Gay Patriot Header Image

The Gay Left: Holding Republicans to a Higher Standard

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:28 pm - October 1, 2005.
Filed under: California politics,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

In a recent post, BoiFromTroy pointed out, while it appears “gay marriage has become the new litmus test for our community,” that “test apparently applies only to Republicans.” As soon as our Republican Governor vetoed the same-sex marriage bill, a great variety of gay activists and “leaders” attacked him, using insults usually reserved for President Bush and Karl Rove. Assemblyman Mark Leno accused that good man of being “on the wrong side of history.” Other gay people have called him “evil” and “hate-filled.”

I don’t think these activists used such harsh language to describe Bill Clinton in 1996 when, in the dead of the night, that Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, the Humans Rights Campaign (HRC) refused to rescind the endorsement it had given Clinton before he signed that bill into law. And unlike California in 2005, the American people in 1996 had not yet voted on the issue.

Indeed, when he vetoed the same-sex marriage bill, the Governor noted the popular vote, saying that he does “not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.” Despite this veto, he has taken, as blogger Matt Szabo put it, five steps forward for gays.

In my mind, the most significant of these “five steps” is the Governor’s unequivocal statement that he “will oppose any effort to strip gays of rights and responsibilities afforded under California’s domestic partnership laws“. As social conservatives ready a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage and overturn the state’s domestic partnership program, the Governor has made clear where it stands. His opposition should ensure the defeat of this pernicious proposal.

In his post, Matt both notes the gay-friendly legislation that the Governor has signed, contrasting this Republican’s record on gay issues to that of Gray Davis, his Democratic predecessor. Even though Davis “vetoed just about every gay rights bill that reached his desk . . . , the gay establishment – for some reason – stuck with him.” Guess it was that (D) after his name.

Ever since HRC stuck with Bill Clinton after he signed DOMA, it has become clear that the “gay establishment” is more interested in that (D) than they are in a candidate’s stand on gay issues. While the Governor signed four (80%) of the gay-friendly bills that the legislature passed, gay activists focus only on the one that he vetoed. But, then again, they’re always looking on something to fault in Republicans.

It took guts for Ahnuld to sign those bills because, in doing so, he offended many social conservatives whose votes he will need on his reform agenda next month and for his reelection next fall. Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families found it “outrageous” that the Governor “signed other radical sexual agenda bills.” (It seems extremists on both sides are easily outraged.)

Not only is our Governor an energetic advocate of reform, he is also a courageous leader, risking alienating parts of his Republican base by signing pro-gay legislation. It’s unfortunate that the gay establishment holds him (as they hold all Republican) to a higher standard than that to which they hold Democrats.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

86 Comments

  1. Dan,

    1. Democrats probably get the ‘free pass’ because in politics, friendship goes a long way. Since the liberal oriented groups are in friendship with the Gov., hey see no need to be nice to him.

    A good example would be to look at how is defending Tom DeLay and who is not. Then see who thinks, policy wise, with him and who does not.

    2. Some see being granted certain rights (that they deserve and human beings) and they are happy. I myself am glad to see AB 1586 on that list (now if I could get used to the Pacific time zone). Some are never happy, no matter what they have. These people will do what is needed to get what they want and now, regardless the effectiveness of their tactics.

    For those who are thinking I am unfeeling, please remember this: While progress should never stop, but too much effort too quickly can lead to a lot of friction, which will result in lost work (once again the second law of thermodynamics).

    Comment by Wendy — October 2, 2005 @ 12:20 am - October 2, 2005

  2. You must live in a different reality, for while Clinton was loved for his progay stances on many issues, DADT and DOMA reviled him to many and they were not quiet about it. Such is politics.

    As for Arnold, now that he has such a dim memory of his trade-sex years, he is very pro anything that doesn’t use the word marriage in it. He uses Domestic Partnership. Some Republicans endorse Civil Unions that look like a marriage, give all the rights of marriage but aren’t MARRIAGE. God forbid they endorse GAY marriage. Republicans like changing things just by definition, the whole black is white thing. It is this kind of intellectual duplicity that affords many of them a good nights sleep. Kind of like Intellectual Design.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 2, 2005 @ 1:04 am - October 2, 2005

  3. Chandler, you neglect to address the HRC issue. That group refused to rescind its endorsement of Mr. Clinton after he signed DOMA.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 2, 2005 @ 1:19 am - October 2, 2005

  4. Jeez, Chumpler. Was lord BJ caught with Monica or with you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 2, 2005 @ 2:08 am - October 2, 2005

  5. Some Republicans endorse Civil Unions that look like a marriage, give all the rights of marriage but aren’t MARRIAGE. God forbid they endorse GAY marriage.

    Sorry, Chandler, but you and the rest of the gay left called attitudes even worse than that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:51 am - October 2, 2005

  6. Because right now anyone saing “Pro-Gay-Marriage” is on the death bed of their political career, but in the end, the Democrats have always stood by our side and supported us, while Republicans continue to spit on us(See: Refusing to invite the Log Cabin to several events, and See: Democratic support of Civil Unions).

    So no, on the face both are bad, but in reality, oh wait, neo con blog, reality doesn’t matter. Nevermind

    Comment by Joey — October 2, 2005 @ 3:24 am - October 2, 2005

  7. Some Republicans endorse Civil Unions that look like a marriage, give all the rights of marriage but aren’t MARRIAGE. God forbid they endorse GAY marriage.

    What the hell do you care what it’s called? For mine own part, I don’t care if they call it marriage or not as long as my partner and I can be joined and get the beni’s?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 2, 2005 @ 6:32 am - October 2, 2005

  8. I am getting really PISSED now!

    WTF is wrong with all you fags wanting the “Marriage” WORD? “Marriage is a word bound to religion, religion denounces gays — Let the Hetro’s have the WORD!
    GIVE me and my partner and our child the protections!

    IDIOTS! Do you really think that by having the word marriage you are going to all the sudden be “accepted” and “loved” by all the current Homophobes!

    All of you “GOTTA have the MARRIAGE WORD” people are gonna do is get MORE state constitutional ammendments passed that VOID ANY possible protections for gay families!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 9:01 am - October 2, 2005

  9. #7 — Before someone else says it, “Spearate But Equal Is Not Equal.” Typical leftist bumper-sticker reasoning. If you ask how it can still be unequal if it conveys an identical set of legal conveniences, they don’t have an answer for that. But, hey, since when do leftist slogans have to stand up to even cursory examination?

