Okay…. I read all of the comments on this posting, so I felt the need to do a second posting. As a challenge.
In the comments section on this posting, if you are in favor of gay marriage and proud of it… please type in your full name, address and home phone number. Keep in mind that those that read this website range from those gay “outing” activists on the radical Left to many conservatives who are curious about a gay conservative to the radical Right folks that know more about beastiality than one should.
Since many of you feel it is okay to publish the names of those for, whatever reasons (political, personal or moral), oppose the idea of gay marriage….. I challenge you: Are you willing to go public with your names and private information to potentially expose yourself to a range of eyes and intentions of good and bad people alike?
Put up or shut up…..
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce – YOU MISS THE POINT
When you sign a petition to put something on the ballot – you sign a Public Document. Anyone of your neighbors can read it – and do with it what they wish. Its the same as the public information provided by the FEC for federal election contributions.
Its a bitch, but its how it is. Why, have you recently signed some anti-gay petition you don’t want people to know about?
And this is a public document too, Gregg.
It’s openly available to anyone on the internet – making it public – and it contains persistent information and a statement of personal intention – making it a document.
So c’mon Gregg……put up!
Bruce,
The point is that a third party made the information public. Go ahead and be my third party.
Are you really that lazy? If you want to post my information, there are plenty of places to look for it and if you do, go ahead and post it.
However, I will not play you juvenile , show me yours or shut up game. What are you, eight years old?
Now, all the toadies in your regular circle jerk don’t even use a NAME. How about restoring a little civility and asking these deep cover out and proud gay republicans to use a freaking NAME.
Another unimportant thread.
I’m just glad voting is still private.
I think the point is that, while no one wants ill will brought to their front door, I think gay people have a right to know who specifically is against them. And yet at the same time, I don’t think any of us are advocating violence, or expecting it to go unpunished if it occured.
If someone is directly opposed to an initiative, takes a public stand, then the public should be allowed to know who they are and we should expect them to face public scrutiny. This is the American way. You stand up for what you believe in.
And if I were to sign a pro gay marriage petition, I would expect that information to be public, and I would expect to face subsequent scrutiny. The boycott these two men allude to is exactly what groups all over the country do. It was the reason someone like Dr. Laura lost a publicly funded outlet for her personal, bigoted viewpoint. At the same time, conservative groups like AFA use boycott against Kraft food as a sponsor of the gay games, the Baptists tried to boycott Disneyworld for gay day etc. Both sides play the money game. But I do not want to support bigots, either as corporations or individuals, and I hope you would feel the same.
We are in a unique age where information travels instantly via the internet. In the past, someone would have to go to special means to find the information like this, but it was publicly available. What they propose is nothing new except in the ease in which someone can retrieve the information.
And we also have laws, laws that Republicans support I assume, against general hate crimes. If anyone persecuted individuals with violence as a result of this puplic posting, I would expect them to receive the same treatment and sentencing as someone perpetrating homophobic violence.
And I’d be more than happy to add my name and contact information to a pro gay marriage initiative for the state of New York. Bruce, feel free to find me one, which I’d be happy to put my public information on, and then you can track me down. I’d sign your jejune thread but it’s not a pro gay marriage initiative, is it? Or even anything more than a verbose way of calling us chicken.
I’d sign your jejune thread but it’s not a pro gay marriage initiative, is it? Or even anything more than a verbose way of calling us chicken.
Actually, Reader’s already made it clear what kind of things gay liberals support and advocate when it comes to harassing and trying to harm people.
This, as well as our experiences with ACT UP, is why we’re less than awed by your attempts to argue that you aren’t promoting bad behavior or that you would even condemn it, Bob. Put simply, you and yours have already proven over and over again that, no matter how heinous the behavior, you’ll excuse it.
Anyone notice that the owners of the site have not posted their own address(es)? (To be fair, they have posted their names…not on the “contact us” page or anything, but the names are posted). Additionally, the site mentions that they have 250 volunteers…whose names and addresses are also absent.
