and special privileges based on your minority status?”
I think that your characterization of ENDA and hate crimes legislation is incorrect, both legally and as a constitutional matter. Look at “Gay and Lesbian Equality? Absolutely ….” (http://tinyurl.com/k369v) and scroll down to the section “The Homosexual Agenda”. The post dates back to 2005, but the legal analysis hasn’t changed, obviously.
We can discuss it if you want to, I suppose, but I want to discuss it on a serious level.
posted by Audrey B on
This November fourth, stay home.
posted by ETJB on
The simple fact is that we have only two viable presidential choices — no matter what we may personally feel about Nader, Barr or whomever the Constitution Party or the several Marxist-Socialist parties have run.
Obama-Biden supports, civil unions. This is by no means perfect, but it is better then McCain-Palin who oppose giving same-sex couples any measure of legal equity and do not want gays to adopt kids.
The refusal of some gay Republicans to accept the reality, in their love fest over McCain and Palin, makes it rather odd that they can turn around and accuse gay Democrats of being the ones who are erecting a temple to their candidate.
It is not a question of being, “less then perfect” or, “voting for the lessor of the two evils”. It is voting for a presidential ticket that consistency opposes gay rights legislation and consistency has disrespected and demeaned gay people, and their lives.
Neither major party candidate is going to be perfect, until public opinion changes, but their is a huge difference between the two.
Libertarians are the only people who have any business oppose civil rights laws that include sexual orientation or gender identity. Their opinion, while incredibly flawed, is, at least, consistent.
So, unless you are ready to welcome the Libertarian revolution, a bit different then the GOP revolution, please stop referring to civil right laws as ‘special rights’. Civil rights laws that include, ‘sexual orientation’ have to apply to both straight and gay people.
If you really believe that their exists equality in employment and in the protection of victims, then you are just a fool or a moron.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I don’t know, ET, that sounds kind-of, sort-of… ummm, alien to us gays.
You claim that BarryO’Biden supports civil unions and yet, there’s no record of BarryO voting for civil unions and he’s standing firm against gay marriage, despite any pressure from the gayDemocrats.
Or are these more of those “whispered promises” that you gayDemocrats are so fond of identifying as a “record” or as “proof”? “BarryO likes us, he really really really likes us!” Channeling Sally Field isn’t attractive, my long fingered alien botanist friend.
Side note: nor is cheerleading an adequate replacement for persuasion, accountability and action.
Boy, BarryO has made it clear that he doesn’t support gay marrige. Just like McCain.
BarryO has made it clear that he thinks marriage is a sacred union ONLY for 1 man and 1 woman. Just like McCain.
BarryO has made it clear that he thinks the proper venue for deciding these matters is at a state-by-state level where marriage law regulation has historically been placed. Just like McCain.
The only difference on the #1 gayDemocrat issue is that BarryO doesn’t care what gayDemocrats want… he’s willing to drive the ObamaBus over anyone, anything, anytime in order to advance his celebrity candidacy. Just ask Rev Wright, Rev Meeks, Donnie McClurkin, Code Pink, HillaryClinton, Clinton voters, the PUMA folks and the entire DNC delegations from Florida and Michigan.
Maybe he needs to do what JoeyBiden suggested: go check out how F D Roosevelt got on the TV when the stock market crashed in 1929 and led this Nation to recovery… only FDR wasn’t Prez, there was no TV and HonestJoeBiden is having more problems with the truth than you do these days.
And, wow, that’s saying a lot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you really believe that their exists equality in employment and in the protection of victims, then you are just a fool or a moron.
There certainly does from a legal standpoint.
The first problem is, ETJB, that gay and lesbian liberals are under the delusion that gay and lesbian people never do anything wrong; therefore, any time they are investigated, punished, or fired, it’s the result of “homophobia and sexism”.