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2005 @ 9:31 am - October 2, 2005

  10. #8 — A bit inflammatory, but I agree with you on the main point. The marriage argument is much more about symbolism than substance; sticking it to the “Religious Right,” shocking the normals. Both sides play up the issue to rile the base, but at the end of the day, it’s really about a word and a handful of legal conveniences.

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2005 @ 9:57 am - October 2, 2005

  11. OT on #2, Chandler: it’s “Intelligent Design” not intellectual design. And you call yourself a writer? Oh wait, that’s for Hollywood… they’ve never been concerned about accuracy or getting it right… you’re a step closer to Ollie Stone, boy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 2, 2005 @ 10:13 am - October 2, 2005

  12. #10 Duly chastised V the K!

    I apologize for my rudeness! I had just woke up and hadn’t had my caffeine yet.
    My point could have been made in a much more diplomatic way!

    I point was what V the K said in #10!

    SORRY!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 10:18 am - October 2, 2005

  13. Because right now anyone saing “Pro-Gay-Marriage” is on the death bed of their political career, but in the end, the Democrats have always stood by our side and supported us, while Republicans continue to spit on us(See: Refusing to invite the Log Cabin to several events, and See: Democratic support of Civil Unions).

    And here’s what gay Democrats like Joey call “supporting us”:

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    We can also add in his support for a ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts, which would involve stripping gays of existing rights and converting their relationships into ones that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts called discriminatory and meant to keep gay couples in an inferior status, but Joey, Queer Patriot, Chandler, and the other Democratic apologists will just scream louder about how that’s not antigay, it’s not wrong, and how gays should be against gay marriage just like their Democratic “supporters”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 10:36 am - October 2, 2005

  14. I’m a NYC resident, who knows by watching politics here that the only requirement for “mainstream” (meaning Democratic) gay rights groups is the letter after your name. The gay establishment in NYC has given a pass to both of our Democratic senators, both of whom oppose gay marriage. They, just this weekend, have given a pass to the Democratic mayoral candidate who appeared with one of the most anti-gay political reverend in the city. They criticize politicians like William Weld and Mayor Mike for any stance they take that does not kowtow to the liberal establishment. At the last “gay rights” parade, Hillary Clinton (anti-gay marriage) received more cheers than Mike Bloomberg (pro-gay marriage). It’s sad to say, but the gay establisment is as ignorant of the policies of politicians as is the general population.

    Comment by Stephen — October 2, 2005 @ 10:38 am - October 2, 2005

  15. #12 — We’re cool.

    Comment by V the K — October 2, 2005 @ 10:39 am - October 2, 2005

  16. In No. 10, V The K, in his enthusiasm for covering for anti-gay-marriage Republicans, dismisses the need for marriage equality with this extraordinary comment: “The marriage argument is much more about SYMBOLISM than substance; sticking it to the “Religious Right,” shocking the normals. Both sides play up the issue to rile the base, but at the end of the day, it’s REALLY ABOUT A WORD and A HANDFUL OF LEGAL CONVENIENCES.”

    A “word” and “a handful of legal conveniences…” Amazing. Now, there’s a presumably gay man (and, from his past comments, one in a partnership with children) who doesn’t even know (or perhaps doesn’t want to know) that there are 1,049 Federal laws related to marriage that have been identified by the Government Accountability Office at…

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

    For those who can’t face the link because of their political loyalties, here’s a summary of the general categories of laws what V The K blithely dismisses as “a handful of legal conveniences”:

    Social Security Benefits
    Benefits From Related Programs
    Housing and Food Stamps
    Veterans’ Benefits
    Taxation
    Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
    Employment Benefits
    Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
    Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
    Crimes and Family Violence
    Loans, Guarantees, and Payments

    There are even more in the GAO report and those are JUST the Federal laws. Imagine the growth in the magnitude of the inequality when you start poring over State laws.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 10:45 am - October 2, 2005

  17. In regards to #9, V the K, my response would be that of the Massachusetts Supreme Court when they were asked to rule on the constitutionality of “separate but equal” as related to gay marriage versus civil unions; namely, our country’s already tried it, and it doesn’t work.

    Actually, the problem with the “bumper sticker slogan” you noted is not that it’s wrong; it’s just that gay leftists, as Chandler, Queer Patriot, Joey, and others here keep showing, keep changing the definition of “equal” to include Democrats opposing gay marriage and supporting the FMA, DOMA, DADT, and antigay state constitutional amendments.

    In my opinion, it’s not a question of whether or not the right to marriage exists; it’s whether or not exercising the right is the most responsible decision. Like it or not, the gay culture and expectations around commitment are fundamentally different than heterosexuals. As GPW has repeatedly stated, we as a community need to examine just what exactly it is that we want out of marriage and plan accordingly. That may involve, as I’ve blogged before, a a two-tier structure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 11:03 am - October 2, 2005

  18. Here we go again!!!
    Anytime any group weather it is gays or blacks sleep in the bed of only 1 party they we get hosed each and every election period.
    Democrats make speeches at black churches during the elections and march at our gay pride weeks. Plus Republicans make the rounds at large churches to push morals.
    But what has this action done!! We still don’t have gay marriage, gays in the military, or even universal civil unions.
    There was a Democrat in the WhiteHouse for 8 years that signed the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell & Defense of Marriage Act. So Democrats have done little when they have national power!
    In order for a Democrat to hold a national office they will dump gays rights in order to get elected.

    Comment by Andrew — October 2, 2005 @ 11:20 am - October 2, 2005

  19. Thirty, reading your proposal for a “two-tiered structure” to marriage (via your link to your website), I’m not surprised that you (an avowed bi-sexual who believes gayness is a matter of an easy choice, curable by reparative therapy) propose a system which is not only separate but unequal. You would confer all current marriage rights on heterosexual couples (without any qualification and in the face of the increasingly short-term nature of heterosexual marriage), but only some rights to certain levels of qualified homosexuals. Separate AND unequal. Moreover, your structure seems predicated on your religious values and belief that heterosexuality is somehow superior to homosexuality. Like most gay people, I don’t want my future being determined by either your personal religious values or your belief in heterosexual superiority.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 11:38 am - October 2, 2005

  20. A gentle reminder to No. 18 that, contrary to his partisan understanding of the history of the gay rights movement: 1) there would still be no gay rights movement if we had waited for the Republicans to join it; 2) regardless of how you view DADT, gays in the military was not even an issue until Democrats brought it up (and a Democratic President suffered for his support of us on the issue); and 3) that DOMA was forced on that same Democratic President largely by Republicans still fresh from their victories via the Contract On America. ALL of our gains to this point (including our few legislative wins on marriage and civil unions) have come BECAUSE of brave Democrats and IN SPITE OF Republicans still pandering to the religious right base. If No. 18 is so convinced of Republican supremacy on the gay rights issue, perhaps he’d like to provide just ONE piece of evidence of where Republican leadership has brought any good thing to gay people. Better yet, provide just ONE piece of evidence of where Republicans as a group have not OBSTRUCTED gay rights.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 11:50 am - October 2, 2005

  21. Thirty, reading your proposal for a “two-tiered structure” to marriage (via your link to your website), I’m not surprised that you (an avowed bi-sexual who believes gayness is a matter of an easy choice, curable by reparative therapy) propose a system which is not only separate but unequal. You would confer all current marriage rights on heterosexual couples (without any qualification and in the face of the increasingly short-term nature of heterosexual marriage), but only some rights to certain levels of qualified homosexuals. Separate AND unequal.

