Updated Oct. 3, scroll down
I hope this isn't just an act of political desperation, but John McCain has become the first GOP presidential nominee to participate in an interview (albeit through written answers) with a gay publication. He promises to "give full consideration" to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and to review don't ask, don't tell (but to defer to military commanders on changing the law, a position similar to Obama's).
More. LGBT activists are jumping all over Sarah Palin for her comments to Katie Couric referencing a gay friend and saying she doesn't judge those who make different choices. No, being gay is not a choice (although, in some sense, acting on one's orientation may be). But when it comes to discussing being gay, activists go ballistic if you're in any sense "pro-choice."
Yet Palin, despite her evangelical background, is clearly pointing to a way to be evangelical and be part of a larger community that includes gay people that's very different from the condemnation we usually hear from the religious right. But instead of encouraging her (and through her, religious conservatives), she gets blasted.
Furthermore: THE GREAT DEBATE
From Thursday's veep debate:
Ifill: Do you support, as they do in Alaska,
granting same-sex benefits to couples?
Biden: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex
benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden
administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a
constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex
and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be
granted-same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights
in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance
policies, et cetera. That's only fair. ...
Ifill: Governor, would you support expanding
that [granting same-sex benefits to couples] beyond Alaska to the
rest of the nation?
Palin: Well, not if it goes closer and closer
towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between
one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where
those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at
all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults
in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that
they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a
very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group
you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some
very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.... But I'm
being as straight up with Americans as I can in my nonsupport for
anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
Ifill: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do
you support gay marriage?
Biden: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining
from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support
that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be
left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the
determination what you call it.
---
McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden both oppose same-sex marriage. Biden feels the constitution mandates giving gay couples the same benefits as marriage (but not giving them marriage). Palin felt that Alaska's constitution bound her to veto a bill that would have barred benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.
Obama/Biden have the edge in the commitment to equality, but honestly, not by much. And certainly not to any degree that might conceivable justify the viciously mean-spirited and often hysterical demonizing of McCain and (especially) Palin by LGBT Democratic activists.
81 Comments for “McCain Speaks (and so does Palin)”
posted by Mike Airhart, TWO on
I fail to see how this is a liberal vs. conservative issue.
On several topics including homosexuality, Palin — unlike McCain — is purposely oblivious to both science and the complicated realities and people around her. This persistent ignorance is an alarming quality for anyone who might succeed a dying President.
Palin’s position is no different from that of mamy “kinder, gentler” ex-gays (some of them, Democrats) who, with a loving tone of voice, support antigay discrimination, sodomy laws, and ostracism from church and society.
Palin is not a Fred Phelps or Peter LaBarbera, but surely we should demand better than that of our leaders (even conservative ones) in the 21st century. Just because someone is not a Pol Pot or Idi Amin, doesn’t mean we should automatically applaud them.
Ex-gay programs are not benign; many people and their families have been harmed by them. And conservative communities are being drastically misled about science by ex-gay pundits who commit scientific fraud with a smile and some love-talk.
Palin’s confused sugar-coating of ignorance, intentional vagueness, and unscientific myth are little different from the routine declarations of Focus on the Family and Exodus at their Love Won Out roadshow. She is is not very different from these organizations at all.
Inclusion need not be absolute, and certainly it must be demanded equally of liberals and conservatives. But is absurd to demand that intelligent Americans vote for moral relativists of the left or right who demand that we respect their views no matter how factually false and intentionally ignorant they may be.
posted by Mike Airhart, TWO on
Just a quick additional note:
Some conservatives — George Will, David Frum, and Kathleen Parker — seem more alarmed about Palin’s superficiality than TWO, which sent her a book about ex-gays and trusted that she might learn from it.
Christian Science Monitor
posted by Mike Airhart, TWO on
Sorry, one more note.
Previously, Palin said:
“Oh, I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.”
These, too, are standard, morally relative ex-gay talking points taken almost verbatim from Exodus activists.
But all viewpoints are not equal. Some viewpoints are backed by fact and some are not. Those who promote ex-gay ideology persistently reject or grossly distort fact and material reality in favor of unfounded and subjective beliefs.
Sound global policymaking and decisions must be made on the basis of fact, not superstition. If some people can be criticized for vacuously surrending personal responsibility to big government, then surely other people can be criticized for vacuously surrendering personal responsibility to their church.
posted by Jorge on
But all viewpoints are not equal. Some viewpoints are backed by fact and some are not.
Yours is an example of the latter, times three. You are just making statements without any evidence behind them.
posted by ? on
What are you talking about specifically Jorge? What statements require more evidence?
posted by JohnL on
It’s been a while since I visited the forum of gay dupes. Seems rather more subdued. Wonder why?
posted by Jorge on
The statement that Palin is oblivious to science and reality, the statement that Palin’s views are identical to those espoused by ex-gay ministries, and the statement that not judging a person based on whether they believe homosexuality is a choice or not is an ex-gay ministry talking point.
The first is a smear based on a fabrication of Sarah Palin’s political positions and an implicit (and false) statement that Palin believes in legislating her religious beliefs.
The second is at best just bizzare unsubstantiated fearmongering based on the thinnest of associations. It has not been confirmed by even the most remote actual evidence.
The third I think is just made up.
I am also disturbed by the suggestion that people who attend church or people who believe a certain faith are unqualified for public office. This is clear religious discrimination and it goes directly against the First Amendment.
posted by Pat on
My problem with Palin’s “choice” answer is that in 2008, she is in a position to know better. If she is not intelligent enough to know whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or not, then I do question her qualifications to be Vice President.
Perhaps by “choice,” Palin did mean that gay people choose whether or not to act on their orientation. However, she later states about her friend, “…who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice I would have made. But I am not going to judge people.”
So what is she saying here? That if she was a lesbian, she would choose to be celibate, assuming that she knows that it would be wrong to marry a man. And would she really know that she would choose to be celibate if she was a lesbian? As a straight woman (which I will assume), she obviously chose that would not be celibate. But she automatically knows that she would be celibate if she was a lesbian?
Yes, I applaud Palin for being a good friend and not “judging” her. I expect a little bit more though. Then again, I expect more from Democrats as well.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
O/T for a second, I’d like to return to some comments from another thread that one of the more notable IGF commenters made about McCain’s stand on a potential repeal of DADT.
You might recall that one of the more visceral gayLeft types took aim at my statement about a conversation I had with McCain on the possible repeal of DADT? I shared with IGF readers he told me personally at a recent picture op he’d listen to military brass’ recommendation on it… but wasn’t opposed to a repeal.
Our IGF gayLeft knee-jerker demanded a link to his comments -even though they were made personally to me and MM-partner at a political event.
The knee-jerker sneered, “well, how can we trust that isn’t just made up by you to make McCain look good”?
Guess what? Washington Blade interview of yesterday, McCain says:
“I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell,? I?m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it?s working. I?m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that?s the case, but at the end of the day, I?m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.”
Now our IGF gayLeft kneejerker has his/her quote from McCain. Truth did win out.
Exactly as I relayed his policy preference to me and MM-partner earlier this summer.
BTW, where’s BarryO been trending on his campaign promise to immediately call in the Joint Chiefs and demand the policy be repealed and the troops retreat from Iraq.
He’s now saying on DADT that it’s really up to Congress to decide, but if they pass a repeal, he’ll sign it.
“We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep”… the last Democrat Administration upon exiting the White House.
You gotta wonder why gayDemocrats are so inclined to ignore that big, ol’ ObamaBus driving over promise after promise, friend and allies alike. Maybe it’s diminished expectations after the last Democrat prez signed DOMA and DADT into law.
posted by ETJB on
As a fair minded Independent, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. This is probably the first time that the GOP general election presidential candidate has given an interview with a gay publication. Impressive.