The second problem is that gay and lesbian liberals, being racists and bigots, are convinced that religious white people will never prosecute and convict those who commit crimes against gay people — a myth conveniently disproved by such shining examples as the sentences given to the killers of Scotty Joe Weaver, Billy Jack Gaither, and, ironically, Matthew Shepard.
As the example of McCain shows, he has no problem hiring, promoting, and supporting gay people; he just doesn’t believe that businesses should be forced to do so based on employees’ sexual orientation. Contrast that with Obama and his fellow Democrats, who scream that businesses should be forced by law to hire, promote, and support gay people, but who themselves treat gay employees who complain with contempt, fire them, and then set out to trash their reputations.
Furthermore, McCain believes that all crimes should be treated and investigated similarly, regardless of the characteristics of the victim. Obama believes that crimes against white and straight people should receive less funding, should not have automatic Federal involvement, and should be made a low priority as opposed to crimes against gay people and minorities.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX is correct; nicely put.
But there’s a much bigger problem that ET and others here refuse to acknowledge… that is, in our community, getting special laws and treatment from the govt is the entire purpose of our agenda -as defined by the gayLeft… despite all the claims of “equal rights”, it’s really all about special rights, special treatment, special programs.
And as the increasingly arm-flailing response of some AZ gays to Prop102 demonstrates, our special rights now should trump religious freedoms, the right of citizens to redress govt and the right of free association. There’s a group of arm flailing AZ gay activists who think “exposing” the religious character behind some citizens involved in Prop102 is perfectly ok and legit… even though it probably damages the ability of all gays to speak authenticly to the issues and with credibility that the voters can trust.
In employment, there are more than enough laws on the books to honestly and pragmatically protect discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc. We don’t need EDNA except to appease and validate a very vocal segment of our community intent on defining “societal validation” with special rights and treatment by govt.
Do all the laws on the books prevent discrmination in the workplace, housing, etc? No, because enforcement is uneven. But as NDXXX points out, that doesn’t mean America is a homophobic or sexist country whose laws allow discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc.
Rather than add yet one more set of laws to our books in an effort to prove that society is validating our behavior, let’s get back to focusing on real civil rights and marriage equality.
The problem that ET and his pals refuse to acknowledge is that THEY’VE defined the gay agenda as a series of govt mandates intended to provide special treatment and special rights, not equal treatment or equal rights.
That’s why the “Gay Marriage or Nothing, Damn It” crowd of the gayLeft and gayDemocrats will put us further behind on civil rights progress until we change the agenda… away from speical rights and toward honest, real, pragmatic liberties.
It’s time to boot the dominate gayLeft agenda from our political landscape, get the civil rights movement out of the Reverse Gear it’s been stuck in for 10 years and make some meaningful progress.
Rather than just accepting the audacity of hype.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, you quote the AP story “Proposed bans on same-sex marriage are on the ballot in three important states this fall, rousing passions on both sides….”
I was curious what other gay-centric blogs were writing about and found that the guys over at BoxTurtle are trying fashion fake documents indicting the LDS for violating it’s tax exempt status, encouraging NutNetRooties to go dumpster diving to find “useful” dirt on citizens who contribute, everything short of making an ad out of the car trunk of HoweiDean’s brother (the guy who did the disgusting McCain-melanoma ad).
They’re pretty typical of what’s out there– JoeMyGod, JoeBiscuit, etc.
In Michigan we learned that allowing this kind of gutterball campaign tricks from our more radical gayLeft “friends” only ended up hurting the cause. It was that kind of mindset that destroyed the gay civil rights movement’s credibility in Michigan and led to the passage of an FMA by a 61-39% margin in 04, the last “Year of the Democrats” supposedly.
It seems our gayLeft radicalized friends never, ever learn. Hopefully, voters won’t listen or learn of these guys’ antics and still defeat the ballot initiatives despite their “help”.
After the election, I think we all need to force them to an Intervention. Get these guys some basic lessons on voter persuasion strategies and then put them on the back of the bus for a while.