    LOL…… really? You might want to read that post, as well as the comments from the previous one I cited.

    Like most gay people, I don’t want my future being determined by either your personal religious values or your belief in heterosexual superiority.

    That’s a lie, Queer Patriot. You have ZERO problem with accepting second class status or having marriage rights forever denied you because of religion or “heterosexual superiority”, as long as the political affiliation of the person doing it is correct.

    First example:

    Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic candidate for president, said during an interview at The Post last week that he favors civil unions for gays but not marriage. “Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating,” he said, though he himself is in a second marriage, to a woman in a second marriage, that appears unconnected to such purpose.

    “That’s my belief, and some people may not like it,” the senator went on. “I’ve been willing to take my lumps on everything that I think enhances people’s rights and gives people equality, but I think there is something special about the institution of marriage — the oldest institution in the world.”

    Second:

    WE HAVEN’T EVEN gotten to Kerry’s varying explanations for why he opposes marriage equality for gays in the first place.

    He’s said at times that there’s no real difference between marriage and civil unions, a claim belied by Kerry’s own opposition to one and support for the other. At other times he’s pointed to the historical, cultural and religious history of marriage as an institution, a circular argument that was attempted by white supremacists who opposed interracial marriage more than three decades ago.

    At one point last year, Kerry justified marriage as intended for procreation, the same position taken by the Vatican. But Kerry, who is Catholic, attempted to have his own first marriage of 18 years annulled by the church even after it produced offspring. And his second marriage, to Teresa Heinz Kerry, is childless and will certainly stay that way.

    More recently, including in February on National Public Radio and in last week’s gay press interview, Kerry cited the institution of marriage as religious and “sacramental.”

    You and the rest of the gay left call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:12 pm - October 2, 2005

  22. Thirty, reading your proposal for a “two-tiered structure” to marriage (via your link to your website), I’m not surprised that you (an avowed bi-sexual who believes gayness is a matter of an easy choice, curable by reparative therapy) propose a system which is not only separate but unequal. You would confer all current marriage rights on heterosexual couples (without any qualification and in the face of the increasingly short-term nature of heterosexual marriage), but only some rights to certain levels of qualified homosexuals. Separate AND unequal.

    LOL…… really? You might want to read that post, as well as the comments from the previous one I cited.

    Like most gay people, I don’t want my future being determined by either your personal religious values or your belief in heterosexual superiority.

    That’s a lie, Queer Patriot. You have ZERO problem with accepting second class status or having marriage rights forever denied you because of religion or “heterosexual superiority”, as long as the political affiliation of the person doing it is correct.

    First example:

    Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic candidate for president, said during an interview at The Post last week that he favors civil unions for gays but not marriage. “Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating,” he said, though he himself is in a second marriage, to a woman in a second marriage, that appears unconnected to such purpose.

    “That’s my belief, and some people may not like it,” the senator went on. “I’ve been willing to take my lumps on everything that I think enhances people’s rights and gives people equality, but I think there is something special about the institution of marriage — the oldest institution in the world.”

    Or another:

    WE HAVEN’T EVEN gotten to Kerry’s varying explanations for why he opposes marriage equality for gays in the first place.

    He’s said at times that there’s no real difference between marriage and civil unions, a claim belied by Kerry’s own opposition to one and support for the other. At other times he’s pointed to the historical, cultural and religious history of marriage as an institution, a circular argument that was attempted by white supremacists who opposed interracial marriage more than three decades ago.

    At one point last year, Kerry justified marriage as intended for procreation, the same position taken by the Vatican. But Kerry, who is Catholic, attempted to have his own first marriage of 18 years annulled by the church even after it produced offspring. And his second marriage, to Teresa Heinz Kerry, is childless and will certainly stay that way.

    More recently, including in February on National Public Radio and in last week’s gay press interview, Kerry cited the institution of marriage as religious and “sacramental.”

    You and the rest of the gay left call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - October 2, 2005

  23. It’s so funny to hear gay republicans going after dems for not doing enough while their party is out there pushing constitutional bans against same-sex marriage, banning gay books, attacking us under the family values banner, etc. Any time a dem politician does anything for gay rights he is inevitably attacked by the right as someone destroying family values. Then you folks turn around and whine that the Dems aren’t strong enough allies for the gay community! After dems in Vermont and Massachusetts passed civil unions and upheld same-sex marriage the right went on the offensive and tried to oust them from office. Fortunately, those BLUE states upheld our rights. I’m sorry which Republicans have stood up for same sex marriage or civil unions? Would that be the Repub Gov of Maryland who vetoed two gay rights bill this year? Yes, Jodi Rell signed Connecticut’s Civil Unions after it was passed by the Democratics House and Senate. Yes, Arnold has done a lot in CA, but they are both notable because they are huge exceptions in the homophobic Republican party.

    Yes, Bill Clinton signed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but it was AFTER the Repubs shredded him for trying to allow gay soldiers to serve. BTW, there is a bill right now in the house to rescind DADT. Any guesses how many Demos support the measure? It’s 90. Guess how many Repubs. Five. So let me guess, you gay Repubs are just furious–at the other half of the Demo caucus. Never mind the entire Repub house. Which President appointed Special Counsel Scott Bloch who has tried to argue that Federal gay employees can be fired for being gay? Umm, that would be Bush. Which president supported the FMA? Again, that would be Bush. So before you go getting all huffy and puffy about how bad the Dems are on gay issues why don’t you spend some time cleaning your own homophobic party. I can only imagine where we would be without the Dems to hold the line against the Tom Coburns, the Rick Santorums, the Pat Buchanans, the Jesse Helms, etc.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:23 pm - October 2, 2005

  24. North Dallas Thirty says, You and the rest of the gay left call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    I call that better than anything the right has to offer. You forgot to mention that while Kerry opposes same-sex marriage he also supports ALL the rights and benefits of marriage, but called something else. Isn’t that why you guys were just arguing earlier that marriage is just a word and that it’s the rights that count. So I guess Kerry must be your guy unless W. has suddenly come out for all the rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Oh, look there’s a pig flying over my house.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:28 pm - October 2, 2005

  25. 3) that DOMA was forced on that same Democratic President largely by Republicans still fresh from their victories via the Contract On America.

