Newsweek has a nice cover story, The Conscience of a Conservative, about Ted Olson, labeled "the unlikeliest champion of gay marriage." That's because "he is one of the more prominent Republicans in Washington, and among the most formidable conservative lawyers in the country." He was, in fact, head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Ronald Reagan, and Solicitor General under George W. Bush. That overview is followed by Olson's essay, The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, on "Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American value."
Yes, I anticipate the barrage of comments about why we should only support Democrats because Democrats are better. But what's interesting about Olson and his legal efforts on behalf of marriage equality is that it's happening despite the fact that the LGBT political establishment is pretty much run by Democrats as a fundraising operation for their party. Imagine what the political scene might look like with a little bit of outreach across the aisle.
More. Conservative commentator and Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover, on Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality.
48 Comments for “Democrats’ Worst Nightmare?”
posted by Mike Airhart on
I’ll be first, and say we should support neither Democrats nor Republicans. Umm, that’s what being “independent” means, no?
Support true fiscal conservatives (not low-tax, high-debt phonies) and support candidates who support liberty for ALL, not just for corporations or labor unions.
Why this site and others support political parties that operate contrary to the public interest is most confusing to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Newsweek’s title is apt, evoking the memory of Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, “The Conscience of a Conservative”.
Goldwater was essentially libertarian in his political philosophy, as is Olson.
Goldwater was fierce and unwavering in his defense of individual liberty, and, not coincidentally, he was an outspoken supporter of equal treatment of gays and lesbians: “It’s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Discrimination against gays â or anybody else â is contrary to each of these founding principles.,/em>”
I have no doubt at all that Goldwater would be standing arm in arm with Olson were he alive today.
Goldwater despised the social conservatives who took over the Republican Party during the Reagan years, seeing them, correctly, as a threat to liberty: “I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”
I have no problem with “outreach across the aisle”, but it seems to me that it would be better to drive out the mush-headed “moralists” who are mocking Olson in recent months, just as they mocked Goldwater, and return the Republican Party to authentic, constitutional conservatism. Social conservatives are a threat to our liberty, and I have little patience with those who would appease them.
posted by Jorge on
Well, the reverse is happening: the Republicans are driving out the libertarians, the Washington establishment, and especially the moderates.
It’s not too bad a thing actually. The only thing that really suffers is marriage.
posted by BobN on
Has anyone else noticed that “the conservative case for gay marriage” is the same as the liberal case for gay marriage, minus, perhaps, the pissed-off tone that we’re sick and tired of being treated like vermin?
There is no “conservative case for gay marriage”. There is a case for gay marriage and, for the very first time in 100 years of struggle, conservatives have finally come out of the closet to make it.
As for the LBGT organizations being all and only for the Democrats. This drumbeat is nothing but an attempt to deny funding to gay-rights groups. Nothing is stopping you guys from making GOProud or the Log Cabinettes the most powerful gay lobbying organizations. Also, quite a few major gay organizations, like Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, do great work, regardless of what their politics might be, so if you’re sick of the HRC and some spineless Democrats, take your money and give to other organizations. Don’t just withhold your money.
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
It circimstances like this that clearly demonstrate that the mainstream “gay rights” organizations like the HRC and GLTF are just fund-raising auxiliaries of the Democratic party-machine. And the the Democrats are more concerned about talking about defending gay rights and being seen doing-so…than in actually delivering.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m with Bob.
First, I don’t give to HRC for a lot of reasons, but primarily because HRC, like IGF, is Washington-centric to the point of navel-gazing. I contribute to other groups, including Fair Wisconsin, the ALCU and SLDN, that aren’t all wrapped up in the Washington bubble and actually do something.
Second, what is “liberal” about wanting to stabilize relationships, provide legal protection for children and the other factors that have been driving ordinary gays and lesbians to push for marriage, insistently and relentlessly, in the face of our so-called “LGBT leadership”? A decade or more ago, conservative gays and lesbians made the case for same-sex marriage, and the case hasn’t changed.
Third, the “drumbeat” observation is correct. It wasn’t too long ago that we could have envisioned a Republican Party standing for equal treatment under the law for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Now? Don’t kid me. What changed is that the Republican Party has been taken over by social conservatives, whose power in Republican primaries make it almost impossible for any candidate who opposes them to survive to stand for election in the general election.
posted by Amicus on
Nice piece of outreach, Stephen. I think. ?
Anyway, Olson is newsworthy because he is a rarity.
Alan K Simpson, let us not forget, put up that wonderful amicus brief and was willing to go in front of the cameras about it. Olson seems to have taken the next step, in those shoes.
posted by David Link on
Hey, Tom Scharbach! IGF “Washington-centric”???? What about me? As a born-and-bred Californian, have a gut-level revulsion for the way the East Coast treats (or doesn’t) the rest of country. True, I do my share of “navel-gazing” but by God, it’s a California navel.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As for the LBGT organizations being all and only for the Democrats. This drumbeat is nothing but an attempt to deny funding to gay-rights groups.
And:
It wasn’t too long ago that we could have envisioned a Republican Party standing for equal treatment under the law for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Now? Don’t kid me. What changed is that the Republican Party has been taken over by social conservatives, whose power in Republican primaries make it almost impossible for any candidate who opposes them to survive to stand for election in the general election.
The answer to both of those incorrect statements is simple and obvious.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
“They took it to the grass roots and had people in individual states helping, either by volunteering or sending personal contributions,” said Tina Stoll , a Democratic fund-raiser. Instead of throwing its money at defeating ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, the HRC focused on electing Democratic majorities — even if it meant helping candidates who weren’t fully in support of their agenda, she said.
“They didn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Stoll said.
And this, of course.
I suppose it’s easier from a psychological standpoint to blame “social conservatives”, but the fact of the matter is that the gay community, gay leadership, and gay organizations declared all-out war on the Republicans while supporting and endorsing Obama Party politicians who supported and endorsed gay marriage bans, employment discrimination, and everything else they accuse the Republicans of doing.
In short, tie orientation to a requirement to support one political party and attack another regardless of what they each do, and you will end up in this situation where you are taken for granted by both sides.
posted by Jorge on
Has anyone else noticed that “the conservative case for gay marriage” is the same as the liberal case for gay marriage, minus, perhaps, the pissed-off tone that we’re sick and tired of being treated like vermin?
There is no “conservative case for gay marriage”. There is a case for gay marriage and, for the very first time in 100 years of struggle, conservatives have finally come out of the closet to make it.
I haven’t read the link at all (the conservative argument has been around for a while), but you raise a fair point. What do you call a gay-friendly church, progressive or a conservative? Is a gay couple married 40 years a testament to individual liberty, an example of family values, or is it an exercise in nonconformity?
I think the main difference is where you start from and where you finish. Progressives often start with civil rights or equality first, conservatives start with family values, and libertarians claim a big piece of the argument, too. We’ve got some gay marriage supporters who really are that narrow, but most end up embracing the big picture.
posted by BobN on
gay organizations declared all-out war on the Republicans
Yeah, I remember those money-bombs the LCR lobbed over to the Bush and McCain campaigns. Romney’s, too, as I recall. Luckily for the reasonable conservatives involved in those campaigns who didn’t want their candidates tarnished with butt sex, their automatic stop-the-gays force field kicked into action and heaved the money back.