On another note…as far as I can tell from the site, the amendment simply says that ‘marriage’ will be defined as being between a man and a woman, with no mention of domestic partnerships or civil unions. The site chooses to understand ‘no mention of civil unions’ as ‘no civil unions’.
Not introducing civil unions is not the same as forbidding them to be introduced…why are they deliberately confusing the issue?
Somehow I suspected none of the hypocrites on this forum would put up OR shut up. But it is funny watching them squirm.
Now, all the toadies in your regular circle jerk don’t even use a NAME. How about restoring a little civility…
Anyone who is really concerned about civility could elevate the level of discourse here by not insulting other posters.
As for my name and address, I’d rather not, GP. There have been quite a few certifiable lunatics posting here recently. It’s not the right-wingers I worry about; it’s the Angry Left nutters who I don’t want showing up at my front door.
GP, I’m not sure I get your point here. So some (actually most) of the posters here disagree with your argument from the previous post in question. But you’ve made your point that no one should have their privacy taken from them, even if they have utterly distasteful and hypocritical positions. But now you say that people that have the opinion that those who support anti-gay positions in a public forum be exposed, themselves be exposed.
It just seems that you are more worried about the privacy of closeted, hateful bigots than the privacy of those who support advancing gay rights. I’d like to think that’s not true, but it sometimes seems that way.
As for your challenge, I’ll do that anytime I sign a petition.
#9 Butch — The point is, people like you, me, and GP respect people’s right to keep their personal information private. What this thread does is expose the hypocrisy of those who have one set of standards for themselves, and another set of standards for those who disagree with their politics.
What they are, in effect, saying is that people who believe in preserving traditional marriage deserve to be harassed and bullied.
If people were to “register”, this crap of a blog would go the way of the emu!
LOL 🙂
Monty
Ah, monty, brave enough to insult someone else’s blog… too much of a wuss to start one of his own.
errrrr…..In do many words. 🙂 🙂
Sorry Clint.
Monty
…in SO many words….
Can’t wait to read the blog about how Roberts freaked out the Repubs during his hearing, today. LMAO
Start writing Bruce and Dan. I think you’ve had enough time off, don’t you? 🙂
Monty
#7, #8 – My favorite part of the squirming is how they try to change the subject, saying “Well Bruce and Dan haven’t put their addresses up so we don’t have to.”
Kids: BRUCE AND DAN AREN’T ADVOCATING THAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE THEIR ADDRESSES PUT UP…..YOU ARE. (Or at least you are defending these other psychos who are doing it to people.) So let’s see if you are willing to do what what you advocate/defend. When you do, then, maybe, Bruce / Dan / others will give 10 seconds’ consideration to it one way or the other.
Bottom line: As Bruce said, folks, Put up or shut up. And so far, I see zero putting up.
The point is, people like you, me, and GP respect people’s right to keep their personal information private. What this thread does is expose the hypocrisy of those who have one set of standards for themselves, and another set of standards for those who disagree with their politics.
Exactly, you respect people’s privacy. So do I.
But what you’re confusing is that the people who sign a public petition are making a public position, thereby standing for a public policy, one that affects others. Public petitions are public information.
Is it that you, Butch and GP think every aspect of a person’s actions should be considered confidential? What’s the point at which someone should be expected to be held accountable for their public actions, especially ones with the potential to seriously affect other’s lives?
Ah….my point has been made. Those who shout “chickenhawk” need not look farther than the mirror in their own glass house.
But you’ve made your point that no one should have their privacy taken from them, even if they have utterly distasteful and hypocritical positions. But now you say that people that have the opinion that those who support anti-gay positions in a public forum be exposed, themselves be exposed.
It just seems that you are more worried about the privacy of closeted, hateful bigots than the privacy of those who support advancing gay rights. I’d like to think that’s not true, but it sometimes seems that way.