He does not actually come out and endorse any gay rights legislation, but suggests that he might be open to doing so.
Palin, for her own part, is a total moron. She has admitted that sexism is not the issue here, despite what some Republicanas were suggesting.
Andrew Sullivan noted in his great book ‘Virtully Normal’ that their was sometimes a public tolerance, but private disapproval, or something to that effect, with some conservatives and homosexuality. Something like that appears to be happening with McCain-Palin.
They want to appear tolerant enough so as not to offend moderate-independent minded swing voters, but they also do not want to risk offending those social conservatives who would prefer that the ‘sodomites’ were all locked up or dying of ADIS.
posted by Mike Airhart, TWO on
Pat said: “Then again, I expect more from Democrats as well.”
Precisely. Instead of succumbing to party politics of left vs. right, both parties must be held accountable.
“GLBT” activists blasted Obama for pandering to Donnie McClurkin. Why shouldn’t they also blast Palin for pandering to Focus on the Family?
I’m not about to dumb down the exam and grade the GOP on a sliding scale, the way the original post on this page suggests we should.
If gay-equality advocates demand a healthy well-balanced meal, and the Democrats are willing only to give us an artery-clogging cheeseburger, I’m not going to cheer when Palin gives us French fries. I’m going to criticize them both.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mike, you sound so reasonable, I’m afraid I’m falling victim to the East Coast Liberal Media Elite.
If Palin wins the debate (which apparently only requires her to smile, project confidence regardless, and mouth “glittering generalities,” it could be a turning point in the campaign. Should Palin-McCain win, I think I’ll move to Alaska, join the NRA, and take up hunting wolves from helicopters. Then I’ll be right there for the Rapture and everything.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“GLBT” activists blasted Obama for pandering to Donnie McClurkin. Why shouldn’t they also blast Palin for pandering to Focus on the Family?
So let’s see; Obama publicly endorsed and supported McClurkin, just as Obama publicly endorsed and supported ministers like Rick Warren and TD Jakes.
Now, Mr. Airhart, since you want to claim that Palin’s so-called pandering to Focus on the Family makes her unscientific and unfit and that gays should not vote for her, why don’t you publicly state that Obama’s direct endorsement of these two ministers, both of whom support and endorse ex-gay ministries, makes HIM unscientific and unfit and that gays should not vote for him?
To that point:
If she is not intelligent enough to know whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or not, then I do question her qualifications to be Vice President.
Considering how many so-called “gay men” and “lesbian women” have married members of the opposite sex and produced children, I think it should be more than a bit obvious that there’s more than a bit of choice involved in what one chooses to do sexually.
The problem is that, if one introduces the matter of being able to control and have choices about one’s own sexual behavior into the conversation, then the usual excuses for gay promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility go right out the window.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones in “As a fair minded Independent…” doing his best to channel the lost spirit of IGF’s RichardII who, deep in the heart of gayLeft-dom, was the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty in claiming the exact same “independence”.
And you think Sarah Palin is a moron, ET? Take a look in your mirror, my alien midget friend and you’ll come face to face with the perfect moron.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Whose “usual excuses for gay promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility”? I don’t recall anyone in the present discussion having offered any.
One’s orientation and what one actually does are two different things–particularly given anti-gay social pressures (and particularly in the past).
ND30 seems to have a very loose definition of “direct endorsement.” According to his logic, Obama is responsible for the obnoxious beliefs of everyone who supported him or whose invitations he ever accepted. I think it would be more useful to focus on the candidates’ own stated beliefs and policies.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard declares from his vast porcelain throne: “I think I’ll move to Alaska, join the NRA, and take up hunting wolves from helicopters. Then I’ll be right there for the Rapture and everything.”
Aside from your entrenched religious bigotry on parade as always, we’ve long heard the same “threats” from other farLeft nutjobs like Alec Baldwin (when he’s not beating his kids), Susan Saradon, Tim Robbins, Eddie Vedder, Pierre Salinger, Babs Streisand, Lynn Redgrave, Robert Altman and just about every nutjob who’s held a spot on The View.
Ok wait, they aren’t farLeft nutjobs… ummm, yeah, sure. And King Richard is unbiased… and ET is “independent”.
Meanwhile, there is someone with more sincerity ready to pack her bag if McCain-Palin win… and she’s a lot more compelling than our IGF King on the Porcelain Throne. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbY69qb6lyM
My promise? I’ll help them both pack and usher them out of town… no rail, no tar, no feathers. Just the sweet prospect of just deserts.
posted by Michael Airhart on
I agree that ND30 is redefining sexual orientation, resorting to strawmen regarding behavior, and sloppily defining “endorsement.”
That being said, I plan to vote for a third-party presidential candidate and I plan to vote AGAINST the incumbents in state and Congressional races. The goal: Clean house. Won’t happen, I know, but at least I’ll have voted for something closer to “right vs. wrong” instead of the “left vs. right” nonsense that some of you are peddling.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
According to his logic, Obama is responsible for the obnoxious beliefs of everyone who supported him or whose invitations he ever accepted.
Next time, Richard, you could take the time to actually read the link.
Prominent Christian leaders such as Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes were praised by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this weekend as role models of Christians who put their faith into action.
In other words, Obama specifically stated that he supports them.
I think it would be more useful to focus on the candidates’ own stated beliefs and policies.
Except that Mr. Airhart doesn’t seem to have shown us where Sarah Palin explicitly states that ex-gay therapy or anything of the sort is her belief and policy, instead claiming that he can magically divine that she does from her words and from — surprise! — an item in the bulletin of the church that she at one time attended.
One’s orientation and what one actually does are two different things
Ah, so there IS choice involved.
Whose “usual excuses for gay promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility”?
Classic example: Jim McGreevey, who claimed that his sexual orientation forced him to be irresponsible and promiscuous, and therefore he shouldn’t be held accountable for his behavior — a stance which was lauded as “heroic” and “courageous” by HRC, NGLTF, and other gay organizations.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I’m wondering why, MichaelA of TruthWinsOut, why you’d choose the lesser of three evils by tossing away your vote on election day?
You could help all the independents and GOP moderates who helped wrestle the GOP away from the farRight religious types who have been influencing the Party for far, far too long.
You could help advance McCain’s seachange moment within the political landscape by assisting smart-thinking, right-thinking political independents who came out to vote in open GOP state primary after primary for McCain-the-Maverick.
McCain has made it clear by his encouraging outreach to gay America that he intends to follow policies of fellowship and acceptance and accomodation with all but the radicalized gay farLeft. Unlike nearly every gayLeft wanna-be here who worships mindlessly at the Temple of Barack, I’ve actually met both men… and McCain repeatedly.
He’s embraced my family and our values and our concerns warmly, compassionately, sincerely.
When we got to Touch the Flesh of History in meeting BarryO the new Messiah, he was as slick as snake oil and pandering to the anti-gay union goons inside the hall in Flint –not exactly what we’ve been told by gayLefties here of the great BarryO.
In fact, I know if we had been able to bring a Pride sign into the hall, our momentary Democrat neighbors would have probably harassed and scorned the political demonstration –and BarryO probably would have called us “Sweetie” and dimissed his lack of concern for the plight of all gays… not just the gays who practice Victimhood like the gayDemocrats here.
Don’t toss away your vote. Help gayAmerica diminish the influence of the farRight religious types inside the GOP… help political independents and GOP moderates bring back pragmatic, principled progressive politics to the GOP.