Duck!!!!! Incoming!!!!!!
posted by DragonScorpion on
That would be nice, but as the special election in New York’s 23rd and a recent article over at the Daily Beast (and comments) illustrates â those conservatives that don’t toe-the-line on vehemently opposing same-sex marriage, are rejected by the larger conservative movement and summarily dismissed by many in the Republican party.
And how about those Log Cabin Republicans… What, exactly, have they achieved within the Republican party?
In light of the concerted efforts against us, including constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, popular votes to repeal established rights for same-sex couples, and an uprising among âpopulistâ conservatives â many of which are socially conservative Christians who ‘want their country back’ (i.e. Guns, God, and Gays go back to the closet o’ shame) â I really don’t think we can afford to put our civil rights issues on the back burner anymore.
As a minority which doesn’t possess much political strength, I believe we have to muster all the unity we can in regards to issue that uniquely effect our community. That means supporting candidates who are supportive of homosexual civil rights, regardless of party affiliation, and putting most other issues off as secondary concerns.
That’s how I’m voting from now on.
Of course, some liars here (ND30) can twist this into: my âsexual orientation requiresâ me to vote âObama partyâ, but the reality is I don’t care which side (or no side) of the political aisle they’re on. If a candidate supports us, I support them. If they actively oppose us, I’ll vote against them. And I’ll take each election on a case by case basis.
And when push comes to shove, I believe it is better to support those who even only partially advocate for us, rather than to vote for those who deliberately undermine our interests.
posted by Bobby on
“Support true fiscal conservatives (not low-tax, high-debt phonies) and support candidates who support liberty for ALL, not just for corporations or labor unions.”
—There’s nothing phony about lower taxes. Lower taxes create prosperity which allows people to have more money, hire more workers, buy more stuff, and eventually the government will collect more taxes without bleeding the people dry.
In New York, Patterson raised taxes on rich people and others, now the millionares are leaving in droves and the governor admits that his tax increases have not resulted in the government getting more money, quite the opposite.
Low taxes on the other hand force the government to be more judicious with the money, to spend less on pork projects and to really count their pennies.
Why do you think Obama can afford to give Haiti $100 million dollar plus countless military aid? This is outrageous, Haiti has already gotten more than $3 billion from us since 1991.
America is not a high-tax country, this isn’t Dennmark where the people expect free health care, a free college education, unemployment compensation and other stuff that comes from 50% to 70% obscene taxes. We are not Europe, we are not a socialist paradise, and that’s why you’re gonna see the Tea Parties protesting against this un-American president.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Oh sure, poor little things, so unfairly singled out…
What was it, I lose count sometimes, some 30 constitutional amendments pushed by Republicans which effectively banned same-sex marriage between 2002 and 2006? Republicans that brought a Federal Marriage Amendment meant to ban same-sex marriage nationwide to a vote in 2006? GOOD THING THEY DIDN’T SUCCEED! I’m sure that just broke ND30’s heart, too.
Yes, silly homosexuals, why wouldn’t we rally behind our ‘good friends’ in the GOP? It’s a mystery to me…
Now that I can agree with, to a point. To some extent we are being taken for granted, even exploited by the Democratic party. By the 2012 elections I think we’ll know to what degree.
But when it comes to the Republican party. Overall, we’re not simply taken for granted. We’re really not welcome. Unless, of course, we don’t mind the back of the bus.
When I see a Republican candidate take a principled stand in favor of recognizing civil rights for homosexuals, I’ll support him. Especially if he/she is running against some wishy-washy Democrat. Otherwise, it ain’t a gonna happen.
I hope the Republicans are willing to trot some pro-equality advocates out there in upcoming elections. But considering how socially conservative the party is increasingly becoming, that doesn’t appear likely at all.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby, the formidable legal mind and writer Stuart Taylor has a stupendous column along these lines—government paralysis, emphasis on trivia, and waste—in National Journal this week.
However, I thoroughly disagree when he downplays what was said by the troglodyte Harry Reid (distant Lib-Dem cousin of former KKK Lib-Dem extraordinaire Robert Byrd).
The fact that someone like Harry Reid can be in such a key position and use the type of early 20th century language that he does (in private, which is worse) when referring to blacks, is astonishing.
And blacks are making excuses for him! LOL!!!
No other political candidate other than someone from the Liberal Democrat ilk could survive.
It’s true enough that this country faces far more pressing problems right now; however, this man should not get a pass.
Yet he does.
posted by Debrah on
“Dragon Scorpion”–
G/d, you’re verbose.
All over the place, eh?
If I didn’t already know that you are gay, I would swear that you’re obsessed with me and certainly have become the latest victim of Diva fever.
What a way to go, baby! LOL!!!
Dear “Dragon”, when first you responded to a comment of mine—on a long-ago thread—you stated that you had no interest in “wasting the time” on debate.
Yet I’ve been quite flattered—feverish with excitement, actually (LOL!)—to have discovered today, as with most other days, the amount of time you’ve spent bringing up my name when “debating” your most formidable opponent on this blog.
“NDT” is a cool, calm customer whose intellect and panoramic view on elements of this culture war are unmatched.
Let me advise that you begin telling the whole story—you know, the truth?—when you start your little hunting and gathering on past comments.
I will repeat this as long and as many times as it takes:
The very first time I commented on this blog—(taking issue with the low-rent use of Jews as an analogy and trying to piggy-back onto elements of race and ethnicity, which is insane in the opinion of most)—I was met with dirty, ignorant, and semi-literate misogyny from a recurring gay male commenter here from Southbridge, Mass. who has been skulking around on my blog forever.
No one said a thing.
They loved the filth that he threw out to a hetero female.
And you have never uttered a word about this freak because he’s gay.
Let me reiterate: On that day I came here for a cerebral exchange and what I saw was filth.
“Jorge” and a few others began with the childishness as well. It was all-too-revealing to witness the fear and the discomfort when met with the reality of full-force disagreement about the issues.
This prime example is what thousands witness every day—the gross insularity and the childish navel-gazing.
Unable, nay, unwilling, to do anything but focus on how many tantrums can be inspired by throwing “spit balls”.
I attempted to be kind to Ms. Heine—even after she couldn’t read well enough to understand my comment and mistakenly thought (and, no doubt, hoped) it was aimed at her.
She went straight for the ad hominems, when the discussion was one of mere issues.
That’s how the freaks of your “movement” operate. It appears to be embedded into the gay psyche to be obnoxious without even needing to be.
Consequently, I changed my methods and will give you some of your own.
Little hypocrites like you who slobber endlessly and repeat and cut and paste and jump up and down….only sit on your hands when filth comes from the trailer park contingent of the gay community.
When Ms. Heine issued an apology, you told her that she should not have.
Seeing that she could get along better with the boys and have her comments acknowledged if she went after someone who had not even engeged her, that’s what she did.