First, supporting a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is not antigay, nor is it distasteful, hypocritical, nor does it make one a hateful bigot — it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Second, if you want to publish the names and addresses of other people on the Internets, call them “closeted, hateful bigots”, and demand that people boycott their businesses, at least have the balls to publish your own.
563.843.8777
sign me up for the ballot AGAINST gay marriage. i want to be in the group of people that bruce sticks up for.
Funny how the only response people have when you tell them “put up or shut up” is juvenile name-calling. Of course, I’ve been a banned from a lefty blog or two just for challenging people to cite their sources, so it really comes as no surprise.
If I ever start getting insulted by smart people, then I’ll start to worry.
First, supporting a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is not antigay, nor is it distasteful, hypocritical, nor does it make one a hateful bigot — it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Is that one of those Bush “white is black, up is down” kind of statements?
Oh no. I get it. It’s supposed to be about John Kerry, the erstwhile senator, Democratic loser of the last election, somehow being the beacon of the Democratic party. That by rubbing people’s facing in his loss (by a whole 2% no less) we should feel shamed by that loss and also by his strident belief that gay marriage is not for Massachusetts.
Last time I checked, people didn’t vote for him specifically because of his gay agenda. The reality of them were far and away better than Bush’s threat to enact an ammendment to appease his right-wing constituency. Bush played them like a fiddle.
Second, if you want to publish the names and addresses of other people on the Internets, call them “closeted, hateful bigots”, and demand that people boycott their businesses, at least have the balls to publish your own.
And why should someone publish their own? It’s like telling a black man with a cross burning on his lawn and a noose around his neck that you’ll pull up your hood if he tells you where he’s hidden his family.
By the way, I see all of you opposed to posting these people’s name have deliberately failed to take the one extra step that prove your positions lack credibility.
The website knowthyneighbor.org points out clearly that all the names of all the original signers are publicly available from the Attorney General’s own website.
Did you even look at the website?
If I ever start getting insulted by smart people, then I’ll start to worry.
Comment by V the K — September 13, 2005 @ 9:46 pm – September 13, 2005
—————————————–
Be VERY afraid! 🙂
Monty
Well, here’s a question, and I’m embarrassed I don’t know this:
Are our votes at the ballot box confidential? That is, can someone look up in the public record who I voted for in each election?
It seems to me that a petition is form of election, in that a certain number have to “vote” for something in order to get it on a ballot. If how we vote is confidential, then I don’t see why petitions shouldn’t be given a measure of privacy.
I realize petitions are a matter of public record, I’m just wondering if they should be.
Bruce…with all of the deranged Patsies in our midst lately (Tiffany springs to mind immediately), why on earth would you ask your readers to post personal information? I thought the whole point of your hosting a gay Republican blog was to provide a place where Collaborateuras cum Chickenhawkus could speak freely and proudly about their betrayal of the gay community – and with complete anonymity.
That is until, Dear Reader, you gain a “foot-hold” on them. It’s only abuse if you say it to them. LOL Then it’s: “Foul. Foul” “No fair. No fair”
BTW Reader…..you make me hot. Howz about 6:30 am?? 🙂
Monty
Hot off the press, boys!
“President Says He’s Responsible In Storm Lapses”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/nationalspecial/14bush.html
Good god. Kind of cuts the legs out from under all the Patsies who’ve been defending him for two weeks and saying that it was someone else’s fault. Internal polling at the WH must be showing Dear Leader in free fall for him to actually get shoved out to admit, for the first time ever, that he’s made a mistake.
Are we about to start a period of endless Bush contrition as a part of a last-ditch attempt to save the legacy? And, what’s next? Admitting mis-use of intelligence? Admitting that the War On Iraq was a terrible mistake? Admitting that the Occupation Of Iraq was botched? Oh, so much more! Man, when you’re at 38% approval after people have seen you in action for 5 years, it really must be Hell for the guy — and no one deserves it more.