Afterall, you’d be helping diminish the #1 Public Enemy according to most of the gayLefties here at IGF. And that vote wouldn’t have to be tossed away.
posted by ETJB on
Good to see that Michigan Matt is still channel his own hateful, malicious, bitter and self-loathing little boy.
Yeah, Palin is a total and utter moron. She also has a horrific record on gay rights, as does McCain. Whatever you may think about me, clearly you make Archie Bunker seem sane, I am not running for president or vice president.
Michigan Matt is bigoted against Independent and minor party Americans and has this silly notion that McCain-Palin appeals to most Independents or that voting for them is going to move the GOP to the center.
McCain-Palin have made it entirely clear that they oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage. They do not want gays adopt children.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
McCain-Palin have made it entirely clear that they oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
So does Obama, who states publicly that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” and that marriage is a “sacred union”.
Not that we expect you to care; after all, ETJB, Democrat gays like yourself and your organizations like HRC fully endorse and support state and Federal constitutional amendment supporters, as well as organizations and campaigns that treat gay people with utter contempt and practice workplace discrimination against gays who complain about such treatment.
Furthermore, since Mike Airhart and his fellow liberals can claim that Sarah Palin supports ex-gay therapy and intends to make it national policy based on an item in a church bulletin over which she had no control or influence, it should be obvious that Barack Obama, who directly endorses, supports, and praises pastors and people who support ex-gay therapy, would be even more culpable in that regard.
posted by Mike Airhart, TWO on
ND30, you sure enjoy resorting to strawmen — attributing to me things that I never said and don’t believe.
posted by Patrick on
Well here is another puddlechange moment, McSame hightails it outta Michigan . So much for all his rabid supporters of his swaying voters.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, you sure enjoy resorting to strawmen — attributing to me things that I never said and don’t believe.
Oh really? Which things were those?
posted by Jorge on
Considering how many so-called “gay men” and “lesbian women” have married members of the opposite sex and produced children, I think it should be more than a bit obvious that there’s more than a bit of choice involved in what one chooses to do sexually.
The problem is that, if one introduces the matter of being able to control and have choices about one’s own sexual behavior into the conversation, then the usual excuses for gay promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility go right out the window.
Harsh but true.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to claim a superior intellect on gay issues based on the other party adopting a very mainstream position, right or wrong, that homosexuality is a sinful choice. The people who believe homosexuality is not a choice are just as educated as those who do not believe it. It is that they are making a willful choice to reject the notion, and you have to ask why. I don’t think academia is ever going to succeed at “educating” the American public on this one.
posted by BobN on
“Yet Palin, despite her evangelical background, is clearly pointing to a way to be evangelical and be part of a larger community that includes gay people that’s very different from the condemnation we usually hear from the religious right.”
I’m supposed to cheer her because she has a lesbian friend? (Gay folks in Alaska, in the Wasila area, have been unable to track down who exactly this friend is). I’m supposed to be heartened by knowing that she doesn’t think her friend should be able to form a legally recognized relationship with a partner?
With friends like Sarah Palin…
posted by BobN on
A couple other points:
1) This wasn’t an “interview”.
2) McCain didn’t respond to the questions. Someone on his campaign did.
3) Most of the responses are deeply uncommittal and meaningless.
4) Sarah Palin isn’t our “friend”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m supposed to cheer her because she has a lesbian friend? (Gay folks in Alaska, in the Wasila area, have been unable to track down who exactly this friend is).
Funny, Dan Savage had no trouble doing it.
And the net result — mainly comments full of spite and hate towards this person for daring to be in any way friendly towards or supportive of Sarah Palin — demonstrate quite nicely why so many people have nothing but disdain for gay liberals and Obama supporters.
Furthermore, BobN, given that gay liberals and Democrats have no problem supporting and having friends who support the FMA and treat gays who don’t unthinkingly obey them with utter disregard and contempt, I further fail to see your point.
posted by Pat on
Considering how many so-called “gay men” and “lesbian women” have married members of the opposite sex and produced children, I think it should be more than a bit obvious that there’s more than a bit of choice involved in what one chooses to do sexually.
Which is obviously something we should be moving away from at this time. I’m hoping Palin did not mean that by “choice” that it’s okay for gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex. My statement still stands.
The problem is that, if one introduces the matter of being able to control and have choices about one’s own sexual behavior into the conversation, then the usual excuses for gay promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility go right out the window.
No idea what you’re trying to convey here. People can obviously control their sexual behavior if they choose to do so. Some choices are wiser than others. Being sexually irresponsible is not a good choice. Being promiscuous is not a good choice. Choosing to enter a relationship with a person of the gender you are not sexually attracted to is not a good choice.
I am also disturbed by the suggestion that people who attend church or people who believe a certain faith are unqualified for public office. This is clear religious discrimination and it goes directly against the First Amendment.
Jorge, I’m afraid I disagree with your statement. It implies (to me) at least that a person with an irrational religious belief should not have that belief challenged, and that the First Amendment does not apply to someone who would dare challenge that belief. For example, if a person belongs to a religion that believes the Sun revolves around the Earth, and actually believes that, we would all agree that this person is not qualified or fit for office, and probably should not be in contact with any sharp objects. If a person belongs to a religion that is bigoted against homosexuality, and has beliefs as such, as well as ignorance despite the ability to know better, then IMO, that person is highly questionable for office. If someone else believes otherwise, they are obviously free to vote accordingly.
I don’t believe that when a person exhibits an irrational or ignorant belief based on that person’s religious belief that the person automatically gets a pass. We don’t do it when the belief is non-religious based.
One thing I forgot to mention before. I noticed in the article that Palin appears to be pro-choice.
posted by Super-Meme on
I think the one major thing that Palin schooled the Demorons on tonight was how much she loves the gays. Like Michegan-Matt I also believe that gayLeft wanna-be traitorfaces who worship mindlessly at the Temple of Barack should use a little more lube so they aren’t so sore and bitchy all the time. Palin/McCain’s adoration and respect for homosexuals was kind of gross at first but, you know what, gay-love isn’t gross. Maybe if you gayLeft idiophiles would stop whining all the damn time you would have that one figured out. Somebody should tell BHOops and his merry squadron of lawyers and sodomites about that. Maybe you che-worshiping aristo-nazis go take a car ride like Biden’s first wife? Maybe you’ll end up like his son and live to understand the idiocy of your beliefs. And you know what? So what if a person has read every magazine and newspaper or thinks that Putin’s head is going to attack us? If you damn libtards had half a chromosome you would know that being well-read makes a person super great. You know what else is super great? Defending America from trade relations with Putin’s head, that’s what. Sorry Dhimmicrats, you picked the wrong year to bet on hope. Did you really think something as naive as hope would win the hearts and minds of Christian America? Try not to kill millions of babies all the time and then we’ll listen to you. I saw the videos of you code pink peeholes marching through downtown Denver…”OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam-AH.” They bleated out that nonsense like a bunch of Stonewall loving leather-daddies. Whatever. I don’t even waste my time with that Defeatocrat nonsense. I love the touch of the flesh of the history. BarryOoops has all you gutter-sucking Bidenastines fooled into prostating before the new Messiah. Senor Husein Oblamapuss is as slick as snake oil and you do-nothing Dem0Asshats just flop around like fishes baking in the desert.
posted by Pat on
I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to claim a superior intellect on gay issues based on the other party adopting a very mainstream position, right or wrong, that homosexuality is a sinful choice.