One of the very first comments I read from the woman was her discussion of “fag hags”. She was discussing how hetero women who befriend gay men try to control them, etc……and other tedious and bigoted logorrhea.
I laughed to myself when I read it because I knew that she had to have had a deep-seated hatred for hetero women.
So what? I didn’t bother to give it another thought…….until she used that phrase on me when she injected herself into a Regan Sharpton comment.
Then, as I should have, I enlightened a few of you that NO ONE is going to take your low-rent bigotry……
…….as you constantly talk about being “victims” and weepy “marriage rights” and “equality”…….
……..when some of you are the nastiest and the filthiest frothers I have come across.
“Dragon”, you really need to understand that the outside world is going to voice their opinions.
Anal sex, rimming, fetching, and licking other men’s tushes as a “warm-up” to the real show are details that seem to bother you when discussed by “outsiders”.
Well, they bother other people as well. Most of us would have never witnessed these grand performances without the gay grotesquerie that is flaunted and accepted as the norm by gays, themselves.
Check out the percentages that NDT offered up for you again.
Given the debilitating numbers—small segment of the overall population and huge numbers with STD’s—I’d say that your ire and froth are better directed at those who could use the coaxing and the education.
The next time you want to do “Debrah’s Greatest Hits”—by G/d!—tell the whole story, you dishonest blowhard.
Lastly, talking about someone who “generalizes”…….you cannot accurately put me alongside Ann Coulter and Dr. Laura…..I mean, if you want to be accurate and not “generalize”.
I am a registered Democrat and am vehemently pro-choice.
Oh, I forgot. When discussing “gay things”, you are allowed to put everyone inside the same box who disagrees that butt-effing unions are the same thing as “real marriage”.
OK. carry on…….with your feverish hypocrisy and insularity.
posted by John on
Yeah, I remember those money-bombs the LCR lobbed over to the Bush and McCain campaigns. Romney’s, too, as I recall.
I’m not a big fan of LCR but what are you talking about here? LCR refused to endorse or campaign for Bush in 2004 because of his support for FMA. LCR actively campaigned against Romney, including running ads in primary states to defeat the man. As for McCain, given the alternative I have problems with their supporting the man in 2008.
How’s that hopeychangeyness working out for ya? Obama is a joke.
posted by BobN on
what are you talking about here?
I’m merely pointing out that some gay organizations have given to the GOP. Some deluded individuals believe that such a thing doesn’t happen. I believe it does, however misplaced the support might be. I’m sure the LCR has even managed to give money to GOP candidates — on state and local levels — who have kept the money and haven’t turned out to be major disappointments. I don’t doubt that ND30 has extensive files on this — along with everything else — but it doesn’t suit his agenda of the moment to prove his assertions are incorrect.
As to my examples:
Bush in 2000. You remember, the first time he pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people, something the LCR came to see by 2003. You can read their account here:
http://online.logcabin.org/about/history.html
Romney in his gubernatorial campaign. You know, back when he was “pro-gay”. Here’s a bit of history of his relationship with gay issues. (The man deserves a medal for flipflopping!):
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files
As for McCain, his rejection of LCR $$$$ is easy enough to Google, as well.
As for Obama, hopeychangeyness isn’t all the changey I had hopeyd it would be. But it’s still light years better than McCain and Palin would have been. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
posted by Lori Heine on
“OK. carry on…….with your feverish hypocrisy and insularity.”
We will do that, thanks.
Hopefully this means the end of the malignant narcissist lunacy that has been Debrah. I will definitely be glad to see her go.
— Deep-seated hatred of hetero women, and all.
posted by Debrah on
“We will do that, thanks.”
*******************************
“We”?
Ha! More hilarity.
This from the woman who couldn’t carry enough gay cachet with the written word on this blog to even garner a reply from these men.
Until I arrived and opened up a whole new avenue for you to do down. LOL!
The dreaded “attack of the religious lesbian”! “Defense of defenseless gay men”!
Until I also illuminated that lesbians on this blog were totally ignored as subject matter you were left with defending “North D 30”.
And now you’re the big buddy of “Dragon”.
Anything to latch onto someone….anyone, eh?
Do you stand for anything?
No, Heine. We didn’t wake up in Iran this morning.
No one is running anyone else away.
As much as weak and dishonest creeps like you would like that.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Do you stand for anything?”
That’s a really strange question for you, of all people, to be asking.
I don’t care whether you get professional help or not. I suppose some might think you’re more entertaining without it.
Just a little hint, though. If you do find me so inconsequential, the best way to prove it might be to stop responding, knee-jerk, to everything I say.
You truly are a legend in your own mind.
posted by Jorge on
Oh dear, it looks like Debrah just accused me of being childish.
Yeahwhateversowhatittakesonetoknowone.
I’d say something narcissistic, but I have too much competition. Wait, that didn’t come out right!
posted by Weekend bouquet on
She pulls her crap everywhere she goes- check out the URL
Debrah said…
ROTFLM-tits-O!!!
Claire Potter is so cowardly and such a free speech rogue.
It’s genuinely the most hilarious episode to witness her behavior and her dishonesty.
No wonder she is so threatened by such a virile brilliant man as KC.
Flail away, Potter!
11:10 AM EST
Tenured Radical said…
Dear all:
I don’t know whether my regular readers have noticed it, but there are some old DIW readers who are now using this blog to gather on and do their thing now that their leader has gone on hiatus. They will stop, after a bit. I’ve taken a couple posts down — one of which reiterates some baseless charges against a friend’s reputation and another that does the same vis a vis me. I am leaving most of them up as exhibit B (exhibit A being a hyperlink in the post itself).
And as to Debrah, I don’t know what ROTFLM-tits-O means — she often uses abbreviations of various kinds, but the grandiose, sexualized rhetorical style and the mania — once she starts posting, she can’t seem to stop whether anyone answers or not — indicates either that she is, perhaps, very unwell, and I wouldn’t argue with her if I were you. There just isn’t much in it for anyone but her.
best,
TR
3:07 PM EST
Stay tuned, more evidence she doesnât play well with others. I did like these lines in particular.
Debrah, finally found her bra over there in the DivaWorld cottage and rushed here to Harmony Houseâ¦wherein the must-be-mad Professor Zimmerman conducts his ongoing daily experiments to see if Bats, Liestoppers and Potbangers can occasionally play nicely together.
Debrah slunk back to her room above the “KC Shrine and Old Photo Mausoleum” wherein she passes her time by reading her Thesaurus and awaiting her next summons to excoriate any Wonderland misfit-du-jour.
posted by Debrah on
To “weekend bouquet”–
You simply must devise more original monikers for yourself as you sashay about the cyber remnants of internet Diva hagiography.
Sadly, you’re using words that I’ve previously used in fora dialogue; however, it’s obvious that you’re one of the scurrilous lurkers who believed that the three innocent Duke lacrosse players were guilty. That’s why you would situate yourself with Potter and Zimmerman and their ilk.