They aren’t doing us any favors. Almost as bad for us and the FMA ballot drives as ScreaminHowieDean’s brother is for turning off Obama voters with his McCain-melanoma ad.
posted by ETJB on
In comparing and contrasting the major party candidates it does not help the Log Cabin Republicans cred by refusing to deal with the differences between the candidates honestly;
* Barack Obama supports civil unions, this is not perfect but it is far better then the only viable alternative; John McCain oppose giving any legal recognition to same-sex couples or letting them have custody of kids. Policy? Obama supported the Unitied Families Act, John McCain does not.
* Barack Obama supports comprehensive civil rights and hate crime legislation, John McCain does not.
* Barack Obama supports a comprehensive campaign againt AIDS/HIV, John McCain supports ineffective and oftentimes anti-gay abstience only programs.
* The Federal judges that McCain admires and seeks to appoint to the courts tend to frown upon two out of the three major Supreme Court gay rights cases; Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s voting records haver been very good on gay rigts issues. Not perfect, few federal candidates are, but are far better then the voting and or policy record of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
These are basic facts, that gay Republicans refuse to acknowledge, hoping that they can ignore them or spin them away. This eagerness to divorce oneself from the reality is probably the major problem with the gay Republican movement and why is has not really gone anywhere.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BarryO supports civil unions? When did he vote for that? Where’s his record on that issue? No one here needs more of those “whispered promises”, ET; what’s his record on that issue?
BarryO supports a comprehensive campaign against HIV/AIDS? When did he vote for that? He was silent and missing in action on the largest federal appropriation to address AIDS… it took GOP Senators to get that funding off dead center, break Hillary Clinton’s lockhold on the bill, and get the money flowing.
You mislead on McCain’s record on federal judges, but when did BarryO become in favor of judges who will legislate from the bench and give gays the right to marry? When did he vote on a federal judge who claimed they would do that?
You are right, ET, few federal legislators have good records on the gayLeft’s agenda for civil rights… which you seem to want to promote as the conventional gay rights agenda. It isn’t.
What does it say if the most liberal, farLeft Democrat Senator in probably 25 years doesn’t agree with your gayLeft radicalized gay agenda?
I think it points out fairly well that you and our gayLeft leaders are out of step with even the most Leftist types like Obama who willing promote voter fraud (ACORN), who willing embrace homophobic racists (Meeks & Wright), who won’t tell the truth on ties to indicted crooks (Vesco), who won’t explain why he has a terrorist as political confidant (Ayers) and who continue to thumb his nose at all gays by saying gay marriage is wrong because his religious belief doesn’t allow it.
When you get the record on BarryO voting in favor of civil unions, let me know. Or federal judges who will support gay marriage. Or his effort to bring the HIV bill to our twice-elected President’s desk.
On the #1 issue to the gayLeft, BarryO and McCain are no different on the two major policy points. The only difference is that BarryO thumbs his nose at gays on that issue; McCain has told his staff gay marriage is off limits as a wedge tool… thereby helping all gays with his statesmanlike, seasoned leadership.
posted by ETJB on
You said: BarryO supports civil unions
Yup, even you admit it. However, I expect that you will continue your own partisan spin overflowing with your blind, almost sexual, worship of McCain-Palin.
McCain-Palin support abstience-only education. It is not effective AIDS/HIV policy, and excludes gay people, but is good for them politically.
McCain supports ‘strict constructionalit’ judges and the ones he has cited as an example are not especially friendly to the philosophy behind Romer v. Evans or Lawrence v. Texas.
Then again, you find it honorable when politicians demean gay heroes, as long as they are Republicans.
It is simple; McCain-Palin oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and DP. It is not a matter of ‘State’s rights’, as they have bothed expressed a personal belief, at the State level that any equity for gay couples goes against their twisted morality.