    Of course — that’s why he proudly advertised the fact that he’d signed it on Christian radio stations, calling it “defending American values”.

    If No. 18 is so convinced of Republican supremacy on the gay rights issue, perhaps he’d like to provide just ONE piece of evidence of where Republican leadership has brought any good thing to gay people.

    Let’s see….Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell’s signature of their civil unions bill; California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature of numerous gay-rights bills and repudiation of a voter proposition designed to destroy California’s domestic partnership laws; John McCain and Mark Foley’s opposition to the FMA and MPA; near and dear to my heart, my friend Chuck Silcox’s and my professional colleague Don Carty’s support of Dallas and Fort Worth’s nondiscrimination ordinances….you get the idea.

    Of course, this is Queer Patriot, who calls John Kerry’s bans on gay marriage for religious reasons and his belief that heterosexuals are superior “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. It should be obvious to everyone by now that Queer Patriot’s concern with gay rights is as something to be traded away on orders from Democrats.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:28 pm - October 2, 2005

  26. I call that better than anything the right has to offer. You forgot to mention that while Kerry opposes same-sex marriage he also supports ALL the rights and benefits of marriage, but called something else. Isn’t that why you guys were just arguing earlier that marriage is just a word and that it’s the rights that count.

    I believe the gay leftist argument is that nothing less than full marriage constitutes equality — and oddly enough, I agree with it. However, I stand by that argument, as I outlined above, regardless of who is pushing it, while you, BuddhaKitty, redefine it to include bans on gay marriage and stripping gays of rights, depending on what’s the latest Democratic craze. Why not try sticking to a uniform definition?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:35 pm - October 2, 2005

  27. GPW says, Chandler, you neglect to address the HRC issue. That group refused to rescind its endorsement of Mr. Clinton after he signed DOMA.

    So what? I thought you denounced gay groups that were rigid and demanded everything at once. Sounds to me like HRC is behaving like you think they should.

    BTW, Mark P. your use of the word fag really, really makes you creepy.

    And V the K, I would love for the day to come when we can have a real discussion about the merits of separate but equal. Sadly, with this current crop of Repubs we are so far from separate but equal that it’s laughable. For the record, I am about as liberal as they come, but I don’t care if we call it Green Eggs and Ham. I accept that you can’t ask people to change too fast. Just give me the rights now and ten years down the road I think people will be able to see what is wrong with separate but equal.

    And Andrew, I think your comment about what have the Dems done for us is almost funny if it weren’t so sad. Pretty much every advance we have made has come with Demo backing and Repub opposition. No, the Dems haven’t done all we want, but it’s usually because there is a pack of Repub waiting to accuse them of being fag-lovers and family wreckers every time they stand up for us.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - October 2, 2005

  28. As for the rest BuddhaKitty, your arguments contradict themselves. You make much noise over “90 Democrats in the House”, but forget to mention…..there are 202 Democrats in the House. You can’t even get a majority of DEMOCRATS to support repealing DADT, even though you insist that all Democrats are pro-gay and that everything they do is gay-supportive.

    Maybe if you flung as much hate against them and called them antigay bigots like you do Republicans, you would get results.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:45 pm - October 2, 2005

  29. Let’s see, Rell and Arnie both signed bills brought to them by who? Oh, yeah, Democratic legislatures in blue states. They get some credit, but come on ND30 it’s a bit of a stretch, no, a lot to cite them as proof the Repubs are somehow better than Democrats! And two Repub senators opposing the FMA. Goodness! It’s just about a stampede. And, yes, there are republicans, usually in BLUE urban areas who are better on gay rights issues. But face it, the Republican party has been a avalanche of homophobia on to gay people. I understand there are a lot of reasons you might want to be a Republican, but it really is pretty pathetic to watch you twist yourself into such a pretzel shape trying to pretend the Repubs are somehow in the same universe as the Dems when it comes to gay rights.

    As for the gay “leftist” argument on marriage I’d say it’s actually a myriad of different viewpoints, but I can understand how it’s easier for you to pretend it’s all one thing. As for Kerry and the various Dem stands on gay marriage, you can attack me all you want. For myself, I understand the world is shades of grey and you have to work with the people who come closest to seeing the world my way. You can make phony charges that I support the “latest” democratic craze and support politicians who want to take my rights away. I can certainly live with a party that has John Kerry’s in it. It sure beats the party of Rick Santorum, Tom Coburn, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, etc, etc.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 12:53 pm - October 2, 2005

  30. No. 24, you’re a real piece of work who has been accurately captured already by several posts above (including one of my own, where I remind other readers of your claims to bi-sexuality, hatred of gayness generally, support for reparative therapy, and now, your proposal for a separate but unequal system of marriage laws for gay people). But, above all, you are so f’ing partisan that you dare mention two liberal Republicans signing legislation passed by Democratic majorities (and heavily opposed by Republican minorities) and pretend it was all the doing of Republicans; and you also manage to name 2 — yep, 2 — Republicans who opposed FMA in Congress without mentioning the hundreds of Democrats who did. One wonders why you bring up FMA so often, considering it only reminds us that this particular act of bigotry was conceived and proposed by YOUR beloved president and party and beaten back only because the Democratic Senators refused to go along with it.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 1:00 pm - October 2, 2005

  31. Go back and read my post again, ND30. I DID acknowledge that it is only half the Democrats currently supporting the repeal of DADT. So it’s something like 45% of Dems vs 3% of Repubs. I noticed you forgot to address that little fact. BTW, no where have I said anything like all Dems are pro-gay and gay-supportive. To the contrary, I’ve said again and again that the Dems are simply better on the issues. And I see you’ve trotted out the “flinging hate” argument. Let’s see, I oppose your ideas and put forth my arguments. Yeah, that’s flinging hate all right.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:01 pm - October 2, 2005

  32. Actually, what I find amusing, BuddhaKitty, is that you define “better” in terms of party affiliation. Therefore, John Kerry is “better” on gay rights even though he supports stripping gays of rights based on a characteristic with which he says they are born because of his personal religious and social beliefs, simply because he’s a Democrat. You claim that no gays should ever support Republicans because there are antigay Republicans, but then spin about “gray areas” when it comes to explaining why the same doesn’t apply to antigay Democrats. I think the gray is simply that you cannot acknowledge that banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights is wrong when a Democrat does it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:15 pm - October 2, 2005

  33. No. 24, you’re a real piece of work who has been accurately captured already by several posts above (including one of my own, where I remind other readers of your claims to bi-sexuality, hatred of gayness generally, support for reparative therapy, and now, your proposal for a separate but unequal system of marriage laws for gay people).