If you weren’t such a tragic coward, you’d let us know which ignorant proponent of the race/class/gender war you are.
In any case, I knew quite well that the trashy commenter on this blog was someone from the “hate the white male hetero Duke lacrosse players” contingent.
Let me give you a bit of advice. This will help cowardly, envious, and obsessed clowns such as yourself.
(Incidentally, your IQ must be on the descending scale inside the dungeon with Carrie Prejean for when you tried to skulk around on my blog yesterday, you left the trail of your proxy page. LOL!!!)
Sorry, little sleazy one. You still come up as Southbridge, Massachusetts.
What as common internet freak you are.
The accurate definition of what was known about a decade ago as a “troll”.
Really quite a sad spectacle.
posted by Debrah on
“weekend bouquet” and whatever other moniker you’ll use next time……
……..we should ask the blog authors of IGF to have you explain to everyone what your game is, if, indeed, you wish to bring issues from other blogs here.
You, no doubt, are one of those who became disoriented when it was proven early on that Reade, Collin, and David were framed by a rogue prosecutor (Nifong) and were totally innocent.
Slandered and libeled by the parasitic zealots known widely as Duke’s Gang of 88.
It should be noted that a fair number of those archaic members of the academy sport gay credentials and spew the heteronormative logorrhea…..as they hate anything that is male heterosexual…..or anything simply heterosexual, for that matter.
Yet they gladly feed like vultures at the trough provided by all those heterosexual donors and alumni.
Like you, they are cowards who want to create a new and easy road for themselves…..as they live off those very people they try to harm.
Yes, it has always bothered cowards such as yourself that you will never silence the truth.
Poor Potter and her ilk were muzzled by their own “queer studies” zeal.
Amusing, that.
Now tell us who you are or dismiss with the Duke Lacrosse Hoax matter.
posted by Debrah on
Post script:
Forgot to add my (url) on the previous comment.
Wouldn’t wish to hide like the coward above who skulks around on other blogs and adopts multi-monikers to hide behind.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What was it, I lose count sometimes, some 30 constitutional amendments pushed by Republicans which effectively banned same-sex marriage between 2002 and 2006?
Fully endorsed and supported by the Obama Party, of course.
Republicans that brought a Federal Marriage Amendment meant to ban same-sex marriage nationwide to a vote in 2006?
An amendment endorsed and supported by Obama Party members and the national organization representing gay and lesbian people as well.
That would be nice, but as the special election in New York’s 23rd and a recent article over at the Daily Beast (and comments) illustrates â those conservatives that don’t toe-the-line on vehemently opposing same-sex marriage, are rejected by the larger conservative movement and summarily dismissed by many in the Republican party.
Actually, Scozzafava’s problem was that she was less a Republican than she was an opportunist who supported vastly-liberal positions, including government-funded abortions, massive tax increases, eliminating secret ballots in union elections, and endorsing and supporting the Obama Party position on everything.
And that really brings us to this issue.
And when push comes to shove, I believe it is better to support those who even only partially advocate for us, rather than to vote for those who deliberately undermine our interests.
Sure, if your minority status is your primary concern.
But, classic example: the Berkeley school district nearby is voting to eliminate science lab classes for students for purposes of racial diversity. However, since the Berkeley school district came out in favor of same-sex marriage and opposed Proposition 8, all gays and lesbians must support the Berkeley school district regardless of what happens.
You’re very easily purchased, DragonScorpion. Personally, I am much more in favor of keeping science labs, but then again, I’m a bad gay who doesn’t put my sexual orientation first and make my voting choices based solely on that.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Like I said, some 30 constitutional amendments effectively banning same-sex marriage WRITTEN BY, FULLY SUPPORTED by, and PASSED by Republicans to help get Republicans elected. Not Democrats, Republicans…
And like I said, at the behest of a Republican President,
Republicans brought a Federal Marriage Amendment meant to ban same-sex marriage (or any equivalent) nationwide to a vote in 2006. And they still support it. In fact, it’s part of their party platform…
âBecause our childrenâs future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. [â¦] Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex âmarriagesâ licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter.â
Apparently the GOP didn’t get ND30’s memo that the âObama partyâ actually supports DOMA. He has his pet link showing that the current Justice dept. has upheld the law, but then as I pointed out before, their job is to UPHOLD THE LAW, whether they agree with it or not.
Actually, apparently not…
By âminority statusâ ND30 means my equality status as a homosexual. And it is something that concerns me now more than ever, what with fascist conservatives imposing discriminatory legislation against us. Of course, the equality status of homosexuals doesn’t mean jack shit to ND30.
Oddly enough, I didn’t see a single mention of âall gays and lesbians must support the Berkeley school district regardless of what happens.â
Although, while ND30 feigns oh-so-much ‘concern’ for science labs which âsome argue […] benefit white students over those of colorâ, it seems to me that all of us should probably support our schools even if they don’t always make the decisions we might think are best… So, I’m really not sure what he’s bitchin’ about this time. He’s just tilting at windmills again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Like I said, some 30 constitutional amendments effectively banning same-sex marriage WRITTEN BY, FULLY SUPPORTED by, and PASSED by Republicans to help get Republicans elected. Not Democrats, Republicans…
Mhm.
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
Add to that how the gay community endorses and supports FMA supporters, and what becomes very obvious very quickly is that what DragonScorpion and his ilk define as their “equality status” is really nothing more than a hypocritical rationalization of their belief that their sexual orientation forces them to vote for the Obama Party.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Sorry, these laws aren’t established by âbigoted mobsâ, they were not put to popular vote, in fact most were put in place from time immemorial by legislatures. And as I’ve repeated over and over again, some liberties and privileges are legitimately curtailed. Like free speech. But this isn’t done on the mere whims of the mobs, it isn’t limited selectively to just certain types of people.
Discrimination against homosexuals has no legitimacy other than that the heterosexual majority prefers to discriminate against us. Just like the white southern majority liked slavery. By the way, ND30 should really stop comparing homosexuals to animals and children.
Key words, WHEN THEY ARE CORRECT. It also helps when these claims are not being offered by someone who has conclusively proven that he is a habitual liar. Being dishonest has a price. Part of that is that others cannot take what you have to say seriously anymore. If one ceases the obvious lying then perhaps people will take that person serious again.
Nope. Age-of-consent and many other age restrictions are necessary and already long-established law. As are animals not being protected as citizens. Laws discriminating against homosexuals for no other reason than we are deemed unnatural and morally inferior by the majority is NOT necessary, NOT a compelling case, NOT a legitimate argument. Of course, ND30 agrees with them so he’s trying to build up their case. And failing at it.
Yet another lie, the âgay and lesbian communityâ has not and does not support repealing age-of-consent laws, nor does the community support removing restrictions on plural marriage. There are some homosexuals who have, but apparently there are very, very few as so far ND30 has only managed to produce two examples and at least one of those was from someone from outside the U.S…
Ah, but then we’re just all one big monolith to him, so of course we’re accountable for what some homosexual does or says from 8,000 miles away. In the mind of such a lunatic, he manages to twist 2 incidents into a pattern… Why? Because he desperately wants for there to be one, even if he has to make it up.
posted by DragonScorpion on
[The previous post by me was meant for another thread.]