And why should someone publish their own? It’s like telling a black man with a cross burning on his lawn and a noose around his neck that you’ll pull up your hood if he tells you where he’s hidden his family.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day – except for the “Bush bombed the levees” email circulating among the conspiracy theory loonies or that one about the gay concentration camps in Idaho.
Keep it up, lefties – the more exaggerated your anguish, the funnier you are.
NDT (#22), I don’t understand your response. First, I was not making an argument that Kerry is not anti-gay. We’ve had this discussion before, and we agree there. Second, personally, I don’t see the point of publishing these persons names, even though signing a petition is a public record. In any case, most posters, even those usually agreeing with GP thought he was way off base with these blog entries.
My point is that GP has argued fervently that even the most despicable, hateful, hypocritical closet cases who continuously support anti-gay legislation and policies should have their right to privacy. We’ve debated this before, and I’ve come to agree with you and GP regarding this. But now when GP opposes an action taken by some, who feel they are advancing gay rights (whether you agree with it or not), and argues that their position is hypocritical that they should give up their privacy.
Maybe I would find GP’s posting less off-base if he also challenged these bigoted closet cases to come out of the closet and have them explain why they continuously vote anti-gay despite being gay.
Like I said, maybe GP is really more critical of these despicable types. But I haven’t seen that from his blog entries.
Oh no. I get it. It’s supposed to be about John Kerry, the erstwhile senator, Democratic loser of the last election, somehow being the beacon of the Democratic party.
Ah yes, the most novel of the gay Democrat spins….that even though John Kerry was the Democratic Presidential candidate, he doesn’t represent the Democratic Party.
Funny, that didn’t seem to bother you and yours when you were calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” all last year, even when he had started bashing gays in February.
And why should someone publish their own? It’s like telling a black man with a cross burning on his lawn and a noose around his neck that you’ll pull up your hood if he tells you where he’s hidden his family.
Oh, I see, Bob….so it’s OK for you to publish other peoples’ names and addresses because it doesn’t encourage violence, but you can’t publish yours because it will encourage violence.
We shouldn’t prohibit publication of the list of signatures simply because these two nutcases happen to have some evil intent. Public access to the signatures is actually a check against tyranny. The public has a right to verify that the signatures are real, and that enough of them had been collected, so that no person or group can fraudulently put stuff on ballots.
But now when GP opposes an action taken by some, who feel they are advancing gay rights (whether you agree with it or not), and argues that their position is hypocritical that they should give up their privacy.
I don’t see these people as anything different than Mike Rogers, Pat.
Massachusetts law makes information about who signed a petition to amend the state constitution available to the public. If you are unhappy about that, why don’t you lobby the state of Massachusetts to change that law?
People who do not want their names and addresses associated with the amendment effort do not have to sign the petition. There are plenty of other avenues for them to get involved. If they aren’t happy about the public exposure of their support for the amendment, they can lobby to have that law changed.
If I lived in Massachusetts and supported an amendment petition, I would sign it even with the full knowledge that my name and address and my support of the petition would become part of the public record.
By the way, I don’t think that phone numbers are collected in an amendment petition.
Since posting a comment on a blog does not require a public disclosure of a name and address, I’m not going to post my address. I will post this comment using my real name. I live in Atlanta. My address should be pretty easily discoverable with a few internet searches.
#35 – NDT, shooting fish in a barrel again 🙂
For the record, what the President said was, “Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. To the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility.”
The New York Times said, “President Says He’s Responsible In Storm Lapses,” demonstrating yet again that the Times is not a reliable news source, even when it’s hot off the press.
Meanwhile, Governor Blanco continued her whining, this time about FEMA not picking up bodies (never a FEMA responsibility), and “Mayor” Nagin moved to Dallas. That’s leadership all right!
And now, back to the topic at hand…
Funny, that didn’t seem to bother you and yours when you were calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” all last year, even when he had started bashing gays in February.
