Calif. Gays Go Over The Top… Again
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.”
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
These people will single-handedly undo every single bit of progress that has been made.
Comment by Chad — September 21, 2005 @ 9:55 am - September 21, 2005
You’re right Bruce…its over the top and not productive. However, it is true. There were just better things to do than this.
Comment by Gregg — September 21, 2005 @ 10:04 am - September 21, 2005
I’m with Gregg here.
However much I understand that Arnold is no monster and just doesn’t want to waste his time on an issue the people rejected in 2000, and however dumb it is to insult California voters on TV, I must agree with the basic proposition that gay marriage is just, and hence, vetoing or denying it is on some level unjust.
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 10:11 am - September 21, 2005
P.S. It’s still worth noting that this in no way makes heroes of the CA Democrats for having passed it. Let me remind people that they passed it knowing (and expecting and indeed hoping) that Arnold would veto it. It is said in California that if there were any chance Ahnuld would have signed it, then they would not have gathered the votes among themselves to pass it. Let’s see them pass gay marriage in a serious way (i.e., really intending for it to be passed).
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 10:15 am - September 21, 2005
(So why did they pass it, then? Primarily as a partisan fund-raising technique! Inflame the gay donor base to give money to them – against Ahnuld.)
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 10:18 am - September 21, 2005
Yep, not one of those CA Dems who voted for it did it for the right reason–that it was just. Nope, just a bunch of money grubbing pols out there. Just like those nuts back in the 50’s and 60’s who worked for Civil Rights. If only someone had put them in their place. And the gay base certainly needs inflaming against Arnold. I mean besides them everyone else is certainly behind the Governor. Why his popularity right now must be what? 35%? 40%? Of course, Arnold is vetoing out of courageous principle. It’s not like he’s ever expressed support for same-sex marriage and is vetoing the bill only to cynically shore up his base and make sure they give him lots of money for his re-election.
Comment by buddhakitty — September 21, 2005 @ 10:40 am - September 21, 2005
Yea, Arnold’s just a hypocrite.
Oh yea, and he’s racist, too…hates black people, just like Bush.
This was all the Cheney’s fault.
Comment by njz — September 21, 2005 @ 10:46 am - September 21, 2005
And Halliburton, Bechtel and BUSH LIED!(tm).
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 10:55 am - September 21, 2005
#6 – Showing your ignorance of California politics. Ahnuld signed something like 4 gay rights bills last year. The far-right conservatives hate him as much as you seem to.
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 10:58 am - September 21, 2005
#9 cont –
Meaning that Ahnuld has no hope of getting money out of them, and he knows it.
Gee, it’s possible that he is vetoing the bill because he really thinks the people’s vote in 2000 should be respected – and because for the Legislature to override that vote (by legislative act, as opposed to putting it on the people’s ballot again) is actually illegal under the CA Constitution – dontcha think?
I just reminded myself why Bruce’s point is good. Ahnuld is no George Wallace. Given the CA Constitution, it would actually be wrong for Ahnuld to do anything except veto it.
Denial of gay marriage is unjust – and, under the CA Constitution, it is an injustice that can be remedied only by a voter ballot comparable to the one that imposed the injustice in 2000. Let’s see the Democrats in the CA Legislature vote to make that happen.
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 11:07 am - September 21, 2005
(The Legislature can put things on the ballot – they don’t only have to come from voter initiative drives.)
Comment by joe — September 21, 2005 @ 11:08 am - September 21, 2005
If Arnold’s popularity in the PRK is that low, he must be doing something right. But what I cannot understand is hw the state legislature could have such scorn for the people who voted them into office that they would try to pass this after the proposition passed in 52 out of 58 counties.
Amazing. If the legislators here did something like that, no matter how I felt about the issue, I would campaign to get them kicked out of office.
Comment by rightwingprof — September 21, 2005 @ 11:09 am - September 21, 2005
How lucky for the people of California having the right to vote on any issue in either direction as opposed to say, the abortion movement’s totalitarian judical restrictions which prevented none in America the right to vote on what is now supposed to be ‘law of the land.’ How is it possible that this was allowed to happen in America?