Like I said, an uncomfortable fact that ND30 chooses to ignore but most of us don’t and never will â some 30 constitutional amendments effectively banning same-sex marriage WRITTEN BY, FULLY SUPPORTED by, and PASSED by Republicans to help get Republicans elected. Not Democrats, Republicans…
And like I said, at the behest of a Republican President, Republicans brought a Federal Marriage Amendment meant to ban same-sex marriage (or any equivalent) nationwide to a vote in 2006. And they still support it. In fact, it’s part of their party platform…
And they are
working again to repeat in Iowa the anti-equality movement’s practice of popular sovereignty â voting away the established rights of same-sex couples. Which ND30 fully supports, because he places “zero” value in same-sex couples being permitted to marry and he fully endorses tyranny by majority…
The same old tired, baseless link that he’s posted several dozen times now here at IGF. ND30 is a broken record. Notice that he does not deny how Republicans are undermining us because he cannot deny it. He knows it’s a fact. It’s just a fact he expects the rest of us not to pay any attention to.
Understandable why it isn’t an issue to him, as not only does he not see the equality of homosexuals as an important issue, he actually opposes the equality of homosexuals and supports the party that has been and is continuing to make homosexual inequality a reality that will endure for generations.
Again, I will dispel his deliberate lies about my actual stance:
My sexual orientation does not require that I support any particular candidate or political party, and I have never suggested otherwise. My support for improving legal equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples DOES require that I vote for those who have supported such equality issues in the past or have at least indicated strong support for them/made promises to that effect. And while there are many Democrats who have advanced homosexual equality, there are very, very few Republicans who have. Thus, they tend to not get my vote, nor will they, until they stop pursuing fascist conservative mandates.
posted by DragonScorpion on
And many social conservatives, Republicans and their backers are
working again to repeat in Iowa the anti-equality movement’s practice of popular sovereignty â voting away the established rights of same-sex couples. Which ND30 fully supports, because he places “zero” value in same-sex couples being permitted to marry and he fully endorses tyranny by majority…
The same old tired, baseless link that he’s posted several dozen times now here at IGF. ND30 is a broken record. Notice that he does not deny how Republicans are undermining us because he cannot deny it. He knows it’s a fact. It’s just a fact he expects the rest of us not to pay any attention to.
Understandable why it isn’t an issue to him, as not only does he not see the equality of homosexuals as an important issue, he actually opposes the equality of homosexuals and supports the party that has been and is continuing to make homosexual inequality a reality that will endure for generations.
Again, I will dispel his deliberate lies about my actual stance:
My sexual orientation does not require that I support any particular candidate or political party, and I have never suggested otherwise. My support for improving legal equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples DOES require that I vote for those who have supported such equality issues in the past or have at least indicated strong support for them/made promises to that effect. And while there are many Democrats who have advanced homosexual equality, there are very, very few Republicans who have. Thus, they tend to not get my vote, nor will they, until they stop pursuing fascist conservative mandates.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Notice that he does not deny how Republicans are undermining us because he cannot deny it. He knows it’s a fact. It’s just a fact he expects the rest of us not to pay any attention to.
Actually, it’s a bit hard to say what exactly constitutes “undermining”, given that, as I’ve pointed out, you continue to deny that Obama Party members who openly state that they oppose gay-sex marriage and support gay-sex marriage bans are in any way undermining you. Indeed, the gay and lesbian community openly brags about how their sole goal is to elect Obama Party members regardless of their stances.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn’t support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
The evidence is right there in black and white that the goal of the gay and lesbian community is to support the Obama Party, and that they will do so regardless of the Obama Party’s stances. That makes your charge of “undermining” at least understandable; by your “logic”, Republicans always “undermine” gays because, in your worldview, gays and lesbians are synonymous with the Obama Party. You simply aren’t capable of doing anything other than supporting the Obama Party.
Understandable why it isn’t an issue to him, as not only does he not see the equality of homosexuals as an important issue, he actually opposes the equality of homosexuals and supports the party that has been and is continuing to make homosexual inequality a reality that will endure for generations.
Or, more precisely and correctly, it’s because I define equality differently.
Everyone in this country has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex who is of age, not too closely related, and not already married. No person has any protection whatsoever from being fired from their job on the basis of their sexual orientation, be it homo-, pan-, bi-, or heterosexual. Until recently, a crime against an individual was punished based on the crime; additional punishment and investigation dollars were neither given or required based on the sexual orientation of the victim. You may vote, own a gun, worship as you please, speak as you wish, request a jury trial, avoid self-incrimination, and a whole host of other things regardless of your sexual orientation.
THAT is equality, in every sense of the word.
Your problem is that you have confused equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Since some people are able to marry that to which they’re sexually attracted, you want to be able to marry to whatever you’re sexually attracted. That is why I refer to what you want as gay-sex marriage, because that’s all it really is about.
posted by Debrah on
“Your problem is that you have confused equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Since some people are able to marry that to which they’re sexually attracted, you want to be able to marry to whatever you’re sexually attracted. That is why I refer to what you want as gay-sex marriage, because that’s all it really is about.”
**************************************************
The issue succinctly put into words.
posted by DragonScorpion on
That’s just another deliberate lie, as usual. Some Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide. I can think of one, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who supported a same-sex marriage ban.
As usual, there is nothing at ND30’s link stating otherwise. No examples of Democrats who support bans on same-sex marriage. ND30 is just a pathological liar, who grossly & deliberately distorts the statements of others to fit what he wants it to mean.
And it isn’t hard to explain undermining at all. “Undermining”, in this instance, is not limited to but would include the following: enacting bans on same-sex marriage, enacting bans on same-sex couple adoption, thwarting efforts to repeal DOMA & DADT, using homosexuals as scapegoats, using homosexuals and our civil rights as a political football to get elected.
You know, all those things the Republican party has been doing for decades…
And let’s revisit some of this:
An uncomfortable fact that ND30 chooses to ignore but most of us don’t and never will â some 30 constitutional amendments effectively banning same-sex marriage WRITTEN BY, FULLY SUPPORTED by, and PASSED by Republicans to help get Republicans elected. Not Democrats, Republicans…
“Emboldened by the 11-state sweep of bans on same-sex marriage Nov. 2, conservative leaders intend to fuel the debate further when they return with an expanded majority to the next Congress, and press vulnerable Democrats into an awkward corner over the divisive issue.
“With as many as 15 states poised to introduce their own same-sex marriage bans in the next two years, following a campaign that proved the political potency of the issue, Republicans see it as one of their most powerful issues heading into the 109th Congress.
[â¦]
“In the Senate, at least five Democrats are expected to face close races in the next election, putting them in the crosshairs of Republican strategy every time there is a vote on same-sex marriage. One of them, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, represents a state that voted to ban same-sex marriage Nov. 2.