Who’s this “we” Kemosabe? He may not be for gay marriage but comparing the two candidates at the time, Kerry looked Coco Peru in a ballet costume.
From Salon.com: “This follows a statement Bush made on a Christian radio station in Charleston, S.C., that “out” gays weren’t welcome in a Bush administration, saying “an openly known homosexual is somebody who probably wouldn’t share my philosophy.”
Did you realize you “probably” don’t share his philosophy? Or are you part of the chosen people whom the President will lead out of the land or Saudi Arabia to Haliburtonland?
How many times do you have to get kicked in the teeth by your own party before you start questioning why you even try to stay in the club?
How many times do you have to get kicked in the teeth by your own party before you start questioning why you even try to stay in the club?
Says the man who calls promoting bans on gay marriage and stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do it.
All we ask, Bob, is that you be honest and admit that you are incapable of criticizing a Democrat for antigay actions. Trying to spin that the Democratic Presidential candidate doesn’t represent the Democratic Party is merely a sad example of how brainwashed and reflexive the responses of the gay left are.
Maybe I would find GP’s posting less off-base if he also challenged these bigoted closet cases to come out of the closet and have them explain why they continuously vote anti-gay despite being gay.
And who decides what being “anti-gay” means? Joe Solmonese would define someone who votes against partial-birth abortion as “anti-gay.” And, more to the point, there are many reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that are not based in anti-gay bigotry. But when someone can subjectively say, “If you don’t agree with me on Issue X, then you’re a bigot, and I can subject you to whatever harassment I want,” that’s wrong. That’s why these double standards are so obnoxious.
V the K, I agree with your point about who decides what anti-gay means. In my post though, I was not referring to issues unrelated to gay rights, such as abortion, but rather issues that I would think GP would find anti-gay.
“If you don’t agree with me on Issue X, then you’re a bigot, and I can subject you to whatever harassment I want,”
Hey, it works for the Revernnnnnnnnd Jacksonnnnnnn and his shakedown crew. Aparently, there’s enough money there that you don’t have to be a minister to the people or be a positive role model of any sort. Just as long as the protection money keeps rolling in, you can make any kind of statements you want.
We all might want to consider ignoring ThatGayConservative since all he seems to do is post swear-words and vulgur insults (although I have to agree with his post on Jackson).
How about a little civility?
VtK-
“If you don’t agree with me on Issue X, then you’re a bigot, and I can subject you to whatever harassment I want”
Unfortunately, that seems to be the only kind of argument the Democratic Party knows how to make anymore, from the leadership on down.
All we ask, Bob, is that you be honest and admit that you are incapable of criticizing a Democrat for antigay actions. Trying to spin that the Democratic Presidential candidate doesn’t represent the Democratic Party is merely a sad example of how brainwashed and reflexive the responses of the gay left are.
I’d be more than happy when you also make the same commitment to criticize how inadequately responsive Republicans are on gay issues. Are you saying that everything the President stands for is also what you stand for?
GCB, first of all, NDT and some of the other conservative and/or Republican posters have criticized Bush on his anti-gay bigotry. Even if they didn’t, why wait for them to do it? If Kerry or other Democrats engage in anti-gay bigotry, then Democrat supporters or leaners need to criticize them and their actions.
Although I believe that Kerry was the much better choice for gay rights issues, his stand on gay marriage was deplorable. It was bad enough that he was against gay marriage, but he proactively supported anti-gay amendments.
As for Bush, I have also cricized his anti-gay bigotry many times as well.
Bruce-
I’ve stayed out of this debate so far, mostly because I’m ambivalent about the underlying question. In a democracy, we have secret ballots in elections, but the right to petition the government is completely different, and there is no expectation of privacy. On the other hand, publishing the names and addresses like this does seem at best sleazy, at worst threatening. Like a whole world of things, this seems like something that should be legal, but shouldn’t be done.