Comment by syn — September 21, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - September 21, 2005
So let’s see, Arnold is a saint, vetoing the bill only because its what the CA voters wanted, but all the Dems are cynically supporting it only because they know Arnold will veto it. And since the majority of CA’s supported the anti-marriage amendment this is going to stand them in great stead with the majority of voters how? (Latest polls show CA voters now split on the issue.) Look, Arnold isn’t bad as far as Republicans go. He had the chance to do something really great, but punted for political reasons. I understand that. BTW, #7, weak debating tactic to drag something in that I never said.
As for the legislature’s passing the bill being illegal I’m no expert on the CA constitution, but aren’t the legislators elected by the people? If the voters are unhappy, then they can toss them out. As for what’s unconstitutional we’ll just have to wait and see how the CA Supreme Court rules on Prop 22 just like Arnold said we should. Oh, wait, but then we’ll have activist judges meddling with the people’s will, won’t we?
Comment by buddhakitty — September 21, 2005 @ 12:15 pm - September 21, 2005
And since the majority of CA’s supported the anti-marriage amendment this is going to stand them in great stead with the majority of voters how?
Look up “gerrymandering” in the dictionary, BuddhaKitty, and you will quickly understand the concept of how an elected body can be absurdly unrepresentative of its constituency. There is a reason that the Assembly this year so vehemently tried to block anything that would take the power to draw district boundaries away from them — it’s called “self-preservation”.
As for those California Democrats and why they voted for it, look at where they were last year when John Kerry was opposing gay marriage and calling for state constitutional amendments to ban it and strip gays of rights — they were cheering for him and proclaiming his stance as “pro-gay” and “gay supportive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - September 21, 2005
#7 & #8
What? No mention of Karl Rove?
Let’s not forget Wallace was a Democrat.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 12:46 pm - September 21, 2005
Again, all ND30 has to say is “John Kerry.” John Kerry didn’t veto marriage equality. We’re not talking about John Kerry here, are we?
Comment by Gregg — September 21, 2005 @ 12:48 pm - September 21, 2005
One thing is for sure, the Gay rights activists producing this stuff don’t have the endorsement many people who suffered under the segregationist policies of George Wallace.
Quite the opposite. This kind of Gay rights/Civil rights comparison will go through the black church like the Terminator through a glittery 80’s Discothèque.
Didn’t Hollywood end the Wallace thing on a positive upbeat note? Maybe an old and feeble Arnold will preside over a gay marriage sometime in the not-so-distant future. When the issue has been approved by the people.
Comment by Evan — September 21, 2005 @ 12:53 pm - September 21, 2005
I have noticed from the Right an interesting trend lately. It’s to sneer whenever anyone compares the gay and lesbian struggle for civil rights to the struggles of black Americans.
It’s an intent to do two things. First of course, to invalidate and stop discussion on whatever issue is at hand, whether its gay marriage or gays in the military. I believe it’s other intent is to sow dissension by putting gays and lesbians at odds with black Americans.
While the struggle for gay Americans is very different from that experienced by black Americans, it’s also very different from the struggle of women to vote, own property, or get equal pay in the workplace. Or the struggle of Asian Americans to longer be considered just “coolies” but instead full citizens of this country.
Each of these struggles are different, but all of them spring from the injustice of prejudice, discrimination, inhumanity. The differences do not in any way make any of these movements invalid.
Arnold is no George Wallace, but there is still a grain of truth in ad.
When I hear this charge coming from the Right, I’m always reminded of the Left’s equivalent, which is to call everyone on the Right Nazi’s or Fascists.
Both charges have little, if any legitimacy. And when either is brought up, you can pretty much conclude that the discussion has descended into mere demagoguery.
It would be interesting to hear GP’s analysis of the various political ads run in the last election by the GOP sermonizing gay and lesbian Americans.
If I recall correctly, he criticized the images coming out of San Francisco showing gay marriages taking place. He neglected to mention that it could easily have been his own party’s political commercials he was watching at the time.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 21, 2005 @ 1:14 pm - September 21, 2005
“Sermonizing” in my previous post should be “Demonizing”. A Freudian slip on my part I guess.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 21, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - September 21, 2005
ND30: There is a reason that the Assembly this year so vehemently tried to block anything that would take the power to draw district boundaries away from them — it’s called “self-preservation”.