“Stabenow voted with the majority last summer, when the Senate rejected the federal constitutional ban; 50 senators voted against it, 48 senators voted for it, and two did not vote.â
And like I said, at the behest of a Republican President, Republicans brought a Federal Marriage Amendment meant to ban same-sex marriage (or any equivalent) nationwide to a vote in 2006. And they still support it.
âPresident Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.
[â¦]
âBush has been under pressure from social conservatives within his political base to come out in favor of such an amendment, several versions of which are floating around Capitol Hill.
“Until Tuesday, Bush had only suggested he was open to an amendment, but stopped short of calling for one.
“He did not sign onto a specific bill, but called on Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment “defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”
[…]
“Bush’s comments were swiftly condemned by Democratic Party leaders as an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution and by a gay civil rights group as gay bashing.â
In fact, it’s part of their party platform…
âBecause our childrenâs future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
[…]
“Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex âmarriagesâ licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.â
Note, the GOP wants to eliminate so-called “judicial activism”, like that which overruled anti-miscegenation laws nationwide in 1967. If these bigots had their way, those laws would still be on the books…
Anyone need any more reason not to support the anti-equality, anti-homosexual agendas of the GOP? Shall we drill deeper? Perhaps we’ll focus on new materials for our next exchange…
posted by DragonScorpion on
It sure is! From ND30’s own link:
âGay-rights advocates acknowledge that their issues still divide the country and can make trouble for some pro-gay marriage candidates in conservative states. So they often opted to back the most sympathetic candidate, even if he or she did not embrace the group’s entire agenda.
[â¦]
The Human Rights Campaign spent more than $5 million on election-related activities, including contributions, staff, and direct mail, the group’s officers said. Eighty-four staff members were sent to help 30 targeted races in 18 states. More than 90 percent of the 232 candidates the HRC endorsed — mostly Democrats, but some pro-gay rights Republicans — won their elections in November.â
An extremely practical and effective approach! And one that I have advocated here at the site â supporting those candidates who support us, regardless of political affiliation. And if this strategy means we end up with candidates who are more sympathetic to our causes even if only tacitly supportive of same-sex marriage itself {but also not willing to ban it}, whilst winning victories against socially conservative candidates {which tend to be Republican} who ARE voting to ban same-sex marriage among other many important issues to homosexual civil-rights advocates, then that’s a definite win for us.
But ND30 wants us to blindly vote Republican in spite of all that they’ve done to demonize us and vote away our rights and constitutionally ban our equality. That’s because the equality of homosexuals & same-sex couples doesn’t mean anything to him, other than something for him to actively oppose.
More precisely and correctly, the charge of Republicans undermining homosexuals is detailed above. A summary: Republicans by and large have voted for and passed 30 constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, including passing referenda in CA and MA to remove established rights for same-sex couples to marry. They’ve also attempted to ban same-sex marriage at the federal level, used us as a political football to get themselves elected in 2002, 2004 and tried again in 2006. Republicans are vowing to fight the repeal of DADT and DOMA. And banning same-sex marriage is part of their party platform.
Indeed ND30 does define equality differently, in a way that ensures homosexuals {read: the morally inferior} are unequal to heterosexuals. Opposite-sex marriage, opposite-sex parenting, is all seen as superior to same-sex marriage & parenting across the board, and Christian conservative theology is superior to egalitarian principles and constitutional guarantees to equal protection and due process.
Here is the actual definition of equality:
âthe state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.â
Not at all matching what ND30 advocates for in his opposition to recognizing civil rights protections of minorities against unconstitutional discrimination.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Mmhmm… Just as everyone in this country whilst living under anti-miscegenation laws had a right to marry a person classified as the same race. Interracial marriage is a choice. As is heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. And it is a choice that many of us are contending we should all have a right to make, according to our orientation or the gender/race that we happen to fall in love with.
And because I already know how this lying propagandist thinks, no, this does not apply to children nor animals because they cannot consent. We’re talking about adults now, perhaps ND30 can pretend he is one and stick to the topic at hand.
That’s because heterosexual people are rarely ever fired from a job or denied employment BECAUSE of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been and are all too frequently. And this is why, just as in the case of race, sexual orientation should NOT be used as a disqualifier for employment.
Until recently, crimes against homosexuals were often overlooked by local law-enforcement, unless it was a murder and/or the case got national attention. Until recently the federal government did not ensure that local and state officials were bound to investigate and prosecute crimes motivated by a âvictim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.â And also, that these agencies would have the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Due to the Matthew Shepard Act, put forth and passed by the efforts of Democrats, all this is a reality now.
And all of this is important for the same reasons it was to enact the 1969 Federal Civil Rights Law. Obviously something ND30 would also oppose. He likes a country in which minorities are kept in their place…
More intellectual deception. Same-sex marriage is as much about marrying that to which people are sexually attracted as heterosexual marriage is.
People don’t tend to marry that which they are not sexually-attracted. Heterosexual people don’t tend to feel inclined to marry people of the same gender, nor are they required to in order to marry. Neither are homosexual people inclined to marry people of the opposite gender (other than those who thought it might make them “normal”).
The difference here is that (in all but 5 states) heterosexuals can marry those to whom they are naturally oriented to, homosexuals can’t.
And ND30 calls it âgay-sex marriageâ because he has zero respect for those same-sex couples who seek to formally commit themselves to a life-long, monogamous institution.
posted by DragonScorpion on
A final thought for the day:
Homosexuals can be fired at will for no other reason than their sexual orientation, something that rarely if ever happens to heterosexuals.
Homosexuals are prevented from acknowledging their orientation including referencing a same-sex partner or else they are subject to military discharge.
In many states same-sex couples are denied adoption merely on the basis of their sexual-orientation.
Same-sex couples are denied access to the same civil contract that opposite-sex couples are. Even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, federal legislation prevents their marriages from being recognized at the federal level, which also in turn is used to deny them many of the legal protections and benefits at state and private levels.
And none of this is based on any legitimate arguments justifying discrimination against homosexuals, it’s all based on prejudice.
That is NOT equality, in any sense of the word.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As usual, there is nothing at ND30’s link stating otherwise. No examples of Democrats who support bans on same-sex marriage. ND30 is just a pathological liar, who grossly & deliberately distorts the statements of others to fit what he wants it to mean.
I do believe this is the best example of the cognitive dissonance inherent in the gay and lesbian community that I have ever seen.
I provided this link for DragonScorpion’s review previously.
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
And yet DragonScorpion screams and insists that that does not constitute supporting a gay-sex marriage ban. He cries that I am a “pathological liar” for publishing a link that stated clearly that the Obama Party’s candidate stated that he would vote for and supported a gay-sex marriage ban.
There could be no clearer example of the degree of delusion inherent in the gay and lesbian community, as well as the dishonesty among gays and lesbians in smearing people as “homophobic”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And because I already know how this lying propagandist thinks, no, this does not apply to children nor animals because they cannot consent.
And because you’ve already stated that laws that limit marriage that were passed by a majority of people are wrong, you are invoking something whose basis you have already declared invalid. Furthermore, since gay rights groups declare that age of consent laws are homophobic and wrong, you’re invoking something that the gay community clearly opposes and wants abolished.
