Gay Patriot Header Image

Calif. Gays Go Over The Top… Again

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:42 am - September 21, 2005.
Filed under: General

Yep, this is a great way to appeal to the 61% of Californians who voted against accepting gay marriage in the state in 2000: Equate Gov. Schwarzenegger, and those same voters indirectly, with the racist policies of the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace.

Commercial Compares Schwarzenegger to Wallace – CBS 5 (San Francisco)

Gay rights activists plan to air a television commercial this week that compares Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s forthcoming veto of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in California to the segregationist policies of former Alabama Gov. George Wallace.

Because Lord knows, when ever you oppose any political issue of the Secular Left, you are obviously a racist.

RELATED UPDATE: Chad at Cake Or Death points out that the gay rights groups in Massachusetts now have the LibDem Party all in a twist…..

State Speaker Sal DiMasi (D) “has no realistic choice other than to allow a vote of the legislators inasmuch as the Democratic support of homosexual marriage is destroying his Party in this state.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): On the day after his second blogiversary, BoifromTroy notes that a Reiner (AKA Meathead) Strategist is Behind the Attacks on the Governator. And he thinks Equality California may be becoming a “fringe-organization in California Politics instead of a useful means to advance gay and lesbian rights in the State.

Share

66 Comments

  1. And you think this way is working Chandler?

    Comment by Chad — September 22, 2005 @ 9:47 am - September 22, 2005

  2. #51
    Chad,
    Condidering the facts that:

    1] We are a hated minority by many.

    2] We are no longer illegal as a status crime.

    3] We are no longer bound by the hetero version of what it meand to be gay (mentally sick, lonely, empty, shameful, disgusting, worthless, promiscuous, and on and on and on .)

    4] And nobody, neither us nor them, is going away. Over time, more and more of them find us different than they expected and opinions change over time.

    5] We are exerting the pressure for change.

    As to your question: Do I think it is working?

    Working or not, it will happen. Eventually.

    Civil rights does not have a code, playbook or timetable.

    It is all about persistance.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 5:08 pm - September 22, 2005

  3. #49

    Funny how they ignore the liberal connections with Enron, Tyco, Halliburton, Carlyle Group etc.

    It goes right back to rule #1. If the liberals start pointing their fingers at Republicans, it’s best to focus your attention in the opposite direction. They have a knack for trying to divert attention from themselves when they get caught and the MSM dutifully obliges.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - September 22, 2005

  4. Chandler, you nailed it perfectly in No. 52 with this…

    “Working or not, it will happen. Eventually.
    Civil rights does not have a code, playbook or timetable.
    It is all about persistence.”

    It IS all about persistence and when the Gay Patriot-detested “activists”, “radicals”, “loons”, and “Lib commies” are someday enjoying the fruits of that persistence, they’ll thank us — nah, on second thought, they won’t. They’ll be giving the GOP credit for it, somehow.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 22, 2005 @ 9:01 pm - September 22, 2005

  5. QP Doll:),

    When the battle for civil rights is won, and we have the option to integrate or not, what will happen is that WE will change. We will move from activists to vigilants.

    They on the other hand shall retire to their Republican closets, and feel no more empowered as the engage in M2M sex. Because they have never been defined by their sexuality.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 24, 2005 @ 1:01 am - September 24, 2005

  6. I would put it this way, Chandler; it will never happen, because you’ve already demonstrated that you will support with millions of dollars banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    You see, Chandler, persistence would involve standing up to antigay bigots regardless of political stripe, and you simply aren’t capable of doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2005 @ 2:02 am - September 24, 2005

  7. There we go Thirty — you come right on out with it. You really do not believe we’ll win our basic rights, do you? You’re as wrong on that as you are (in another thread) when you declare homosexuality to be nothing more than a lifestyle choice — an “orientation”, to use your precise term for it.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 24, 2005 @ 8:25 am - September 24, 2005

  8. Oh, I believe we will. The question will be just how long it takes you and yours to realize that calling an antigay bigot pro-gay and gay-supportive because they’re a Democrat, or calling someone who is pro-gay and gay-supportive “despicable” because they’re a Republican, is counterproductive to the point. That really is the limiting factor in the advancement of gay rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2005 @ 1:38 pm - September 24, 2005

  9. Thirty, you’re quite delusional about who’s limiting gay rights. Your party holds complete power in DC, and gay rights hasn’t advanced one iota with them there. Yet, you persist in praising all they do. Make you a deal: I’ll give kudos to any Republican brave enough to support gay rights — all several dozen of them — if you’ll do the same for all those Democrat majorities who have brought us closer to our goal in 3-4 states so far. Name one state with partnership protection of any sort where the action was due to Republican legislative suppport. You can’t, of course, and probably won’t even try, or will you…

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 24, 2005 @ 11:32 pm - September 24, 2005

  10. Your party holds complete power in DC, and gay rights hasn’t advanced one iota with them there. Yet, you persist in praising all they do.

    I really think you need to reread my previous post — and this time, make sure you click through the links, especially the first one. People who do will find out that you have a very interesting definition of “praise all they do”.

    Name one state with partnership protection of any sort where the action was due to Republican legislative suppport. You can’t, of course, and probably won’t even try, or will you…

    Connecticut.

    Make you a deal: I’ll give kudos to any Republican brave enough to support gay rights — all several dozen of them — if you’ll do the same for all those Democrat majorities who have brought us closer to our goal in 3-4 states so far.