But the argument you present here is exactly the same as the chickenhawk argument. I realize that part of the fun of posting it is that the people you’re presenting the challenge to are (by and large) precisely those who were squealing “Chickenhawk!” just a few weeks ago. So, I understand the temptation — both the “they did it first” and “see what hypocrites you are” aspects (as well as the natural temptation they fell prey to in using the argument in the first place). But this is exactly the dynamic that’s been carrying down the level of policy debate in the U.S. recently — the left screams about how the right has done something underhanded (questioning patriotism, nasty distorting attack ads, politicizing 9/11), usually an exaggerated complaint, then for several months the idea bounces around the liberal echo chamber that they keep losing elections because they aren’t willing to be as underhanded as those on the right, and then they unleash the NARAL ad against Roberts or the disgusting politicizing of Katrina, calling Republicans hypocrites if they object, because they have honestly come to believe that the Republicans have routinely done worse.
Most of all, though, there are good arguments to be made (like the Boston Herald editorial you quote) so getting bogged down in a “you’re a hypocrite!”, “no, you’re a hypocrite!” shouting match is silly.
Learn from the mistakes of the Democrats. You can’t persuade the “middle” by trying to stake out the gutter.
Then, there’s dear NDT, who now has a solid grip on the Most Persistent Gay Patriot Lie award, with his claim (never supported here or elsewhere) that “John Kerry bashes gays”.
What exactly should you call it when John Kerry supports amendments that ban gay marriage and strip gays of rights, plus says that supporting gay marriage is “wrong” and “a mistake”?
Kerry’s done that and more. I’m sorry that you consider every one of those quotes to be a lie and that Kerry never said or did anything of the sort, but your obstinance does not change the reality that he did.
Moreover, I find it incredibly amusing that you consider the FMA and MPA to be “despicable”, but support those who protected and gave money to Democrats who voted for it and publicly support it, as Joe Solmonese, Ellen Malcom, Mike Rogers, and John Aravosis did.
By the way, I never thought Kerry was the end-all, be-all candidate. As most people, Democrats or otherwise, would concede, he was simply the most rounded of the bunch of either unseasoned, unimpressive, or unsavvy candidates.
But the Democratic party as a whole better focuses on and actively promotes a positive gay agenda and the same cannot be said of the Republican party.
I’d be more than happy when you also make the same commitment to criticize how inadequately responsive Republicans are on gay issues. Are you saying that everything the President stands for is also what you stand for?
I call.
You need to start thinking for yourself. Maybe then you won’t blunder into traps like shooting off your mouth and saying that I’ve never criticized Republicans or Bush’s stance on gay issues — or making promises to criticize Democrats that you spout thinking you’ll never have to keep them.
I find it facinating that nobody arguing that petition-signers gave up their right to privacy has commented on my statement that the authors of the KThyN website has not have not seen fit to post their own addresses. In fact, it isn’t even easy to find their phone numbers (to say nothing of the names or info of the 250 volunteers they claim to have).
Why aren’t you arguing that these people should have their info posted?
Dina-
Not sure I fall into your category, but I’d argue that if someone finds out who those activists are, and posts their info, that they’d be in no position to complain.
But I don’t necessarily think they have an obligation to publish their own information.
Maybe then you won’t blunder into traps like shooting off your mouth and saying that I’ve never criticized Republicans or Bush’s stance on gay issues
Let me get this straight. You’re trying to convince me that you criticize the President and Republican party for their unequivacal lack of support for gay men and women with an appropriate severity of manner to how you criticize the Democrat’s general support of gay men and women despite the odd leader’s personal stance on a specific issue of gay support?
As an example, are you saying you criticize things like Republican’s outright ban on gays in the military with appropriate severity to the compromise of DADT?
Because that’s the point. I’m not convinced you criticize your own party, much like the apologists of LCR, in a manner that represent the severity of the observed malfeasance – that Democrats receive harsher criticism for policies of less malicious intent than Republicans of more malicious intent.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, Bob, because, quite frankly put, it is impossible to convince those who are governed by irrational hatred that their hatreds are irrational. I merely am laying out the facts and letting you spin inanities.