And since I know this whine, you and your fellow gay bigots already have demonstrated that you can scream at and try to publicly humiliate other gay people for simply dining at a restaurant of which you don’t approve. It’s amazing that you can’t do the same to pedophiles. But it speaks volumes for the values of the gay community – child rape is less of a crime than a $100 political donation.
That’s because heterosexual people are rarely ever fired from a job or denied employment BECAUSE of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been and are all too frequently.
Ah yes, the old equality of outcomes.
Tell us, DragonScorpion, what would you call a heterosexual who demanded sex from their coworkers and discriminated against people who refused to provide it?
Because the gay and lesbian community calls those people heroes and “pioneers” and claims that investigations of their behavior constitute “homophobia and sexism”.
But of course, gays like yourself don’t have anything to say about that. You’re still too busy screaming at gay people who decide to eat at the restaurant you don’t like.
While victimhood may be fun and profitable for you, it generally turns the rest of the universe off. Why don’t you try growing up and taking your place in society, instead of whining about how awful all the people around you who you refer to as “uptight” and “morons” are?
posted by DragonScorpion on
LMAO! Wow. Cognitive dissonance, he says… This coming from the supposed ‘homosexual’ who indeed hates homosexuals, blames us for most everything bad in society, holds ALL of us accountable for the actions of some among us, uses insulting labels to describe us, derides our efforts at gaining legal parity with heterosexuals/opposite-sex couples, indeed actively argues against it, accuses us of hypocrisy for supporting candidates who are supportive of homosexual civil rights issues, and yet demands that we , yes, the very candidates from the very party who has banning same-sex marriage as a key part of their party platform!
Like I said, one doesn’t need a psychology degree to determine that someone isn’t playing with a full deck.
Also, I suppose he thinks he’s being creative in using the same line I did several weeks ago when I described ND30 as being the WORST example of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed in my life…
He gets points for audacity, but none for originality.
âscreamsâ, âcriesâ, âObama partyâ, âgay-sex marriageâ… And he wonders why he has the reputation of a juvenile, hateful, homophobic, delusional bigot. . .
In order to determine that he is indeed a pathological liar, look no further than ND30’s own comments here at the forum in which he deliberately LIES about the statements that others make which are here for ALL to read.
Now, as for the comment in question, I’ll lay it all out in intricate detail… To my comment:
âNotice that he does not deny how Republicans are undermining us because he cannot deny it. He knows it’s a fact. It’s just a fact he expects the rest of us not to pay any attention to.â
North Dallas Thirty replied:
âActually, it’s a bit hard to say what exactly constitutes “undermining”, given that, as I’ve pointed out, you continue to deny that Obama Party members who openly state that they oppose gay-sex marriage and support gay-sex marriage bans are in any way undermining you. Indeed, the gay and lesbian community openly brags about how their sole goal is to elect Obama Party members regardless of their stances.â
To which I responded:
âThat’s just another deliberate lie, as usual. Some Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide. I can think of one, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who supported a same-sex marriage ban.
As usual, there is nothing at ND30’s link stating otherwise. No examples of Democrats who support bans on same-sex marriage. ND30 is just a pathological liar, who grossly & deliberately distorts the statements of others to fit what he wants it to mean.â
And there was, indeed, NOTHING in the liar’s link offering one single example of a Democrat who supported a ban on same-sex marriage.
I even offered up one myself, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, who supported a national ban on same-sex marriage. John Kerry also said in 2004 that he would have supported the same-sex marriage ban in Missouri. Which matches PRECISELY what I said, âSome Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide.â
And we see how the states are deciding. Due to the efforts of Republican politicians and a voting majority prejudiced against homosexuals, in over 30 states same-sex marriage has been legally banned at the constitutional level.
Here is more reading on Sen. Kerry’s current and past opposition to DOMA.
posted by DragonScorpion on
LMAO! Wow. Cognitive dissonance, he says… This coming from the supposed ‘homosexual’ who indeed hates homosexuals, blames us for most everything bad in society, holds ALL of us accountable for the actions of some among us, uses insulting labels to describe us, derides our efforts at gaining legal parity with heterosexuals/opposite-sex couples, indeed actively argues against it, accuses us of hypocrisy for supporting candidates who are supportive of homosexual civil rights issues, and yet demands that we support candidates who demonize us, vote to restrict our rights, use us as a political football to get elected, yes, the very candidates from the very party who has banning same-sex marriage as a key part of their party platform!
Like I said, one doesn’t need a psychology degree to determine that someone isn’t playing with a full deck.
Also, I suppose he thinks he’s being creative in using the same line I did several weeks ago when I described ND30 as being the WORST example of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed in my life…
He gets points for audacity, but none for originality.
âscreamsâ, âcriesâ, âObama partyâ, âgay-sex marriageâ… And he wonders why he has the reputation of a juvenile, hateful, homophobic, delusional bigot. . .
In order to determine that he is indeed a pathological liar, look no further than ND30’s own comments here at the forum in which he deliberately LIES about the statements that others make which are here for ALL to read.
Now, as for the comment in question, I’ll lay it all out in intricate detail… To my comment:
âNotice that he does not deny how Republicans are undermining us because he cannot deny it. He knows it’s a fact. It’s just a fact he expects the rest of us not to pay any attention to.â
North Dallas Thirty replied:
âActually, it’s a bit hard to say what exactly constitutes “undermining”, given that, as I’ve pointed out, you continue to deny that Obama Party members who openly state that they oppose gay-sex marriage and support gay-sex marriage bans are in any way undermining you. Indeed, the gay and lesbian community openly brags about how their sole goal is to elect Obama Party members regardless of their stances.â
To which I responded:
âThat’s just another deliberate lie, as usual. Some Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide. I can think of one, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who supported a same-sex marriage ban.
As usual, there is nothing at ND30’s link stating otherwise. No examples of Democrats who support bans on same-sex marriage. ND30 is just a pathological liar, who grossly & deliberately distorts the statements of others to fit what he wants it to mean.â
And there was, indeed, NOTHING in the liar’s link offering one single example of a Democrat who supported a ban on same-sex marriage.
I even offered up one myself, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, who supported a national ban on same-sex marriage. John Kerry also said in 2004 that he would have supported the same-sex marriage ban in Missouri. Which matches PRECISELY what I said, âSome Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide.â
And we see how the states are deciding. Due to the efforts of Republican politicians and a voting majority prejudiced against homosexuals, in over 30 states same-sex marriage has been legally banned at the constitutional level.
Here is more reading on Sen. Kerry’s current and past opposition to DOMA.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Enough of the bullshit LIES from ND30, here are the FACTS:
1) Adults can consent. Children and animals cannot.
2) The case against adults marrying children is legitimate, the case against homosexual adults marrying their same-sex partner is not.
3) State courts have determined that same-sex couples in some 7 states have a RIGHT to the same access to marriage that opposite-sex couples do.
4) Mobs of prejudiced social conservatives, religionists, homophobes, bigots, etc. voted to repeal these established rights.