Hmm, just like that practiced by those in Texas. But I’m sure that didn’t trouble you in the least.
ND30: As for those California Democrats and why they voted for it, look at where they were last year when John Kerry was opposing gay marriage and calling for state constitutional amendments to ban it and strip gays of rights — they were cheering for him and proclaiming his stance as “pro-gay” and “gay supportive
AGAIN, the CA democrats understood what was going on. They knew that should Kerry come out for gay marriage–which he in all likelihood supports–Bush, et all would have bludgeoned him with it until the cows came home. I, and the CA Demos, are smart enough to understand who our friends are–and aren’t. It’s really not that difficult a concept.
EVAN: One thing is for sure, the Gay rights activists producing this stuff don’t have the endorsement many people who suffered under the segregationist policies of George Wallace.
Sadly, this is frustratingly true of the rank and file. The African American leadership, however, is much more progressive.
Comment by BuddhaKitty — September 21, 2005 @ 1:34 pm - September 21, 2005
For my take, see http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/. But calling Arnold a George Wallace is damn hypocritical and insensitive. He’s nothing of the sort, and this kind of mentality only serves to HURT us severely.
Comment by DSH — September 21, 2005 @ 1:58 pm - September 21, 2005
LMAO, I was just getting ready to send an Email to Bruce with a link on this topic, and Damned if he doesn’t already have it covered!
Get a JOB Bruce! LOL
These people are IDIOTS! (I’m being nice and not saying the words I really want to!)
Maybe we should all send them the book, “How to make friends and INFLUENCE enemies”
Dumbasses!
Comment by MarkP — September 21, 2005 @ 2:03 pm - September 21, 2005
Comparing Schwarzenegger to Wallace is wrong. We would’ve been better served if the point had been made a different way. Sadly, for Arnold however, he will be remembered as the man who vetoed the first gay marriage bill passed by a legislature. Thus ends CA history of being the first in the nation to be so progressive on these matters.
Comment by BuddhaKitty — September 21, 2005 @ 2:07 pm - September 21, 2005
Rightwingprof (#12)-
“But what I cannot understand is hw the state legislature could have such scorn for the people who voted them into office that they would try to pass this after the proposition passed in 52 out of 58 counties.”
It’s called Gerrymandering. And it’s on the ballot this fall.
Comment by Clint — September 21, 2005 @ 2:14 pm - September 21, 2005
Gryph – I think the comparison between black civil rights and gay civil rights is more than appropriate.
Not only was that movement so much more violent and emotionally driven for that time, they (the blacks) still managed to persuade people and change minds and affect positive change for their civil rights the proper way… through legislation.
It’s a lesson that has been lost on today’s gay leaders who opt to leave the general public out of the decision making process and seek to further alienate our community by pulling shit like this….
Comment by Chad — September 21, 2005 @ 3:43 pm - September 21, 2005
I’m curious, Patty, if you could provide some examples. The only instance that I’ve seen was a bit in the news a while back where the Civil Rights folks were pissed because Gay Rights activists were comparing their struggle to the struggle back in the 50’s & 60’s etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - September 21, 2005
#21 The African American “leadership” has done nothing over the decades to counter what has always been extreme anti-Gay sentiment in the Black community. This is such an obvious case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. And that’s not such a progressive stance.
#19 What paraniod BS. Nowhere have I heard or read any white conservatives attempting to exploit the divide between blacks and gays – unless it’s pointing out what blacks have said first. The black communities views on gays is well documented and, if anything, conservatives have ignored the obvious rift.
Gays should be at odds with the black leadership. The black community is increasingly at odds with gays (and Jews and unsalted crackers) and the black leadership shrugs.
Comment by Evan — September 21, 2005 @ 3:57 pm - September 21, 2005
Check out the Gays: “Call Us Mental, But Let Us Get Married” post here:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/
Comment by Bill — September 21, 2005 @ 4:17 pm - September 21, 2005
BuddhaKitty (#21)-
I can’t speak for NDT, but I am sure you’re right that most gay-rights groups that supported Kerry did so in exactly the beliefs that you state: that he really supports gay marriage, but couldn’t say so during the campaign.