Why is that Jorge? Is it because you don’t believe it’s appropriate for anyone to claim a superior intellect on any issue, or just issues where one side may believe it’s sinful?
posted by Rob on
Palin’s ‘gay friend’ has friends that voted for the amendment? Having acquaintances I can understand, but honestly that guy has his priorities upside down. Removing an amendment is as hard as removing a blood stain from a murder scene. At least he’s not like some nutjob commentators on ‘Gay patriot’ that would vote for it. Speaking of ‘Gay Patriot’, how come Michigan Matt isn’t there anymore?
BTW NDXXX, you still haven’t answered my questions concerning proposition 8. Have you talked to your religious conservative acquaintances that it would be preferable to vote against it, or at least abstain from voting on this proposal?
posted by arthur on
Gov. Palin is the political equivalent of a trophy wife, or second wife. Cute in social situations, dresses appropriately, with just the right amount of sex appeal. Will defend her man, and make him look younger and virile. Smart enough to have a cocktail conversation, but you wouldn’t hire her to run a part of your business without a handler. Citizens should treat her as thus and women should be offended.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I’m afraid I disagree with your statement. It implies (to me) at least that a person with an irrational religious belief should not have that belief challenged, and that the First Amendment does not apply to someone who would dare challenge that belief.
“Challenging a religious belief” is a First Amendment right that is the prerogative of the voter, however that challenge must be made and evaluated in its own right, without resorting to deception or baseless smears against the mere face of religion. In this way that challenge has a fair chance of failing.
However I still think “challenging religion” is in very poor taste and has no place in a campaign for government office unless the other party brings up that belief first. It is too personal and it is not relevant.
I have some problems with your example, but for now I’ll say you’d have to nail the candidate on any “bigoted” beliefs. And by this, I mean the issue has to be very clear-cut. There is a wealth of documentation–including binding court decisions by state (if not yet federal) courts–that makes the issue of homosexuality very gray. This strongly argues against the automatic disqualification of candidates based on their religious beliefs on homosexuality.
Pat: I already gave my best explanation in my post. I think it is factually incorrect that the difference between the two sides on gay issues is intelligence and book smarts.
posted by Jorge on
I think the one major thing that Palin schooled the Demorons on tonight was how much she loves the gays.
Hah, hah. Very funny. I’m rolling in the aisles on that one.
posted by Pat on
“Challenging a religious belief” is a First Amendment right that is the prerogative of the voter, however that challenge must be made and evaluated in its own right, without resorting to deception or baseless smears against the mere face of religion. In this way that challenge has a fair chance of failing.
I agree with this, Jorge, except to say why religion appears to get a special pass any more so than any other institution or idea.
However I still think “challenging religion” is in very poor taste and has no place in a campaign for government office unless the other party brings up that belief first. It is too personal and it is not relevant.
If you mean challenging the religion of a candidate, I pretty much agree with that. It is personal, however, it may also be relevant. If someone holds a particular irrational or ignorant belief that religious based, but keeps it personal, that’s fine. When it’s turned into part of the candidate’s position, then we shouldn’t be afraid to call that person out.
This strongly argues against the automatic disqualification of candidates based on their religious beliefs on homosexuality.
I don’t see how that’s the case. There are a lot of gray issues on other areas. These include whether raising taxes is a good idea, whether government should be bigger or smaller, or which particular areas should government be bigger or smaller, etc. Voters many times will use this criteria to question the qualifications of a candidate.
Pat: I already gave my best explanation in my post. I think it is factually incorrect that the difference between the two sides on gay issues is intelligence and book smarts.
Fair enough. Perhaps I simply missing the point that you’re making. Again, it appears to me that you’re treating religion (either as an institution or a set of beliefs) differently than other institutions or ideas.
My point is that it is clear to me that homosexuality (the orientation) is not a choice. I personally cannot understand how a person who has the opportunity to know better, via education and contacts with experts, etc. As such, I do question the qualifications and the fitness of such a person to hold office.
I understand that this issue is still a gray area in that a significant portion does still believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I understand that such a person will disagree with my evaluation of a person’s qualification or fitness for office.
It’s not clear to me what Palin meant by “choice.” I would be interested in someone asking her to clear up the matter, and hope that she decides to not repeat her views on energy to avoid the question. 😉
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET first contends he’s a political independent… kind of like RichardII tried to do here on IGF and always failed the sniff when in the next thread he’d go off the deep end in another ranting and raging BushDerangementSyndrome moment.
Now, ET’s got the PALIN Derangement Syndrome going in high gear with this doozey: “Palin’s a moron” and “I’m a political independent who hasn’t made up my mind”.
Yeah, oh sure… I think maybe you’ve been sniffing a little too much of those spacecraft fumes, ET. Grab the O2 and come back to Earth; we’re worried for you.
Palin is hardly a moron as she again proved in the Veep debates besting LyinJoeBiden at nearly every turn. In fact, as one pundit put it, Palin had the upperhand with the very first line of the night: “Nice to meet you, may I call you Joe”. And Biden never recovered.
Biden was the perfect Obama-knockoff as a sexist dressed up for Halloween. He called Palin “Governor” throughout the debate and tried to dehumanize her just like BarryO did repeatedly with “Senator Clinton”… and when BarryO wanted to dump on Hillary, he’d call her Hillary. He smiled broadly in a dismissive, “she doesn’t know what’s she talking about” kind of smirk… and what was with always looking to the moderator for help?
You’d think the moderator was another one of those MSM types in the tank for BarryO?
Biden, who I thought deserved respect before his now famous flipflop on being Veep, his shameless pandering to whichever voting group he’s standing in front of, and double-talking, lying and evasion –like trying to stick McCain with a vote against funding the troops– Joey now needs to be known as LyinJoeBiden, the serial plagerizer.
What a little, sexist unctuous person for such an important job -that’s no way for LyinJoe to cap his career as a professional politician. But it is the perfect compliment to BarryO.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob says: “Removing an amendment is as hard as removing a blood stain from a murder scene.”
Guess what, Rob, we agree. In Michigan, the Democrats sat on their hands and allowed the bigoted anti-gay blue collar voters and black church voters they drove to the polls for JohnKerry pass Michigan’s FMA in 2004.
Maybe it’s time for you to get off the gayDemocrat vote-keeper bus and join other, more responsible gays who want something other than just whispered promises from BarryOBiden… and deep tiretracks over our backsides while the ObamaBus runs over gay civil rights time and time again.
Rob… Rob? Oh, I see, you didn’t mean we should hold Democrats accountable? Yeah, thought so. Welcome to the Plantation… grab a hoe and pick a row, boy.
posted by ETJB on
Well, candidacy rights are almost invisible in the Federal Constitution so it is kinda cute to see people pretending its their.
The government cannot ban a citizen from seeking or holding pubilc office on the account of their religion. Beyond that, things get really fuzzy, because little is said about our political rights.
Palin, as a citizen, has a right to her own religious beliefs. However, voters are entitled to know what her belief are, in so far as they impact public policy issues.
We have a right to discuss and debate religion, although we should try and do it in a civil and compassionate way. I have been involved in several interfaith diolgoues and group projects.
The right to challenge a candidate’s religious or political beliefs is as much of a
right as the right of the citizen to uphold or change such beliefs.
Frankly, I do not see Palin as someone how is going to challenge the homohobia in the GOP or among Socially Conservative Evangelical Christians. Her basic belief can be boiled down to; “hate the sin, love the sinner”, “no special rights”, and “defend marriage”. Not exactly new ideas, that Republicans or Evangelicals have not heard before.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN gets it wrong, sigh, again… he said “I’m supposed to be heartened by knowing that she doesn’t think her friend should be able to form a legally recognized relationship with a partner? With friends like Sarah Palin”.
Palin said she does support equal rights and the ability of gays to create civil unions -just like she supports Alaska’s preference to provide domestic partner benefits to gays.