5) No state judiciary has determined laws prohibiting marriage to children and animals are unconstitutional.
LIE, LIE, LIE, over and over the PATHOLOGICAL LIAR just doesn’t stop with his LIES… THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ DOES NOT SUPPORT ENDING AGE OF CONSENT LAWS. THE âGAY COMMUNITYâ DOES NOT SUPPORT ADULT-CHILD MARRIAGE. NORTH DALLAS THIRTY IS A LIAR.
Interestingly, this EXACT SAME SUBJECT was just covered in another thread… I’ll reiterate PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST, INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS. And again, when someone HERE supports child molestation, I’ll criticize them for it! When someone HERE denounces same-sex marriage, ridicules homosexuals, treats the “gay and lesbian community” as a monolith, I’LL CRITICIZE THEM FOR IT!!!!
As for the âequality of outcomesâ yarn… Back to reality, HOMOSEXUALS ARE OFTEN DENIED EMPLOYMENT FOR NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, PERIOD!
Here is the egalitarian approach. People should be hired and fired based on their merit. No quotas, no affirmative action, no guarantees, and no BS prejudices that have nothing to do with the job. Simple merit!
Bigots like ND30, however, support a system in which women, racial minorities and homosexuals can ALL be denied employment solely based on their being a minority, regardless of their merit and qualifications.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I’m not sure who âusâ is here, ND30’s âsnickering friendsâ never showed up…?
Now since I’ve covered this I don’t know how many times now, I’ll just save myself the work and repost:
ND30’s ‘irrefutable proof’ that the entire homosexual population sexually preys on coworkers then cries discrimination when they get in trouble for it. It’s such an epidemic that this is the ONE example he’s managed to cite over the course of at least a month now…
Oddly enough, I don’t demand sex from my coworkers (or ask, or even hint), nor have I ever in any way suggested that to do so is ânormalâ for ANY community. Nor have I in any way suggested that to be fired or investigated for engaging in such behaviors is âhomophobia and sexismâ. Nor do I know anyone who does! But, why let little inconvenient realities get in the way? ND30 has anti-homosexual propaganda to push…
Oh, yeah, being a minority is making me millions. I have more exotic mansions than I can keep up with.
As for âturning the rest of the universe offâ, is there anyone outside of ND30’s sockpuppet Debrah who isn’t sick to their ass of ND30 yet? Seriously? Anyone?
He definitely needs to get some help; learn to stop hating his homosexual neighbors and co-workers so much, and stop blaming those of us for things we HAVE NOT DONE!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I even offered up one myself, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, who supported a national ban on same-sex marriage. John Kerry also said in 2004 that he would have supported the same-sex marriage ban in Missouri. Which matches PRECISELY what I said, âSome Democrats have stated that they personally don’t support same-sex marriage and feel it is an issue for the states to decide.â
And that demonstrates my point.
You insist that Obama Party members, even if they support, endorse, and state they would vote for national and state bans on gay-sex marriage, are not undermining the gay community and in fact are pro-gay and gay-supportive.
Again, you have made it clear that this is all about party affiliation. Your invoking your minority status is little more than a transparent rationalization, just as for other minority pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who insist that black people who do not support the Obama Party are sell-outs, Uncle Toms, oreos, house slaves, and whatnot.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Incorrect. First of all, there is no âObama partyâ so that renders every point ND30 attempts to make about this fictional entity, moot.
That aside for now, (taking viability into account as well) I support candidates that are the most supportive of civil rights for homosexuals in the particular election at hand. If that means they are on board on most pro-gay issues but not on same-sex marriage, then they’ll get my vote. If they are not supportive of recognizing homosexual civil rights issues, they won’t get my vote. It’s really that simple no matter what the LIAR attempts to claim.
Of course, this tends to exclude those in ND30’s pet Republican party which has become increasingly fascist in their anti-homosexual social conservatism. Of course, he opposes homosexual equality and civil rights, so, naturally, this fact doesn’t bother him at all. No doubt, this is all the more reason he supports them. Well, it’s all the more reason I oppose most of them…
As I stated a month and a half ago (and ND30 dismissed me as a liar without knowing a damn thing about me or where I stand), once the GOP lets up on the gay-bashing, I’ll let up on them.
Another LIE about my actual position. I don’t consider homosexuals who vote for a Republican to be a âsell-outâ, etc. In fact, I have voted for Republicans myself, and intend to again. . . How awkward that would be if I saw such a thing as inherently anti-homosexual…
For the record, as I have stated before, I supported John McCain before he joined with the âagents of intoleranceâ. I would have voted for him over Al Gore in 2000, if only the cowardly moronic Bush hadn’t used racism to screw McCain out of the Republican nomination. So instead, I ended up voting Libertarian because I couldn’t possibly support phony Al Gore.
As for those homosexuals here in the U.S. who support laws that deny us equality… Yeah, they’re definitely selling all of us out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If they are not supportive of recognizing homosexual civil rights issues, they won’t get my vote.
But, of course, the way DragonScorpion gets around that one is simple; every Obama Party member is “supportive”, even if they oppose gay-sex marriage and discriminate in employment, and every Republican Party candidate is “homophobic”, even if their stance is the same as the Obama Party member.
Of course, he opposes homosexual equality and civil rights, so, naturally, this fact doesn’t bother him at all.
And again, you don’t understand the basic concept of “equality”.
The law currently treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally; companies are free to hire and fire based on sexual orientation.
Now, if equal treatment under the law were your point, that would be the end of it. The fact that you do not accept that indicates that your concerns have nothing to do with equal treatment.
posted by DragonScorpion on
As I mentioned before, there is no âObama partyâ so that renders every point ND30 attempts to make about this fictional entity, moot. And I await the LIAR to provide some verification of his dishonest claims. As I have repeatedly made it clear, I don’t vote for any candidate by mere party affiliation alone, nor do I describe every Republican party candidate as âhomophobicâ. Just those who are. And that goes for mindlessly-loyal Republican drones like ND30, whose homophobia is glaringly obvious.
And again, ND30 doesn’t understand that, as I said before: âHomosexuals can be fired at will for no other reason than their sexual orientation, something that rarely if ever happens to heterosexuals.
Homosexuals are prevented from acknowledging their orientation including referencing a same-sex partner or else they are subject to military discharge.
In many states same-sex couples are denied adoption merely on the basis of their sexual-orientation.
Same-sex couples are denied access to the same civil contract that opposite-sex couples are. Even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, federal legislation prevents their marriages from being recognized at the federal level, which also in turn is used to deny them many of the legal protections and benefits at state and private levels.
And none of this is based on any legitimate arguments justifying discrimination against homosexuals, it’s all based on prejudice.
That is NOT equality, in any sense of the word.â
If ND30 really understood the concept of equality and wasn’t so biased against homosexuals; if he didn’t believe that we, collectively, haven’t earned respect or dignity; if he didn’t believe that we deserve to be discriminated against by society and our own government, then he’d understand the inequality that our legal system is subjecting homosexuals to.