The problem is, it turns out they were completely wrong. He’s done running for President. The highest job he’s ever likely to get is a senior role in the Senate, based on seniority someday. And his electorate in Massachusetts strongly supports same-sex marriage. He doesn’t. He has taken strong positions urging the passage of a state constitutional amendment outlawing the same-sex marriages that are already legal there. Even the Republican leader in the State Senate didn’t vote for this amendment (this time around), when the amendment was defeated 157-39. John Kerry is disagreeing with his electorate to take this unpopular position. It’s difficult to imagine that he doesn’t really believe in it.
Comment by Clint — September 21, 2005 @ 4:50 pm - September 21, 2005
#8
jOE, Bush has never lied because he was never put under oath.
and you left out Carlyle Group.
H@@
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 4:58 pm - September 21, 2005
AGAIN, the CA democrats understood what was going on. They knew that should Kerry come out for gay marriage–which he in all likelihood supports–Bush, et all would have bludgeoned him with it until the cows came home. I, and the CA Demos, are smart enough to understand who our friends are–and aren’t. It’s really not that difficult a concept.
Why would coming out in favor of gay marriage hurt Kerry if, as gay activists claim, the majority of Americans support gay marriage? How can you be “bludgeoned”, aka harmed politically, if you support an issue that the majority of people support, as the California Democrats claim?
Gay leftists spent all last year claiming that banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights was “pro-gay” and “gay supportive”. You have to wonder why they’ve suddenly changed their tune on the issue.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 5:01 pm - September 21, 2005
John Kerry is disagreeing with his electorate to take this unpopular position. It’s difficult to imagine that he doesn’t really believe in it.
It is only difficult, Clint, when one realizes that gay leftists spent literally tens of millions of dollars on the Kerry campaign. It’s very similar to what happened with Clinton and DADT/DOMA; namely, it’s always much easier to rationalize than to realize and accept that you pissed away enormous sums of money on a gaybasher.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 5:29 pm - September 21, 2005
Hello! GayPatriot’s talking about the Governor of California — not the Senator from Massachusetts. Could we stay on topic here? Especially you, North Dallas Kerry, who in my brief time here, have tried to take EVERY post and turn it into a bash of the MA. Senator.
Now, about the Governor of California, I think we can all agree with BuddhaKitty, who has summed up the situation nicely (and factually) with this one sentence: “Sadly, for Arnold however, he will be remembered as the man who vetoed the first gay marriage bill passed by a legislature.”
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 5:54 pm - September 21, 2005
#1
Chad, is there one advancement for gay rights that has been Republican initiated and sponsored? Whose progress are you bringing into question?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - September 21, 2005
Chandler…. I could care less who initiates what. I’d be just fine if Democrats initiated sweeping civil rights legislation for gays. I’d even give you credit for it got passed (yeah… you personally.)
But it wouldn’t. The majority of the public wouldn’t go for it. And the reason for that is because we’ve forced this stuff through the courts.
I mean… c’mon! The Mass Dem party is having issues with the gay marriage ruling now??
I should’ve put “progress” in quotes, because as it stands now, the marriage rulings, any civil union stuff… I feel it’s all temporary. It’s only a matter of time before more states put anti-marriage bans on their constitutions for fear of judges forcing the issue through.
Instead of changing people’s minds and negative perceptions of homosexuality, we’re pretending they don’t matter and totally bypassing them. Well it’s hard to bypass a majority and not have them notice.
We’re going about this the wrong way.
Comment by Chad — September 21, 2005 @ 7:27 pm - September 21, 2005
Hello! GayPatriot’s talking about the Governor of California — not the Senator from Massachusetts. Could we stay on topic here? Especially you, North Dallas Kerry, who in my brief time here, have tried to take EVERY post and turn it into a bash of the MA. Senator.
That would be because the same groups that are comparing Schwarzenegger to George Wallace because he intends to veto a bill allowing gay marriage (that defies a clearly-written statute passed by voter referendum) are the same ones that were calling John Kerry “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for supporting amendments that strip gays of EXISTING rights and further ban gay marriage.