BobN has been infected Palin Derangement Syndrome, too.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
ET, you keep on sniffing those spacecraft fumes girl… it’s working to keep reality far, far away from your orbit.
“Her basic belief can be boiled down to; “hate the sin, love the sinner”, “no special rights”, and “defend marriage”. Not exactly new ideas, that Republicans or Evangelicals have not heard before.”
You might be able to boil it down to that because, as a BarryO hype-ster, that’s what you need to win the election… the ol’ evil, big bad anti-gay Christian fundamentalist monster.
Maybe if you didn’t take your cues from BillMaher and joined more sane, reasonable and rational gays, you’d come to appreciate that Christianity isn’t the enemy of gays, ET. I thought being a self-professed “Jew” you’d at least grasp that truth… or was that just a hereditary, non-observant Jew claim?
Palin made it clear last night exactly what I and others here have been telling the gayDemocrat row hoe’ing slaves… there’s little difference between the Masta BarryO and LyinJoe and the Mavericks on gay marriage, gay civil rights.
Like I said, ET, it’s time for you to grab the O2 tank and come back to reality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Palin’s ‘gay friend’ has friends that voted for the amendment? Having acquaintances I can understand, but honestly that guy has his priorities upside down. Removing an amendment is as hard as removing a blood stain from a murder scene.
Of course, Rob, that never stopped you or your fellow gay Democrats and liberal gay organizations from working for, endorsing, and supporting your “friends” who would vote for state and Federal constitutional amendments, or that treat gays with utter contempt and discriminate against them in the workplace.
BTW NDXXX, you still haven’t answered my questions concerning proposition 8.
I have made my case as I did last time, and let them know I am their friend regardless of what they do.
But I have also pointed them to BeyondMarriage.org and other areas to demonstrate what the current attitude of the vast majority of gays and lesbians are towards marriage, as is best summed up in this story:
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
They deserve to know both sides.
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt;
You keep restorting to hateful, deceptive and malicious attacks, slurs and innuendos.
Can you have a serious, mature and civil debate or discussion? Or do you just grab the latest partisan spin from your talking heads?
I did not say that Palin was a, “ol’ evil, big bad anti-gay Christian fundamentalist monster.”
I said that her expressed religious position does not appear to be too different from what many other socially conservative evangelical Christians have already said.
If you are going to argue that she provides an opportunity for the gay ‘community’ to make inroads with this particular group of Christians, then you might want to explain how her position is too different from the all too familiar, “hate the sin, love the sinner”.
I never said that Christanity (or religion in general) is the “enemy” to gays. I have had many Christian (Protestant and Catholic) friends (gay and straight) and worked on some successful interfaith initiatives.
Please point out a gay right bill that McCain or Palin has supported. Not willing to ‘consider’, but forced to do by the courts, but really really opposes it.
Civil rights? AIDS/HIV issue? Hate crimes? Sodomy laws? Partnership benifits?
posted by Rob on
Of course, Rob, that never stopped you or your fellow gay Democrats and liberal gay organizations from working for, endorsing, and supporting your “friends” who would vote for state and Federal constitutional amendments, or that treat gays with utter contempt and discriminate against them in the workplace.
Sorry NDXXX, I never supported John Kerry, or even the Democrats as a whole party.
I have made my case as I did last time, and let them know I am their friend regardless of what they do.
So a post dating back from three years ago? Have you reminded them that another one is coming? What have they told you about it?
But I have also pointed them to BeyondMarriage.org and other areas to demonstrate what the current attitude of the vast majority of gays and lesbians are towards marriage, as is best summed up in this story:
[…]
They deserve to know both sides.
Purely anecdotal without any basis in statistics. But if anecdotal is what you’re into, you should check out Dan Savage’s book Skipping towards Gomorrah; showing the depravity that goes on between heterosexual married couples, even conservative ones as well. Will you let them know that side as well?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Purely anecdotal without any basis in statistics. But if anecdotal is what you’re into, you should check out Dan Savage’s book Skipping towards Gomorrah; showing the depravity that goes on between heterosexual married couples, even conservative ones as well. Will you let them know that side as well?
The reason Savage is not taken seriously in that book is because he uses the intellectual argument of a spoiled child, whining that because he could find someone who did something wrong, he should be allowed to do it, quite ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people DO think the behaviors outlined in that book were wrong.
You demonstrate that quite nicely. Notice how, when confronted with BeyondMarriage.org, your response was not to condemn the screed, which calls for the demolishment of marriage and governmental recognition of sibling marriages and poly relationships, but to argue that there are some heterosexuals who do bad things, so gays should be allowed to do bad things. In a similar fashion, when confronted with an example of a promiscuous gay couple whose marriage means nothing in terms of monogamy or sexual fidelity, you do not condemn it, but whine why it should be all right, making it obvious that gay and lesbian liberals like yourself see nothing wrong with promiscuous sex and infidelity in marriage and indeed argue that it’s OK because, quote, “men are pigs”.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET whines: “You keep restorting to hateful, deceptive and malicious attacks, slurs and innuendos”
Ummm, not exactly correct there, my long fingered alien friend. I’m not the one who called Gov Palin a “moron”… that was you, ET. Care to revise your remarks? Like you revised your demeaning, petty, baseless comments about Mark Bingham? Oh, you haven’t even yet? Wow, even the shameful find their conscience at some point… where’s yours?
ET further whines: “I did not say that Palin was an “ol’ evil, big bad anti-gay Christian fundamentalist monster.”
Nor did anyone here say you said it… but what you did say was both baseless and uninformed: you wrote, “Her (Palin) basic belief can be boiled down to; “hate the sin, love the sinner”, “no special rights”, and “defend marriage”. Not exactly new ideas, that Republicans or Evangelicals have not heard before”.
That was you, ET. No support. No base. Uninformed. Pulling it out of the vacuum of pure outer space, you did. You brought up religion and trotted it out like you’re studying to be the perfect gayDemocrat tool –for them, religion and Christianity is the evil, mean ol big bad root of all gay trouble… just read a couple of lines from your gayDemocrat colleague and peer, PrincessPriya.
The trouble is, ET, when you open your mouth and type something, you ought to expect to be held to account.
Instead, you try to spin it into something other than the stupidity you uttered or the banal, uninformed opinion you think passes for discussion.
I’m not sorry you refuse to accept responsibility for your statements… but making me or religion the object of your failings won’t get you far.
Well, wait, in the gayLeft, it’ll probably get you very, very far.
posted by BobN on
Gay couples in Alaska have no civil unions. There is no mechanism to establish a legal relationship between two unrelated persons of the same sex in Alaska. Because of a State Supreme Court decision (with which Palin disagreed), only the domestic partners of state employees are entitled to any recognition and that recognition is limited to the receipt of medical benefits.
When the state legislature, dominated by Republicans, sought to withhold even that meager benefit, Palin vetoed the measure because her Attorney General told her the law was unconstitutional. Had that not been the case, she would have gladly signed it.
Her “tolerance” is like that of many folks: we can go ahead and make our choices, but damned if they’ll do anything to recognize or support them.
posted by Mark on
I’m not a liberal, but I neither condemn nor approve of either multi-partner sex or monogamy. That’s an individual decision or a decision for a couple to make. Currently, I am single and have a sex partner once in a while but am not especially sexually active.
ND 30: Please provide a reference that proves that “Beyond Marriage” sums up the attitude of a “vast majority” of gays and lesbians towards marriage. How do you know that? I assume you know the difference between good statistics and anecdotal evidence.
posted by Jorge on
It’s not clear to me what Palin meant by “choice.” I would be interested in someone asking her to clear up the matter, and hope that she decides to not repeat her views on energy to avoid the question.
