I’m a Dem primary voter and have supported marriage equality my whole life, but this answer makes me like Warren less. It’s sneeringly condescending, revels in the failures of another person, and assumes gender for no apparent reason other than to antagonize https://t.co/JGvvUfAp9H
— David Eil (@economistified) October 11, 2019
Recall the the moment when Hillary Clinton probably ensured her electoral college loss was when she disparaged Trump supporters as a “basket of despicables” who were racist, sexist and homophobic, and that this happened at a fundraiser with wealthy LGBT supporters in a Manhattan penthouse, with Barbra Streisand providing the entertainment. There, too, the attendees enthusiastically clapped and cheered their support, oblivious to how their candidate’s remarks were likely to be heard outside the liberal bubble.
10 Comments for “Warren’s Sneer”
posted by Jorge on
She assumed gender, oh heavens, no! She/Her/Hers would have a fit.
If she wins the nomination, that’ll probably be enough for me to max out on Trump. Not so much She/Her/Hers.
posted by Kosh III on
My only complaint is that she didn’t follow up the joke with a serious response.
I like Klobuchar but she doesn’t seem to be going anywhere; anyone who is the nominee gets my vote against the Fornicator-in-Chief.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry. Need to repost to straighten out the formatting and link to Mayor Buttigieg’s White Paper.
My only complaint is that she didn’t follow up the joke with a serious response.
Exactly. Warren was showboating, and that’s not sufficient. We face serious issues and our issues merit a serious response and serious discussion.
I’m contributing to Mayor Buttigieg’s campaign and I like Senator Klobuchar, but I don’t think that either will be the nominee. I’d prefer a moderate, center/left candidate who thinks and speaks in whole paragraphs (think President Obama, for example), but when it comes to the general election this time around, I’ll vote for any Democrat who can speak in complete sentences that aren’t total gibberish.
posted by Jorge on
There was an LGBT issues town hall with the Democratic primary candidates.
Two cases on workplace discrimination are before the Supreme Court.
And I’m sure the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will be discussed in this Congressional session.
Seems to me you’re looking for consolidation rather than an increase in exposure. Otherwise it’s hard to see what more you could possibly want.
*Checks the link.*
No, Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign does not count. And next time you might want to warn people you’re linking to a political candidates propaganda.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And next time you might want to warn people you’re linking to a political candidates propaganda.
I’ll make a point of warning you and other conservative homosexuals.
POLITICAL PROPAGANDA ALERT: This post contains a link to political propaganda, and may contain content that is offensive to conservative homosexuals.
Well in this specific case, probably not, actually, since this political candidate touts his accomplishments in hindering equal treatment under the law for LGBTQ Americans. Right up your alley, I would think, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
Fine. I didn’t note the reference to Mr. Buttigieg’s white paper the second time I read your post. I was a little more focused on your serious discussion refrain.
I can’t imagine why you think that, Jorge. The Equality Act has been passed by the House, so nothing new will happen in that venue.
Oh, well even better, it got discussed in Congress already. And since it has only passed one house, there’s still a year or more in the Congressional session for somebody to bring it up again. In or out of Congress.
But I understand if the Senators, whose job it is to debate everything, not just LGBT issues, don’t want to use their limited serious discussion time on LGBT issues to discuss EDNA when there are so many other things they can bring to the floor. The expected Supreme Court decisions. How to respect people’s gender identity in spoken language. Whether churches can be protected without accusations of sanctioning discrimination outside the church walls. A gay liberal being friends with a straight conservative, Warren would be right to assume he’s a man, who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman. Whether retreating from the world while condemning government-sponsored anti-gay violence is a good idea.
Paradoxically, the many scattered LGBT-related subjects and limited opportunity to discuss them. Hence, the need to coalesce around a giant consensus package which has something in it that triggers almost half the country. *Shrugs.* It’s the price of having a serious discussion on a minority demographic group’s issues in Congress.
posted by Jorge on
Paradoxically, the many scattered LGBT-related subjects and limited opportunity to discuss them.
I was trying to argue that this dilutes the ability to present LGBT-related subjects effectively for discussion in Congress.
posted by JohnInCA on
And failed.
What “dilutes the ability to present LGBT-related subjects effectively for discussion in Congress” is Republicans not wanting to discuss them.
Acting like the problem is Democrats trying too hard is to ignore the problem, which is that conservative LGBT folk have entirely failed to change their chosen political party’s stance on gay folk.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And I’m sure the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will be discussed in this Congressional session.
I can’t imagine why you think that, Jorge. The Equality Act has been passed by the House, so nothing new will happen in that venue. Senator McConnell will ensure that it does not surface in the Senate — no hearings, no debate, no vote — so there won’t be any discussion in that venue, either.
The old rule-of-thumb has not changed: So long as Republicans hold a majority of either the House or the Senate, no bills advancing equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians will be enacted.
posted by JohnInCA on
What “serious response” is merited?
At this point, if someone comes up to you and tries to start a “conversation” by declaring their opposition to marriage equality, they aren’t interested in a conversation, they’re interested in preaching, and that doesn’t deserve a “serious response”.
And let’s be honest, it was never “right” for gay folk to have to defend the legitimacy of our relationships to other folk, to argue that we “deserved” marriage or any of that “serious response” nonsense. We had to do it, but it was wrong that we had to do it. Expecting us to continue to do so just because some folk don’t like it is not reasonable.
And if it was me? Well, I’ve been monogamously committed to one man for thirteen years, married to him for six. If someone comes up to me and tries to talk about how we’re not “really” married, that person will get a rude dismissal if they’re lucky. If they’re unlucky, they’re getting a drink in the face.