    And one who still continuously kicks your butt by pointing out how tongue-tied you and your fellow leftists get when it comes to facing what you called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    It’s not surprising that, when confronted with facts that expose how gay leftists like yourself have zero problem with stripping gays of rights based on personal religious beliefs and traditional views of marriage, you get all nasty and huffy.

    Meanwhile, as for “separate but unequal”, eat this (emphasis added):

    Absolutely. This is why I support the idea of covenant marriages, which focus primarily on that commitment, as the ultimate goal of marriage for gays AND straights, while allowing domestic partnerships with lesser benefits for those of both sexual orientations who are unable or unwilling to approach that level of commitment.

    “Capturing accurately” would mean you actually could repeat what I said, when it is quite obviously different.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:27 pm - October 2, 2005

  34. No, John Kerry isn’t “better” because he’s a Democrat. He’s better becuase his “stripping” me of all rights, ie. not calling civil unions marriage, also includes granting me all the rights and benefits of marriage. Whereas the Repbulicans who want to strip me of the word marriage because of their personal beliefs also want to strip me of every right that comes with the word. Big difference, no? The Dems are better because their party is much closer to Kerry’s pov than your party of Santorums, etc, which is and has pushed constitutional amendments that not only deny me use of the word marriage, but also strip away all domestic partner benefits. And the only reason I have said gay people shouldn’t support gay positive republicans is because their party is in the hands of anti-gay republicans who control the agenda. By supporting even gay positive republicans all I do is further the chance of even more homophobic legistlation being passed.

    BTW, I see you’re no longer mentioning my “flinging” hate. Nothing to substantiate that charge, huh? Oh, and I don’t see any mention of your double-checking my mention that only half the Dems currently support the roll-back of DADT (and that pesky 3% of Repubs that you still don’t comment on). Or anything about my saying all Dems are pro-gay. I’ve debated enough of your type to understand this modus operandi. You fling about charges, then when they’re refuted you pretend never to have made them. Yawn…

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:42 pm - October 2, 2005

  35. Nope, Buddhakitty, in #26, you don’t understand why I brought up the HRC. I bring it up to show, as the post’s title indicates, that the gay left holds Republicans to a higher standard than it holds Democrats. If they treated Ahnuld as they treated Bill, they would be singing hosannas to him. In his two years as Governor, Schwarzenegger has signed more gay-friendly bills than Clinton did in his eight as president. And Arnold has not yet been in office as long as Clinton had when he governed with a Democratic Congress.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 2, 2005 @ 2:16 pm - October 2, 2005

  36. BTW, I see you’re no longer mentioning my “flinging” hate. Nothing to substantiate that charge, huh? Oh, and I don’t see any mention of your double-checking my mention that only half the Dems currently support the roll-back of DADT (and that pesky 3% of Repubs that you still don’t comment on).

    I can only write so much so fast. 🙂

    If you’re referring to this:

    So let me guess, you gay Repubs are just furious–at the other half of the Demo caucus.

    Yep, you did. Obliquely, but you did. My apologies.

    As for “flinging hate”, BuddhaKitty, that means namecalling and mocking peoples’ religion. Go ahead and say you haven’t done either.

    He’s better becuase his “stripping” me of all rights, ie. not calling civil unions marriage, also includes granting me all the rights and benefits of marriage.

    Excuse me — doesn’t the Missouri state constitutional amendment that Kerry supported, as well as the Michigan, Oregon, Ohio, and others that Kerry supported and praised, ban civil unions and expressly deny gays these rights? Didn’t the national Democratic Party praise and support Kerry’s views on this? Didn’t Mark Leno and other prominent gay leftists say that Kerry’s positions were “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:17 pm - October 2, 2005

  37. ND30 says, “As for “flinging hate”, BuddhaKitty, that means namecalling and mocking peoples’ religion. Go ahead and say you haven’t done either.”

    I haven’t. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. If you’re uncertain, it was Mark P. flinging about the word fag and idiot.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:35 pm - October 2, 2005

  38. For all those who have poo-pooed the notion that gay marriage would be the first step on a slippery slope leading to legalized polygamy…

    First Trio “Married” in Holland

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2005 @ 5:08 pm - October 2, 2005

  39. Thirty in No. 32 literally begs for it with…“’Capturing accurately’ would mean you actually could repeat what I said, when it is quite obviously different.” Oh, how I do cherish such moments! And of course, I’ll oblige. And now, Ladies and Ladies…North Dallas Thirty in his own words (from QP’s Collection Of Thirty-isms):

    > Thirty on his own tenuous sexuality: “Having been attracted to both men and women at points in my life (and sometimes simultaneous points), I think I can honestly say that I prefer men.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 12:42 pm – September 24, 2005

    > Thirty on gay people in general: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith ‘ignorant, superstitious bigots’, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 1:15 am – September 21, 2005

    > Thirty on gayness as a choice: “One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay. One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 9:12 pm – September 22, 2005

    > Thirty on gayness as an excuse: “Saying that one is ‘born gay’ is of the same sentiment as ‘The devil made me do it’ and carries the same degree of accuracy.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 11:27 pm – September 22, 2005

    > Thirty on gayness as nothing more than an “orientation”: “You can to some degree exercise control over your sexual orientation.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 9:36 pm – September 23, 2005

    > Thirty on reparative therapy: “People on both sides of the debate need to realize that reparative therapy works for some people.”