I think we can take her debate answer as her definitive position.
Obama/Biden have the edge in the commitment to equality, but honestly, not by much. And certainly not to any degree that might conceivable justify the viciously mean-spirited and often hysterical demonizing of McCain and (especially) Palin by LGBT Democratic activists.
None of this is false. Sarah Palin passed the question, and Biden gave her extra credit. But we do not need to spend every waking moment contradicting the wacko gay left.
I am very disappointed in Palin’s response. I respect it, I find myself not surprised, and she’s not that far from Biden. But where Biden stood tall and was proud to say an issue where he stands alongside gays, Palin was muttering, looking down, almost fidgity as she said “I am tolerant”, that she has very dear friends who disagree with her on this (and reading this blog post she chose her words quite well… was she using crib notes or something?). Being tolerant of people “choosing their partners” (very smooth, Palin) is nothing for her to be ashamed of!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND 30: Please provide a reference that proves that “Beyond Marriage” sums up the attitude of a “vast majority” of gays and lesbians towards marriage. How do you know that?
You can look at its signature page, as well as the support it received from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and its director, Matt Foreman.
Perhaps you should also be aware that the ACLU, which supposedly agitates for “gay rights” and which gay liberals like Richard Rosendall support and endorse, also considers the bans on polygamous marriages to be unconstitutional and wants them repealed.
posted by Brian on
“The trouble is, ET, when you open your mouth and type something, you ought to expect to be held to account. Instead, you try to spin it into something other than the stupidity you uttered or the banal, uninformed opinion you think passes for discussion. I’m not sorry you refuse to accept responsibility for your statements… but making me or religion the object of your failings won’t get you far. Well, wait, in the gayLeft, it’ll probably get you very, very far.”
Somebody just got owned -give it up ETJB you’ve been outgunned, outclassed & outthought.
”
posted by Brian on
BobN “Because of a State Supreme Court decision (with which Palin disagreed), only the domestic partners of state employees are entitled to any recognition and that recognition is limited to the receipt of medical benefits.”
Not true. Palin said she would support the Alaska Superior Court’s decision even though she thought the voters had decided the matter contrary to the Court’s decision.
Maybe the Barack Obama types here can stop the lying at least from now until November 4th?
I doubt it. It’s part and parcel of who they are -pure political opportunists who chase away truth like it were a disease.
posted by Rob on
The reason Savage is not taken seriously in that book is because he uses the intellectual argument of a spoiled child, whining that because he could find someone who did something wrong, he should be allowed to do it, quite ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people DO think the behaviors outlined in that book were wrong.
blah blah blah… it’s not because of his arguments that I’ve mentioned his book. I’ve mentioned it because of the anecdotal stories it features.
You demonstrate that quite nicely. Notice how, when confronted with BeyondMarriage.org, your response was not to condemn the screed, which calls for the demolishment of marriage and governmental recognition of sibling marriages and poly relationships, but to argue that there are some heterosexuals who do bad things, so gays should be allowed to do bad things.
Incorrect, I’ve merely surmised that your friends should know that this knowledge is anecdotal. Anecdotals is pretty much what you’re full of. Make sure they know that there are non-monogamous married couples of both orientations.
In a similar fashion, when confronted with an example of a promiscuous gay couple whose marriage means nothing in terms of monogamy or sexual fidelity, you do not condemn it, but whine why it should be all right, making it obvious that gay and lesbian liberals like yourself see nothing wrong with promiscuous sex and infidelity in marriage and indeed argue that it’s OK because, quote, “men are pigs”.
*yawn*
posted by BobN on
Brian, truth consists of the whole of what happened, not just the part YOU chose to provide.
“Not true. Palin said she would support the Alaska Superior Court’s decision even though she thought the voters had decided the matter contrary to the Court’s decision.”
You choose to take that as an indication of her preferences regarding the matter. It’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that, as Governor, she had no choice but to follow the law.
Palin vetoed a bill to remove the health benefits only because her Attorney General told her the law would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Her position is that we should be allowed to form our relationship and not be prosecuted for doing so. That’s it. Her “tolerance” does not extend to include legal recognition.
posted by ETJB on
Biden-Obama support civil unions, and McCain-Palin does not.
McCain campaigned for a AZ ballot measure that would have banned limited DP benifits and Palin wants to amend her state’s constitution to eradicate the lmiited state employee DP benifits.
posted by ETJB on
Brian;
Trust me, behind Michigan Matt’s “Look at me, I am a jerk and a bigot” tough-gal shell beats the heart of a cold hearted “bottom”.
Michigan Matt claims that I attacked Christanity or religion in general. I did not. I simply asked how what Sarah Palin has said is that different from, “hate the sin, love the sinner”, which is hardly groundbreaking in socially conservative evangelical Christian circles. He cannot answer so he tries to dodge the question by squirming and making false and misleading statements.
Michigan Matt claims that I attacked a gay American hero. I did not. I stated that McCain and Palin are demeaning him, his surviving partner and other gay Americans by refusing to support even the mainstream gay rights legislation.
All the gay Democrats that I know are people of faith, mostly Christians; especially Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist and even some Mormons. They do not seem to feel that their faith is the enemy. I have met and worked with gay and straight Christians, Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Ba’ahis, etc. The agnostics and athesists that I have met tend to be apolitical or more libertarian then anything else.
posted by Brian on
Rob writes of Gov Palins’ decision to follow the Alaska Sup Ct’s decision on DP benefits: “You choose to take that as an indication of her preferences regarding the matter. It’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that, as Governor, she had no choice but to follow the law.”
Sorry, Rob, but you’re the guy who’s got it wrong and trying to twist the facts to suit your Obama-worship stunts.
Fact: Palin had the ability and capacity and legal standing to refuse to follow the Court’s order.
Fact: Palin chose to follow the order even though the Alaskan voters had decided the matter earlier.
Fact: Palin advised those citizens who took exception to her role as implementing the Court’s decision –her, by the way, constitutional duty– that they needed to go back to the voters and secure passage of a ballot initiative.
Fact: Palin has not been involved with the citizens involved in the initiative. She’s been implementing the Court’s decision and providing DP benefits to same sex partners.
Fact: you can twist anything to support the extreme gay position -like you’ve shown here- but the facts remain the facts and your twists of them remain speculation and conjecture.
Maybe you need to examine in your own mind why a gay person needs to be so partisan, so sexist, so intolerant that they will lie to themselves and others to advance their narrow agenda?
It looks like you’ve needed to that exercise for a long time, Rob.
posted by Brian on
ETJB, I agree with Matt that you have demeaned Mark Bingham and Senator McCain’s tributes -two of them, I think- to Mark’s memory.
You seem to complain an awlful lot about what others spit back to you in your own words.
You did make the stupid mistake of misunderstanding what non partisan and bipartisan meant.
You did make the stupid mistake of declaring that Roe v Wade wasn’t settled law when it’s clear from Matt’s proof that many noted liberals and conservatives are worried about it being settled and have said so on both sides of the aisles. (That’s an example of bipartisan, btw)
You may not like that IGF readers hold you accountable for your statements, like Matt said. It doesn’t give you the standing to then smear others because you don’t like being held accountable and your lies pointed out. I like Matt’s way of putting things -it’s kind of pithy and laserish. And he uses good humor to expose the fraud in your’s and others’ opinions.
At least, that’s what I think.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ETJB is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I stated that McCain and Palin are demeaning him, his surviving partner and other gay Americans by refusing to support even the mainstream gay rights legislation.