I daresay that – nay, I KNOW — that if a Republican candidate were to stand up and support state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights and banning gay marriage, Gregg, Queer Patriot, et al. would blow blood vessels with screaming about how evil this was, how this person was an antigay bigot, etc. However, let a Dem do it, and they a) try to change the subject, b) try to minimize (“Well, he didn’t VETO it”), and c) make insults.
As I’ve pointed out, California Democrats supported banning gay marriage when John Kerry did. For them to flip-flop now indicates that their only interest is in political gamesmanship and pandering.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 9:15 pm - September 21, 2005
Thirty writes: “I daresay that – nay, I KNOW — that if a Republican candidate were to stand up and support state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights and banning gay marriage, Gregg, Queer Patriot, et al. would blow blood vessels with screaming about how evil this was, how this person was an antigay bigot, etc.”
My god, Thirty, well done. You just described George Bush in 2004, with his attempt to strip gays of rights and ban gay marriage, only it was the U.S. Constitution he wanted to amend — and yes, we on this side were quite outraged. Why? Weren’t you?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 9:43 pm - September 21, 2005
All you say is true, however it is also true that for the most part, gays and blacks and jews still tend to vote in the same block. And not for the GOP.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 21, 2005 @ 9:49 pm - September 21, 2005
Chandler…. I could care less who initiates what.
Comment by Chad
==================
Chad,
I am so glad because I couldn’t.
Carry on.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 10:14 pm - September 21, 2005
#38
I, for one, knew it wasn’t going to happen and that there was no need to get hysterical like some raving queens.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 10:20 pm - September 21, 2005
No. 41, now you’re thinking. But take it a bit further…what made you so confident it (Bush’s Anti-Gay Amendment) “wasn’t going to happen”?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 10:31 pm - September 21, 2005
Come on, No. 41. You’re in the middle of formulating a thought — now’s no time to flee-flee, run away.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 21, 2005 @ 10:35 pm - September 21, 2005
#8
A fun bit o’ reading:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40525
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 10:47 pm - September 21, 2005
#43
I wasn’t in the middle of anything. That’s my statement. There was nothing to go ape over. And no, the bloviating, hysterical queens didn’t stop it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 11:52 pm - September 21, 2005
Chandler… address the point. I’m not arguing which party the gays are in the pockets of.
My concern is over how the current push for progress is being handled. You can say that the courts OKing gay marriage in Mass is a victory for us, but how big is that victory when 11 other states then amend their constitutions to prevent it? Do you think they were just bored and had nothing better to put on the ballot? They did it to prevent their courts from doing the same thing.
Go back to 9th grade civics. You can learn all sorts of crazy things like how laws get made. I also think School House Rock covered it once or twice.
Comment by Chad — September 22, 2005 @ 12:16 am - September 22, 2005
My god, Thirty, well done. You just described George Bush in 2004, with his attempt to strip gays of rights and ban gay marriage, only it was the U.S. Constitution he wanted to amend — and yes, we on this side were quite outraged. Why? Weren’t you?
What do you think?
But of course, when it came to stripping gays of rights and banning gay marriage via state constitutional amendment, you weren’t outraged — indeed, you were CHEERING it as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Moreover, you were paying millions of dollars to said candidate for the privilege of promoting him and his views that gay marriage was “wrong” and should be banned.
You see, Queer Patriot, I get outraged regardless of who’s doing the gaybashing. Why do you promote and support gaybashing as long as it comes from the correct political party?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2005 @ 12:37 am - September 22, 2005
#46
Chad, go to the nearest law library and research the divorce precedents of the early 20th century. Then look up miscegenation precedents.
Lots and lots of ways to get to the same place.
And thank you for the civics lesson referral.
It made me chuckle.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 2:07 am - September 22, 2005
#31 – Oh, right, the Carlyle Group – that one George Soros and the Clintons actually have more to do with than the Bushes. (But MM always leaves that part out…..wouldn’t want to piss off his friends’ other sugar daddies)
Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 7:09 am - September 22, 2005
How many republicans in the Calf Assembly voted for the gay marriage bill?
Comment by LastThroes — September 22, 2005 @ 9:47 am - September 22, 2005
And you think this way is working Chandler?
Comment by Chad — September 22, 2005 @ 9:47 am - September 22, 2005
#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
#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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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