For instance, on this thread, you try to argue that Democrats’ opposition to gay marriage is unimportant because it’s just a “specific issue”. However, elsewhere, you say this, when berating conservatives and Republicans for saying that opposition to gay marriage does not mean one is antigay:
Gay marriage is an important, forefront issue to the gay community. Republicans oppose it. How is it not anti-gay? Or is this some semantic issue for you? It’s not anti-gay but pro-family? Either way it’s both uninformed, biased and unfounded.
But when you are confronted with the fact that Democrats like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid and others oppose gay marriage, you argue that that is not antigay and that these people are neither uninformed, biased, or dealing in unfounded matters.
You claim that it’s not antigay for John Kerry and John Edwards to support state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. You claim that it’s not antigay for Democrats to vote for the FMA and MPA. You also claim that no Republican anywhere at any time has ever offered any support whatsoever to gays (“unequivocal lack of support”).
The contrast could not be starker. I called both Kerry and Bush antigay bigots for their opposition to gay marriage. You scream about how important gay marriage is and how anyone who opposes it is antigay — unless said person is a Democrat, in which case you claim they’re not only not antigay, they’re pro-gay and gay-supportive.
Same-Sex marriage may be the forefront of activists’ politics, but as far as my political priorities, I think defeating terrorists, minimizing the tax burden, providing me with an alternative to paying into a retirement scheme that will be bankrupt before I reach retirement age, protecting my second amendment rights, securing the borders, keeping government as limited as possible, and keeping social policy in the control of citizens instead of judges are all more important to me than the mostly symbolic issue of same-sex marriage. The Republicans are mediocre at best on most of these issues, but the Democrats suck on all of them.
For instance, on this thread, you try to argue that Democrats’ opposition to gay marriage is unimportant because it’s just a “specific issue”.
Where in the world do you get that? You keep bringing up Kerry time and time again like he isn’t a non-entity. He won’t run for President again because he wouldn’t even get through the primaries and I’d be surprised if he were re-elected as Senator and if he does he will doggedly become a shrill sidenote to history as the candidate who still would never shut up.
He didn’t become President but when did you elect him for the leader of the Democrats?
Democrats in general are much more inclinde to the idea of gay marriage, there’s not really much to debate about that is there?
You keep bringing up Kerry time and time again like he isn’t a non-entity. He won’t run for President again because he wouldn’t even get through the primaries and I’d be surprised if he were re-elected as Senator and if he does he will doggedly become a shrill sidenote to history as the candidate who still would never shut up.
However, as I keep pointing out, Kerry was saying the same thing in 2004 — and you and yours were still running around calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving him millions of dollars in time, support, and endorsements.
Where was your calling him a “non-entity” then, Bob? Or did you just turn on him when his checks started bouncing?
GayCow needs to remember that there was a looooong stretch of time where the “democrats” could have produced another (better) candidate, but they just sat back, settled for Kerry and said “He’ll do until Hillary runs”.
Indeed….the Dems even had no less than three candidates who supported gay marriage, Moseley-Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton.
You have to wonder why the gay leftists supported Kerry at all, since they insist that anyone who makes decisions on something other than someone’s stances on gay marriage is “self-loathing”. Surely the fact that Sharpton and Kucinich were moonbats of the highest order shouldn’t have stopped them.
NDT, Ummm. It’s great that the Democrats had three candidates for the primaries that supported gay marriage, which will probably be three more than the number of Republican candidates that will run for President in 2008. But they were considered mostly weak candidates that were too far to the left for even most Dems and libs. As it was, Kerry was a weak candidate. But he clearly had a better chance of beating Bush than the other three candidates.
Anyway, it sucks that we had to choose between Kerry and Bush. And if everything else was equal, we had to choose between who we thought was the lesser anti-gay candidate.