    Well, let’s see — you define anything a Democrat does as “supporting gay rights”, which includes the following:

    — Banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment, a la John Kerry

    — Supporting the FMA, a la Inez Tenenbaum and Robert Byrd

    — Supporting Federal laws stripping gays of rights, a la Bill Clinton

    Meanwhile, let’s see — you define anything a Republican does as being “against gay rights”, which includes the following:

    — Opposing the FMA and MPA, a la John McCain and Mark Foley

    — Supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships, a la Governors Schwarzenegger and Rell

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2005 @ 5:30 pm - September 25, 2005

  11. Thirty,

    You stand by Bush, don’t you? He’s the one who tried to condemn us to everlasting inequality via a Const. amendment. You’re awfully forgiving for a gay man (bi-sexual man, excuse me).

    And you were a little too fast with your “Connecticut” response there. Turns out the Republican “legislators” voted split in the Senate there, while those in the House were 2:1 AGAINST civil unions. Democrats meanwhile were overwhelmingly in favor in BOTH CHAMBERS and thus the bill carried — giving a gay-friendly LIBERAL Gov. Rell to sign it. But without the Democrat legislators, there would have never been a bill in the first place. If you can be so blatantly wrong on this, how wrong can you be on so many other gay and non-gay issues?

    You’re also so very wrong in how I define Democrats, and you are woefully weak in your examples of Republican support of civil unions, going so far as to cite Mark Foley as gay-friendly (he’s GAY, you numbskull, he better be friendly, though being a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if he eventually betrays us) and casting Arnold in CA as a champion when you surely have heard that he’s vetoing the recent Democrat-passed gay marriage bill there.

    Someone here put up all the votes on gay unions/marriage recently and it told a story that all your partisan bluster can’t hide: that Democrats have been the only party to push our issues, while Republicans stand against us. All your yammering can’t change or hide that. And if you can’t see it re: gay issues, how politically blind are you on other non-gay issues?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 12:37 pm - September 26, 2005

  12. Turns out the Republican “legislators” voted split in the Senate there, while those in the House were 2:1 AGAINST civil unions.

    Unfortunately, had those Republicans NOT voted for civil unions and instead had voted against them, the bill would never have passed. Therefore, Republican legislative support was what allowed the civil unions bill to pass.

    You see, Queer Patriot, you contradict yourself. Your last statement says unequivocally that Republicans always “stand against us”, meaning they would never vote for, support, or do anything that would favor gay rights. Then you quote statistics to prove your point that state unequivocally that Republicans HAVE voted for gay rights, and had they not, bills would have sunk.

    You’re also so very wrong in how I define Democrats, and you are woefully weak in your examples of Republican support of civil unions, going so far as to cite Mark Foley as gay-friendly (he’s GAY, you numbskull, he better be friendly, though being a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if he eventually betrays us) and casting Arnold in CA as a champion when you surely have heard that he’s vetoing the recent Democrat-passed gay marriage bill there.

    Thank you for making your hypocrisy so blatantly obvious, Queer Patriot. Despite the fact that Arnold fully supports California’s domestic partner legislation and the idea behind it, you call him antigay because he doesn’t support gay marriage; meanwhile, you and Mark Leno call John Kerry “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for doing even worse by proposing and supporting state constitutional amendments to permanently ban gay marriage and strip gays of rights.

    You stand by Bush, don’t you? He’s the one who tried to condemn us to everlasting inequality via a Const. amendment. You’re awfully forgiving for a gay man (bi-sexual man, excuse me).

    (shrug) I see no need to carry bitterness over a battle that I won. Furthermore, the same people who are telling me I need to hate Bush for trying to ban gay marriage and strip gays of rights are the ones who are telling me I should support Kerry for trying to ban gay marriage and strip gays of rights, calling his actions “pro-gay” and “gay supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2005 @ 1:39 pm - September 26, 2005

  13. I said: “Turns out the Republican “legislators” voted split in the Senate there, while those in the House were 2:1 AGAINST civil unions.”

    And you said: “Unfortunately, had those Republicans NOT voted for civil unions and instead had voted against them, the bill would never have passed. Therefore, Republican legislative support was what allowed the civil unions bill to pass.”

    Thank you for that. I’m still laughing… You’ll find 5 Republican votes out of 100 for something and credit the 5 Republicans with the victory.

    One would think a real bi-sexual would be at least a little more evenhanded.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 2:01 pm - September 28, 2005

  14. Thank you for that. I’m still laughing… You’ll find 5 Republican votes out of 100 for something and credit the 5 Republicans with the victory.

    If those five are what tipped the balance, you bet I will.

    Furthermore, according to your bigoted view, no Republicans would ever vote for anything gay-supportive.

    Then again, since your definition of “gay-supportive” includes banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights, you can’t even get THAT right.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - September 28, 2005

  15. Thirty: “Furthermore, according to your bigoted view, no Republicans would ever vote for anything gay-supportive.”

    Most don’t. But not according to you.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 29, 2005 @ 6:58 am - September 29, 2005

  16. Like I said…..do we use the Democratic definition of “gay supportive”, which includes banning gay marriage, stripping gays of rights, and even supporting the FMA, or do we use something else?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2005 @ 10:55 am - September 29, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.