    —-Comment by North Dallas Thirty @ 12:42 pm – September 24, 2005

    So there you have it. Gay life according to Thirty — a bi-sexual who clearly dislikes many gay people; feels being gay is nothing but a choice, an excuse, an orientation; and believes in the benefits of reparative therapy for gay people.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - October 2, 2005

  40. In No. 37, Frank steps out to join other so-called gay Patriots willing to reveal their opposition to gay marriage. Frank, come on out with it — you also think we’ll see cases of man and dog weddings, don’t you?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - October 2, 2005

  41. What exactly is your point, Frank? The same argument could be made that the slippery slope started when inter-racial marriages were allowed, or that courts decided women were not the property of their husbands, or allowing divorces. Why is same-sex marriage the “start” of the slippery slope? Marriage has never been a static “traditional” institution all about nurturing the nuclear family. It’s been a constantly changing insitution representing different things to different people. Why on earth a gay (I presume you’re gay) would propagate the argument that just because gay people want to be treated equally means we are to blame if others try to expand it as well is beyond me.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 6:17 pm - October 2, 2005

  42. Bruce, now that nothing Arnold can do will ever win him back the gays, I don’t think he’ll care to continue being the champion for gay rights as he has in the past. I’m really torn — I don’t know if I should blame Arnold, the looney liberal gays, or both.

    Comment by Hello Moto — October 2, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - October 2, 2005

  43. BTW, ND30, I noticed how you conveniently failed to note that in the same article where Kerry said he supported Missouri’s ban he also said he supported civil unions. So it would appear that either Kerry did not realize MO ban excluded DP benefits or that you are mistaken. I’m going to have to track down MO’s amendment to see. Either way, your point isn’t nearly as scathing as you would like since Kerry DOES support civil unions. I wish he didn’t support amendments like MO’s, but he’s still better than the folks you support.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 6:23 pm - October 2, 2005

  44. Sometimes it seems to be enough for politicians to “appear” do be doing something. They don’t care if it works. If they know they don’t and can’t get a majority then they get a free pass, all the benefit and none of the responsibility.

    Consider the bills to reinstitute the draft… presented by anti-war Democrats. Those who introduced those bills did not do it because they thought that a draft was a good idea. They did it for the political pay off.

    The Republicans do it… when they have an opportunity. It may be that I don’t notice as much when they do as when the Democrats do it. The Democrats are much more into representing “groups” than the Republicans are. So anything that can play well with a group gets extra attention. Quite frankly, I’m offended by the lock step required of women (as an example I can lay claim to) and it seems pretty similar to the group politics involving blacks and gays or other minorities, by the Democrats.

    No matter how many times the Democratic party tries to present itself as representing women and women’s issues, they simply don’t. They get a majority of the women’s vote but not hugely so. It would be pretty foolish to conclude that women who voted Republican were outliers in any way.

    Not that the claim isn’t made. We (who vote Republican) are somehow ignorant of our own interests or controlled by our husbands… *anything* but admit that intellegent and independant women might prefer the Republican party, either in general or specific candidates. This is insulting. This is condescending. There is nothing gender specific about ideas about the economy, defense, foreign policy, progress… but girls aren’t supposed to care about those things. They are only supposed to care about “women’s issues.”

    Ditto blacks and minority issues.

    Ditto gays and gay issues.

    So what do you do? Do you go with your feelings about the universal issues of government and what it should do and how it should do it, or do you stick with your specific group issues?

    The only way to claim that the Republicans are anti-woman is to define pro-woman as pro-choice, pro-welfare. The only way to claim that they are anti-black or minority is to define pro-black as pro-affirmative action. But what if you believe in limited government and think that each person should be treated as an individual? What if you think that abortion reveals a self-destructive attitude toward the value of human life and the future?

    Gays are a much smaller and far more persecuted group. It’s not hard for a women to flip the Democrats a virtual finger and go off to do her own thing. It’s getting easier for Blacks to do the same… IF they disagree with Democrats on the more universal isues. If not, then they ought to be Democrats, right? But not because they were born female or born a minority… what has that got to do with it?

    As persecuted as gays are and have been, I can understand the “Dems are OUR party” feeling. But what I *see* is a party of wealthy white men. Women and blacks are in the lower ranks, usually. Compared to the Republicans, the Democrats certainly get no bragging rights in the area of raising either group to prominence.

    It’s the dealing with people as groups thing that bugs me the most. I’m not my group, most certainly not when it comes to what I believe about government and it’s place.

    Comment by Synova — October 2, 2005 @ 6:39 pm - October 2, 2005

  45. Kewpie, Buttkitten –

    OK, then tell me what authority government has to prohibit polygamy.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2005 @ 6:40 pm - October 2, 2005

  46. Buttkitten? I only talk to grown-ups, and clearly you’re not one.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 6:47 pm - October 2, 2005

  47. #16

    Gays & Lesbians in Mass. HAVE the “Marriage” WORD!
    Correct me if I’m wrong but they STILL don’t have access to those 1049 federal benefits and protections!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 6:57 pm - October 2, 2005

  48. #46 And which party wants to enshrine a constitutional amendment making sure you never get them? At least gays and lesbians in Mass have all the marriage rights that the STATE provides.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 7:12 pm - October 2, 2005

  49. I’m not opposed to gay marriage. I just believe that it should be enacted through the legislatures and not by judicial fiat.

    Since judicial decisions are based on precedent, you have much more problems with the slippery-slope issue, than you would in legislative actions.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2005 @ 7:29 pm - October 2, 2005

  50. LOL…..and now, Queer Patriot, let us show everyone what you actually stated that my quotes said:

    Thirty, you’ve been so repeatedly discredited here as a self-avowed bi-sexual who hates other gay people that I’m surprised you keep showing up to peddle your odd collection of beliefs that: 1) gay people are evil; 2) being gay is an easy choice in life; and 3) being gay is something that can be cured by reparative therapy.

    Now I will post the thread where this began so that people can read and think for themselves — and see that you can’t even quote me honestly. 🙂 I’m surprised you didn’t do that yourself, because you certainly were able to find it earlier today, but I believe your point here was to spin your dishonest views, and the actual facts were inconvenient to that.

    Meanwhile, while your character assassination attempts are charmingly inept and futile, they still don’t hide the fact that you and your fellow gay leftists support banning gay marriage through state constitutional amendment, Federal law, and the FMA when Democrats do it, calling it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - October 2, 2005

  51. #47

    The SAME benefits that they would have in a “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership”! (IN thier STATE)

    Without inflaming the HOMOPHOBES in BOTH parties that way outnumber us and can screw us out of ALL benefits in the voting booth!

    And if you look back I apologized in post #12! I was using the “minority” rule. Women can call other women the B word. Blacks can call other blacks the N word. etc.

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 7:46 pm - October 2, 2005

  52. And which party wants to enshrine a constitutional amendment making sure you never get them? At least gays and lesbians in Mass have all the marriage rights that the STATE provides.