Obama-Biden support civil unions legislation. They supported a bill that would have been a wonderful stop in the right direction and would keep pushing in the right direction, if elected.
posted by Mark F. on
For the record, Palin opposes all rights for gay couples, opposes marriage equality, opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and opposes immigration rights for same-sex spouses of American citizens.
posted by Mark F. on
ND40, what bothers me about you is that you sincerely believe anyone who is liberal is evil, racist and bigoted and involved in some liberal conspiracy where everyone thinks the same. I personally am opposed to hate crimes and non-discrimination laws on libertarian grounds, but I think my liberal friends are just wrong on some issues, not secret Nazis.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, since you can’t point to a single vote in the vast legislative record of the Great BarryO on civil unions, I’m guessing you won’t.
Since you can’t point to a single instance where the Great BarryO helped advance gay rights in singular opposition to the flow of Democrat peers who were already on board, I’m guessing you won’t.
Like the discussion about your choice to demean Mark Bingham, his partner, his family and those who paid sincere tribute to Mark… I’m guessing you won’t be able to be a man and prove your points here.
A bit of advice, instead of playing the PrincessPriya and King Richard game of taking your opponents’ rhetorical skills and playing it against them (like you now try to do with the McCain worship schtick), I’d advise you to use your brain and come up with your own skill sets.
It’s sort of like watching BarryO stare down at his military bracelet in the debate and try hard to recall the name of the soldier engraved on the band… “Me too, me too. Wait, wait, I gots me a bracelet too… what’s that idiot’s name?”
ET, you had little credibility when your biggest claim to fame was you were King Richard’s sockpuppet.
You have far less now.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET claims: “McCain belittled his own tribute to a man that he had little respect for”.
Well, ET, the gayLeft media organ 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
Be a man, for once, ET. Stand up, admit your error, take a positive, constructive step and write: “OK, I did demean Mark’s memory and his family. I did demean Senator McCain’s fitting tribute of Mark. I see the error in my way. Mark is a great gay hero and I shouldn’t have tried to dishonor his memory with my flacid, feeble comments.”
You can do it, ET. If not, just phone it in from the telephone booth on board the spacecraft. Come on, ET, phone home.
posted by ETJB on
M&M;
McCain gave a wonderful speech in honor of Mark Bingham, but kept up with his horrific record on even mainstream gay rights legislation. He sings a a gay man’s praise, and thanks him for saving his life, but demeaned him with every single anti-gay vote he took, time and time again.
You do not honor or respect a person, particularly one who saved your life, by contining to deny their equality or even a shred of equality. Period. That is the God’s honesty, truth. Maybe I am just a bit too decent and old fashion for you or for Planet Out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
McCain gave a wonderful speech in honor of Mark Bingham, but kept up with his horrific record on even mainstream gay rights legislation. He sings a a gay man’s praise, and thanks him for saving his life, but demeaned him with every single anti-gay vote he took, time and time again.
I see; so you think that anyone who opposes hate crimes and non-discrimination laws is “antigay”.
Rationalize this.
I personally am opposed to hate crimes and non-discrimination laws on libertarian grounds
Now, if you were being consistent, you would call Mark F. a bigot and homophobe who is antigay and opposes “equality”, just like you do John McCain.
The problem is, ETJB, that you are using your sexual orientation as an excuse for your leftist politics and insisting that every gay person agrees with you. Furthermore, given your support of candidates who oppose gay marriage because marriage is a “sacred union”, who support and endorse state and Federal constitutional amendments banning it, and who fire gay individuals who complain about discrimination, what you continually make obvious is that your definition of “antigay” is based solely on party affiliation, and that you will loudly support and endorse as “pro-gay” what you previously whined is treating gays as second-class citizens — when it pleases your Democrat massas.
posted by ETJB on
Ah, more slurs and malicious distortions from North Dallas Thirty.
“So you think that anyone who opposes hate crimes and non-discrimination laws is “antigay”.