But before, when trying to spin out of another argument:
No, not really no. It is possible (without being anti-gay) to oppose hate crime laws, in principle, or civil right laws.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out innumerable times, liberal and Democrat gays and lesbians like BobN and ETJB have claimed that candidates who practice workplace discrimination against gays, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
posted by Pat on
I think we can take her debate answer as her definitive position.
Jorge, I watched the whole debate, and admit that I didn’t have to turn away from embarrassment as I had to with some of her interviews. I’m not sure what you mean when you said that her debate answer cleared up what she meant about homosexuality (orientation or activity) being a choice.
I am very disappointed in Palin’s response. I respect it, I find myself not surprised, and she’s not that far from Biden. But where Biden stood tall and was proud to say an issue where he stands alongside gays, Palin was muttering, looking down, almost fidgity as she said “I am tolerant”, that she has very dear friends who disagree with her on this (and reading this blog post she chose her words quite well… was she using crib notes or something?). Being tolerant of people “choosing their partners” (very smooth, Palin) is nothing for her to be ashamed of!
I agree somewhat with your statement here. I am disappointed with both Biden and Palin on their position. But there is a significant percentage of gay people that believe that “marriage is between a man and woman,” so I cut them both some slack with respect to that. But I was pleasantly surprised by Biden’s response afterwards. He just didn’t talk about hospital visitations. He did talk about same sex couples having the same opportunity of rights, except for calling it marriage. I am glad that Palin is “tolerant” of gay people decide to form relationships with the same sex instead of the opposite sex. But, we are way past having this maximal threshold given by Palin as being acceptable in 2008. She also had an opportunity to clear up what her reason for vetoing the bill in question, by either stating unequivocally whether she agreed with Biden on civil unions (with all the same rights of marriage) or not. She was vague, and yes, Jorge, she was smooth in her answer. By limiting herself with “tolerant” she gave an answer that was satisfactory enough to the religious right, while not offending others who choose not to find out exactly where she stands on this issue.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Furthermore, as I have pointed out innumerable times, liberal and Democrat gays and lesbians like BobN and ETJB have claimed that candidates who practice workplace discrimination against gays, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.”.
No, what you mean is “as you’ve lied innumerable times”. You have linked to a position a few gays have taken and repeatedly claimed that commenters on this forum such as myself and many others have said the same thing when they haven’t. This is the same sort of dishonesty as when you take the isolated wrongdoings of gay individuals and claim the entire gay community is guilty of the same wrongdoing. When asked to back up your claim that we’ve said “candidates who practice workplace discrimination against gays, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.” you’ve stupidly claimed that our mere support of some Democrats means we’ve said this – obviously not. By that logic you’re just as guilty of claiming “that candidates who practice workplace discrimination against gays, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”” because you support the Republican party and some, if not most, Republicans have supported those anti-gay actions.
Brian said “Palin had the ability and capacity and legal standing to refuse to follow the Court’s order.”.
That’s quite a bald assertion. How about you back it up with some rationale as to how that could be the case. Your statement directly contradicts what her attorney general told her. He said any attempt to ignore the court ruling would be ruled unconstitutional. Your statment also contradicts your subsequent statement that it was her “constitutional duty” to implement the court decision – you seem to want to argue both sides of the fence depending on which better suits your immediate goal of worshiping Palin.
Brian seems to be insinuating that Palin didn’t actually oppose giving domestic partner benefits to gay couples. She did and she made it perfectly clear that this was her policy position in an Eagle Forum questionaire she filled out in her run for governor:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php#comments
“10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”.
Brian said “Palin advised those citizens who took exception to her role as implementing the Court’s decision –her, by the way, constitutional duty– that they needed to go back to the voters and secure passage of a ballot initiative. Palin has not been involved with the citizens involved in the initiative”.
Not true. She told the Anchorage Daily News that she would support a constitutional ammendment that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said ?honoring the family structure is that important.?
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
posted by Brian on
Priya Lynne, “That’s quite a bald assertion. How about you back it up with some rationale as to how that could be the case.”
Sorry, I don’t debate with fools. When you demonstrate civility toward others here, I’ll be willing to debate you. Until then, I won’t stoop to your level for a moment.
I know, now we’ll have some fake celebratory statement from you about how you screetched another IGF reader off the thread.
You really are as shallow and trite as some say here.
I don’t debate with fools.
posted by Brian on
Priya Lynne, to North Dallas “No, what you mean is “as you’ve lied innumerable times”.”
Lady, you literally define ‘one act wonder’ and not in a good way, either.
posted by Priya Lynn on
LOL, that’s a good one Brian, you know you can’t defend the positions you’ve taken so you hurl insults while complaining that that’s what I’ve done.
I treat people here at least as civilly as they treat me. Northdallas and Michigan matt don’t get much consideration because they’ve repeatedly told outrageous lies about me claiming I’ve demanded to have public sex, that I have multiple sex partners, that I practice bondage, humiliation, and water sports, and that I’ve assaulted Christians and heterosexuals in every possible manner including kicking, punching, stabbing, shooting, slashing, etc. After that Northdallas has got the nerve to lie and falsely claim I accused him of having an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest. The truth is after he expressed his support for pedophelia and incest I stated I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, just as I suspect few people would.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Brian said “Lady, you literally define ‘one act wonder’ and not in a good way, either.”.
Northdallas has on a number of occaisions accused me of “claiming that candidates who practice workplace discrimination against gays, and who support state and Federal constitutional amendments are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive””. That’s a lie I never said any such thing and I make no apologies for pointing out that that’s a lie whenever I encounter him saying it. In your twisted mind I should just politely look the other way when Northdallas and Michigan matt tell lies about me – not on your life.
posted by BobN on
I see Priya has already debunked Brian’s response to me.
Thanks, Priya! (you sure did more legwork than I would have!)
Oh, and thanks to Brian, too, for this:
“Maybe you need to examine in your own mind why a gay person needs to be so partisan, so sexist, so intolerant that they will lie to themselves and others to advance their narrow agenda?”
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why someone would be like you. I mean, have the balls to say that you support McCain/Palin NO MATTER WHAT they offer to the gay community. Tell us you fear for your trust fund. Tell us you have a gut feeling that only the GOP can run the army (into the ground). Tell us you have a crush on Palin and want to BE her. I don’t know… just don’t try to, you know, put lipstick on a pitbull.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I watched the whole debate, and admit that I didn’t have to turn away from embarrassment as I had to with some of her interviews. I’m not sure what you mean when you said that her debate answer cleared up what she meant about homosexuality (orientation or activity) being a choice.
Palin’s answer took strong stands in some contentious places and weak, vague stances in others (would she have been so vague on whether homosexuality is a choice if she believed it wasn’t?). It’s a combination that makes me think she’ll never give a more developed answer than that. But maybe I’m wrong. She could be asked more directly whether homosexuality is a choice, or about her veto.
I am glad that Palin is “tolerant” of gay people decide to form relationships with the same sex instead of the opposite sex. But, we are way past having this maximal threshold given by Palin as being acceptable in 2008.
I agree with you, but until people start to ask directly what politicians will do in defense of their own stated principles of tolerance and upholding all people’s constitutional rights, that is all we are going to get. Some people who are conservative go very far in defense of mere tolerance. What I demand is action. Again, this is why I am disappointed in Palin–she brings no passion to that.
posted by Jorge on
By the way Pyria Lynn, for all your original research into the Anchorage Daily News I can’t understand why you’re calling Brian wrong on the spousal benefits thing. Deceptive and one-sided would be a better term.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Brian observes: “Sorry, I don’t debate with fools. When you demonstrate civility toward others here, I’ll be willing to debate you. Until then, I won’t stoop to your level for a moment.”