    But, since you call taking them away by state constitutional amendment because of someone’s religious views and beliefs about traditional marriage “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, they obviously don’t matter to you. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it clear that civil unions are for no other purpose than to maintain “an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 7:47 pm - October 2, 2005

  53. BTW, ND30, I noticed how you conveniently failed to note that in the same article where Kerry said he supported Missouri’s ban he also said he supported civil unions. So it would appear that either Kerry did not realize MO ban excluded DP benefits or that you are mistaken.

    LOL…..Kerry is a lawyer, BuddhaKitty.

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    You mean he “didn’t realize” what a law says, but he was still saying he supported it, would have voted for it, and that it was the same as the measure he supported in Massachusetts?

    Kerry knew damn well what that amendment said. However, he also knew that people like you, BuddhaKitty, would spin excuses for him and would continue to cover up the fact that Kerry and the Democratic Party that supports him believes gays should be denied rights because of religion and traditional definitions of marriage.

    Explain again — why do you support that when Democrats do it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 8:01 pm - October 2, 2005

  54. Look! My partner and I are getting older and we are starting to get the health problems that go along with that. My partner had high blood pressure, Asthma, and off the chart high triglycerides! (A walking heart attack)
    You people that WHAT the Marriage WORD can be indignant all you want. I feel that I am being a realist here! You push the masses too hard and too fast and they WILL push back and “we” will be the ones that lose! EVERYTHING!
    I don’t care about the WORD Marriage! I don’t want a church wedding! I just want to take care of my partner in the hospital and make his medical decisions if the need arises! And GOD forbid take care of the funeral arrangements for him. I want to make sure that our (his, legally) son will stay with ME if my partner should pass! I don’t want to worry that OUR property will be raided by HIS family after his passing. And I worry that later our son may dispute the will thinking he should have his fathers half instead of me!
    (AND ALL VISA VERSA for my partner!)
    I HAVE seen this happen first hand. It’s not pretty. No one should go through it!
    Like it or not, the polls show that the majority of Americans think that Gays & Lesbians SHOULD HAVE protections. BUT, also the majority DOESN’T think we should have MARRIAGE! They have the power WE don’t!
    By being all self righteous and demanding nothing less than Marriage you are going to screw my segment of the gay community that is willing to accept and start with Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 8:07 pm - October 2, 2005

  55. First off, MarkP, we should settle for nothing else.

    However, what you need to realize is that it’s not that people are pushing too hard for gay marriage. Indeed, as gay leftists like Queer Patriot and Mark Leno demonstrated last election cycle, they will support banning gay marriage, even without civil unions, as they and John Kerry did in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, etc., and they will also support banning gay marriage that already exists, as they did in Massachusetts.

    What needs to be done is that gay rights needs to be evaluated based on action and not on political support. The reason the American public is confused about gay rights and their importance is because gay leftists tell them that gay rights are not important when Democrats propose stripping them, but do the opposite when it’s Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 8:27 pm - October 2, 2005

  56. WOW!!

    I cry for you Mark. Let us know if we can help.

    Comment by monty — October 2, 2005 @ 8:30 pm - October 2, 2005

  57. #54 NDT

    I am 100% in agreement with your last paragraph!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 8:34 pm - October 2, 2005

  58. Look! My partner and I are getting older and we are starting to get the health problems that go along with that. My partner had high blood pressure, Asthma, and off the chart high triglycerides! (A walking heart attack)

    I’m sorry to hear that, but what precisely is your point in bringing it up?

    And has he tried changing his diet and getting more exercise?

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2005 @ 8:37 pm - October 2, 2005

  59. Sorry, my comment was stupid – I hadn’t read the whole post and I shot from the hip.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2005 @ 8:38 pm - October 2, 2005

  60. My point was to emphasize that “our” timeline is a lot shorter than a lot of yours. Not to elicit any sympathy. I’m sorry if I implied that!

    The point I was trying to make is that Civil Unions/Domestic partnerships are a good beginning with more mainstream support and less repercussions than Gay Marriage.
    And by accepting that compromise my partner and I have a chance of enjoying those protections BEFORE we REALLY need them.

    (And yes we have modified a lot of live style and his BP is down but the Triglycerides are still off the chart!)

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 8:46 pm - October 2, 2005

  61. See Frank?

    We all need to step back an get grip. I honor your concept. I so honor your retro reading of the previous post.

    This is what we “could do”.

    I Salute You!!

    Comment by monty — October 2, 2005 @ 8:47 pm - October 2, 2005

  62. And GOD forbid take care of the funeral arrangements for him.

    Been there, done that.

    I don’t want to worry that OUR property will be raided by HIS family after his passing.

    Been there, done that too.

    After my partner died, I learned some things about the limitations of the protections we had in place. For example, he had made me the beneficiary of his 401(k) plan, so I thought I could just roll the assets in his 401(k) into mine. It turns out that only a legally married spouse can do that — all other beneficiaries, including sons or daughters, must liquidate the account and pay the tax. The county coroner’s office wouldn’t release his effects to me, either. I had to bring a letter signed by his father before they would even tell me what they were holding.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — October 2, 2005 @ 9:29 pm - October 2, 2005

  63. I’m so sorry. The rest doesn’t seem to matter, does it?

    Love to you…etc…

    monty

    Comment by monty — October 2, 2005 @ 9:40 pm - October 2, 2005

  64. It gets complicated and ugly doesn’t it CG?

    My sincerest sympathies to you! Hope your doing well!

    Comment by MarkP — October 2, 2005 @ 9:51 pm - October 2, 2005

  65. Sorry to hear about you getting bit with that stuff, GC. I’m taking notes, because I -know- my mom and her partner haven’t thought that far…

    That 401K bit, is that federal or part of the 401K? I’ll have to check our state retirement systems here. Thank you for the info, even if it sucks how you found out.

    As to the effects, I’d think that proof of executorship would bypass that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 2, 2005 @ 10:15 pm - October 2, 2005

  66. test of blocked postings

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 2, 2005 @ 10:28 pm - October 2, 2005

  67. ND30 says, “The reason the American public is confused about gay rights and their importance is because gay leftists tell them that gay rights are not important when Democrats propose stripping them, but do the opposite when it’s Republicans.”

    Oh, ND, you are truly priceless. That is the funniest thing I’ve heard since Bush said, “Nice job, Brownie.” You can argue that gay leftists have to put up with Demo politicians sometimes doing things against their interest, but to say Americans oppose gay rights because of that is either intellectually dishonest or deluded. Americans oppose gay rights because religious fundamentalism still has a stronghold in this country. Or maybe I’ve mis-heard Rick Santorum, Jerry Fallwell, et al using Corinthians again and again to bludgeon us with. Or telling people we’re out to recruit and/or molest their children. Or that we’re all having sex with 1,000 people and are eating feces. I suppose somewhere out there on the web you could find some middle of the road American who says, Well, I would be for gay rights, but since gay leftists support Kerry, and Kerry said he supported Missouri’s constitutional amendment (with full civil union benefits) gay people must not really want those rights. I doubt you could find that person, but you might, and if you do then I’ll show you 10,000 people who chant “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

    Look, you clearly want/need to be a Republican and it troubles you that your party is incredibly homophobic, but do yourself a favor and stop making such patently absurd statements to make yourself feel better about who you lie down with. It truly is pathetic.