No, not really no. It is possible (without being anti-gay) to oppose hate crime laws, in principle, or civil right laws. McCain may oppose all hate crime laws, but I really doubt he opposes anti-discrimination/civil rights laws.
Both pieces of legislation have the support of a significant majority of Americans, but it is theoretical possible that McCain is libertarian. Unlikely, but possible.
Yet, it is harder to play that same tune (without being anti-gay) when dealing with goernment sanctioned discrimination, especially if he wants to play the libertarian card on hate crimes and civil rights laws.
Their are many opportunities that he could have created for himself, while remaining a ‘maverick’ Republican U.S. Senator that would have at least demonstrated that he understands that you honor human beings, especially ones who save your life, by gving them their equity.
Total equal government treatment is probably not politically fesible in this nation, but their domestic parntership benifits, discrimination within the government itself, even attempting to make Dont Ask, Dont Tell work fairier or supporting fair minded hearings or heck, researching something like temporarily segreated troops.
Domestic parntership benifits are especially key here. What a great way to honor Mark, if McCain had been able to say, to his family, that he was wrong on this issue and that he was going to support DP or civil unions.
I have had friends who were Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, Libertarians and Socialist. We have worked together to find and advance common ground. Frankly, many of the gay Republicans here at the IGF have been incredibly nasty and malicious — quite unlike most of the gay Republicans I have worked with.
Yes, Obama does support civil unions, although I do not recall formally endorsing him.
Heck, their will be, roughly, ten different candidates on the election ballot in my State.
Obama does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment and had expressed support for reforming DOMA. DNC chairman Howard Dean, likewise, support civil unions and opposed the Federal Marriage Amandment.
posted by Brian on
ETJB, “but (McCain) kept up with his horrific record on even mainstream gay rights legislation. He sings a a gay man’s praise, and thanks him for saving his life, but demeaned him with every single anti-gay vote he took, time and time again”.
What would that so-called mainstream gay rights legislation be? I only know of a radcialized, deep-end, gay agenda pushed by groups who have routinely opposed compromise and concensus.
You’re mad at McCain because he didn’t support the gay Left-wing agenda? That’s the basis of why you think he demeaned Mr Bingham?
And yet you can demean Mark Bingham and his memory over and over and that’s ok? Because you support the gay Left-wing agenda and the ends justify the means?
Honest, ETJB, you need to step back and appreciate that not everyone shares the gay Left’s agenda. Hell, most Democrats in Congress don’t either!
And quite demeaning the memory of Mark Bingham just because you don’t think Sen McCain did enough on the gay Left’s agenda. What a load you peddle most days.
posted by ETJB on
“What would that so-called mainstream gay rights legislation be?”
(1) Polls show broad based AND TRI-PARTISAN based support for the ENDA and the HCPA. If, by some odd fluke, he is against both bills, without being anti-gay, well, then he can also lend his support to the DP related bills or improving Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Also, if you want to appeal to moderate or independent voters, calling something that they tend to support, “radicalizedz” or off the “deep end” is probably not the best way to go about it.
McCain demeaned Mr. Bingham because he does support any tangible degree of legal equity for him or his surviving partner. You seem to think that this only includes a “gay Left-wing” agenda. This suggests that you know very little about the LGBT political movement or political theory in general or are a fool.
I have not demeaned Mr. Bingham or his surviving partner. I would not honor someone by dishonoring them. I would not call them a hero, thank them for saving my life, but continue to demean and disrespect them.
posted by jake on
i think brian was pointing out how “your” sense of what is mainstream is far from maninstream for most intelligent people
christ, even the most radical democrats couldn’t get ENDA passed and that’s your example of mainstream
i’ve read your comments and you, etjb, are part of the far left gay movement as others have noticed by themselves
you can’t admit it because if you did, you know you wouldn’t be able to sell it
and your precious faux-independence would escape the vapors of your mind
btw, i also think you indeed demeaned and dishonored mark bingham’s memory and i’m glad others here are holding your feet to the fire