Brian predicts: “I know, now we’ll have some fake celebratory statement from you about how you screetched another IGF reader off the thread.”
PrincessPriyaLynn performs: “LOL, that’s a good one Brian, you know you can’t defend the positions you’ve taken so you hurl insults while complaining that that’s what I’ve done.”
You shouldn’t be laughing out loud, Princess. Yuu ought to be crying a jag like the good drama queen we know you to be… Brian pegged you to the barn door and you aren’t even smart enough to realize it.
He had you at “I don’t debate with fools”.
posted by jack on
self-hating
incestuous
pseudo-intellectual
republicans
if you are gay and believe that being gay is a choice, then one can only deduce that you believe that humans and dinosaurs were running around earth together 5,000 years ago … and that religion has benefitted the world we live in.
i pity you fools.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, well you can’t give any examples to justify why whatever mythical Republicans you’re talking about are self-hating, and you can’t give any examples of any posters here who think homosexuality is a choice, so I think you just made a fool of yourself.
posted by jake on
i didn’t think there could be a bigger buffoon that priya lynn on this web site, but whoever said this
“For the life of me, I can’t figure out why someone would be like you. I mean, have the balls to say that you support McCain/Palin NO MATTER WHAT they offer to the gay community. Tell us you fear for your trust fund. Tell us you have a gut feeling that only the GOP can run the army (into the ground). Tell us you have a crush on Palin and want to BE her. I don’t know… just don’t try to, you know, put lipstick on a pitbull”
is a criminal buffoon
can there be any better example of the lack of ability to conduct a civil discussion than these buffoons swinging from the high wire?
bobn, you couldn’t be more of a buffoon even if you took lessons from priya lynn
posted by Mark on
“You can look at its signature page, as well as the support it received from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and its director, Matt Foreman.
Perhaps you should also be aware that the ACLU, which supposedly agitates for “gay rights” and which gay liberals like Richard Rosendall support and endorse, also considers the bans on polygamous marriages to be unconstitutional and wants them repealed.”
I think you need a good scientific poll on this issue, which apparantly does not exist. Your evidence is anecdotal and not compelling.
Actually, we are pretty ignorant of how many gay people there are, let alone what their opinions are in general.
posted by BobN on
“can there be any better example of the lack of ability to conduct a civil discussion than these buffoons swinging from the high wire?”
Yeah, this place is a model of civility. Once I get insulted, I respond in kind.
posted by Priya Lynn on
That’a the approach I take BobN. Brian said “”Sorry, I don’t debate with fools. When you demonstrate civility toward others here, I’ll be willing to debate you. Until then, I won’t stoop to your level for a moment.” – rather ironic and hypocritical. I was perfectly civil to Brian and he attacked me personally without provocation, he stooped to a level I remained above. And laughably Michigan matt and Jake couldn’t recognize that hypocrisy and chose to engage in the same sort of hypocrisy they were applauding Brian for taking part in.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Jorge said “By the way Pyria Lynn, for all your original research into the Anchorage Daily News I can’t understand why you’re calling Brian wrong on the spousal benefits thing. Deceptive and one-sided would be a better term.”.
Jorge I said he was wrong because of these statements of his:
“Rob writes of Gov Palins’ decision to follow the Alaska Sup Ct’s decision on DP benefits: “You choose to take that as an indication of her preferences regarding the matter. It’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that, as Governor, she had no choice but to follow the law.”
Sorry, Rob, but you’re the guy who’s got it wrong and trying to twist the facts to suit your Obama-worship stunts.
Fact: Palin had the ability and capacity and legal standing to refuse to follow the Court’s order.”.
Her attorney general advised her that she had no choice but to implement the benefits as any attempt to deny them would be considered unconstitutional. Brian seemed to a contradict himself and acknowledge this fact when a few sentences later he said implementing the benefits was her “constitutional duty”. I invited him to explain how Palin could have refused to follow the courts orders but apparently he realized he was unable to do so and so fell back on the typical Republican tactic of insulting the one pointing out the fatal flaw in his argument.
I didn’t get a direct statement from him, unless I missed him making it earlier, but he seemed to be suggesting that Palin is not so anti-gay as she implemented the domestic partnership benefits when she could have refused to do so thus indicating that she actually wanted to provide those benefits to gay couples. As Palin’s own words make clear this is decidedly not the case.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Brian, Jake, and matt, here’s a hint for you. If you want to complain about civility on this blog, don’t call other people buffoons and fools when you do it when they haven’t resorted to namecalling first – that’s highly hypocritical and disingenous of you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wow, Priya Lynn the religious bigot and bomb-throwing drama queen giving lessons on civility? I’ve lived to see it all, now.
Brian had you, Princess, at the “I don’t debate with fools” line. He’s right on target.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Yes, matt, you’re a fine example of civility, calling people bigots, fools, drama queens, and claimin they’re into domination, humiliation and water sports. Keep up the hypocrisy and venom you’re so well known for. God knows you can’t argue with any of the substantive points I made about Palin so all you’ve got is insults.
posted by Rob on
Guess what, Rob, we agree. In Michigan, the Democrats sat on their hands and allowed the bigoted anti-gay blue collar voters and black church voters they drove to the polls for JohnKerry pass Michigan’s FMA in 2004.
Guess what Matt, I don’t care for Bill Jeff or John Kerry due to their actions against the gay community. As for the black religious Democrats, I don’t blame Obama for their bigotry, and I somewhat applaud Obama to address the issue of homophobia within the black community.
Obama might say he doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage, but neither does McCain, so it doesn’t make a difference in that respect, not that it matters since same-sex marriage isn’t gonna come at the federal level. However Obama has officially opposed Proposition 8, and other antigay initiatives, something that Kerry was too pathetic to do. Furthermore, he isn’t the liar Clinton was while he was president, and it’s more probable that gay American couples will be federally recognized during an Obama administration.
Maybe it’s time for you to get off the gayDemocrat vote-keeper bus and join other, more responsible gays who want something other than just whispered promises from BarryOBiden… and deep tiretracks over our backsides while the ObamaBus runs over gay civil rights time and time again.
Since, the McCainBus already ran over gay civil rights, that means I should vote for Ralph Nader? Can’t stand Bob Barr, even if he has repented from his errors.
How come McCain ended his campaign in your state Matt? And how come you haven’t started a grassroots organization in your state in order to repeal the amendment instead of ranting? BoiFromTroy is doing his part, while NDT is just sitting on his ass, what about you Matt?
One last thing Matt, you don’t seem to realize that I’m actually in Canada. Here I’ve always voted for candidates that have supported, in fact voted in the House of Commons, for same-sex marriage.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wow, Priya Lynn the religious bigot and bomb-throwing drama queen giving lessons on civility? I’ve lived to see it all, now.
Brian had you, Princess, at the “I don’t debate with fools” line. He’s right on target.
Princess offers: “God knows you can’t argue with any of the substantive points I made about Palin so all you’ve got is insults.” Wow, Princess, for a secularist, anti-Christian bigot, to see you invoke God is really something to behold!
I’m not sure what rock you’ve been living under, Princess. I haven’t read a single point you’ve made about Gov Palin that would even require a rebuttal… I think you’ve been rightly dispatched by others here when they offered: “I don’t debate with fools” –their wise observation, Princess, not mine.
I was pointing out that you, the drama queen when it comes to foot stomping and fist-shaking nonsense, have called 14 IGF commenters here “liars” now… it used to be limited to just NDXXX and me. And you try to climb up on that shakey soapbox and lecture others about civility? Give it a rest, red pad lady.
When you have something of substance, let me know. Otherwise, climb back up on that pile of matresses and struggle in your pea-less sleep.