    Again, I support the Demos, flaws and all, because they do more for me than the Repubs ever have. Or will.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 2, 2005 @ 11:12 pm - October 2, 2005

  68. #20

    There’s a gay rights movement? I’ll be damned.
    They must be hiding in that “gay community” I keep hearing about.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 2, 2005 @ 11:55 pm - October 2, 2005

  69. Ah, but buddahkittty, when the Republicans do something for you it won’t be for what they get out of it for themselves. It won’t be a gesture. It won’t be a photo-op.

    I know it’s important to believe that Republicans are incredibly homophobic. I know that trying to explain that the definition of homophobic is fear or hatred of homosexuals is pointless. I know that explaining that Falwell or Robertson don’t speak for the party is pointless. I know that explaining that the majority of people believe that homosexuals should have protections in situations such as those sad events discussed above is pointless. Because “homophobe” has been made to mean “anyone who doesn’t agree with our political cause.”

    Republicans are bad at the “feel good” stuff. The leadership may know how to push some of the right buttons, they are in politics after all, but the rank and file worry about things like unintended consequences and funding. They don’t believe in the tooth fairy, even if they buy lottery tickets like everyone else. They look for problems and want them adressed before taking action. That’s the basic tenet of “conservatism.” They do not feel comfortable rushing ahead and would rather tread slowly, feeling that each footstep is solid. The feel-good noisemaking, “I feel your pain” empty photo-oping, who cares where the money is coming from social spending, I can make the world the way I want it if I believe hard enough rationalizing… it doesn’t *get* you anything real.

    I hear they’re putting social activists in charge of the committee supervising the rebuilding of New Orleans…. instead of engineers.

    And that is *exactly* the difference.

    Comment by Synova — October 3, 2005 @ 12:12 am - October 3, 2005

  70. #38

    Huh.
    Just when I thought you couldn’t be a bigger prick…

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 12:18 am - October 3, 2005

  71. #68

    Not to mention that kitty probably fears that if she doesn’t keep spinning the Republican…homophobe lie, Moron.org, Howard Dean, DU etc. will come and kick her until she’s dead.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 12:40 am - October 3, 2005

  72. Synova says, “Ah, but buddahkittty, when the Republicans do something for you it won’t be for what they get out of it for themselves. It won’t be a gesture. It won’t be a photo-op.”

    It also won’t be happening. At least not until a court orders it. Oh, wait, that’s judicial activisim. Or until a (Democratic) legislature passes same-sex marriage. Oh, wait, that’s the legislature going against the will of the people. Sorry, Synova, I won’t be holding my breath for the Repubs to be doing anything for me. Oh, there will be one or two speaking out against constitutional amendments, and I suppose ten or fifteen years from now most of the party will have joined the 21st century, but, gee thanks, I won’t be waiting around for them.

    But I forgot, you believe the Repubs are the party that doesn’t pander to “groups”. No, the Repubs pander to the religious right and the corporations who get invited in to write the legislation they want. That would be the Jack Abramoffs and his ilk, those fine upstanding citizens now under indictment. You’ve got to be kidding when you say the Repubs won’t do anything for me for what they get out of it. If they did anything for me it would be because I ponied up cold, hard cash like the oil and pharmaceutical corporations. What do you think all those campaign contributions are for? Because, golly! they just like those Tom Delays so much for their sunny personalities. And those crony appointments like Mr. Brown are because he knows so much about disaster relief. Yeah, the Repubs are so pure I can practically drink their urine. As for treading slowly and making sure each footstep is solid, I guess that explains FEMA’s response. Well, it was slow at any rate, but not exactly solid. And I guess that expains all that foot dragging on civil rights for blacks. Slow and steady! As for photo-oping, gee, I guess you missed all those photos of Georgie scotch-hopping all over the Gulf posing in front of Coast Guard choppers that could’ve been rescuing people or the firemen flown in from Atlanta just to tromp around with Georgie. Then the firemen got disgusted with being used as props and went home. BTW, your previous mentioned being opposed to abortion. Gosh, it must horrify you that abortions have gone up under Georgie’s administration.

    And I thought a child’s top spun a lot.

    Comment by buddhakitty — October 3, 2005 @ 1:03 am - October 3, 2005

  73. Nice spin job again, buddhakitty.

    Of course we all know that “Democrats” didn’t get a single dime from the oil and pharmaceutical companies, don’t we.

    I also liked your spin job that Bush has to be a homophobe because of people that he appoints. Who appointed Scott Evertz? That would have been Bush. Who appointed Donald A. Capoccia, Michael Guest, Mark Groombridge, Stephen Fong, Tod Burnett, etc.? Uhm..that also would have been Bush.

    Who was it that said the following:

    “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so. …

    “I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman.

    “Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others,” Bush told ABC’s Charlie Gibson in an interview broadcast Tuesday on “Good Morning America.”

    “So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you’re concerned, is wrong?” Gibson asked the president, to which Bush replied: “Right.”

    That also would have been Bush. Clearly homophobic and playing to the Religious Right, ain’t he?

    If that were the case, why is there a page on FamilyPolicy.net entitled:

    Is Bush advancing the homosexual agenda?
    http://www.familypolicy.net/features/bush-gays.php

    Sounds like a complete homophobe to me. Or how about this little article:

    Conservatives Sound Alarm on GOP ‘Unity’ Group

    A new GOP political alliance aimed at reaching out to homosexuals is gaining support from lawmakers and has the ear of President Bush — a fact that worries many pro-family groups.

    Yeah. Bush is clearly a homophobe and is clearly pandering to the “Religious Right”. Thanks for spinning, but save it for folks who actually will swallow your bilge.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 1:19 am - October 3, 2005

  74. BTW, buddhakitty,

    I keep asking and so far nobody has been able to tell me how exactly James Lee Witt was qualified to run FEMA. Sure lord BJ’s crony had four years experience in Arkansas after his buddy BJ apponted him, but does that qualify a person to be the FEMA head, especially with no degree in EM?

    Furthermore speaking of photo ops,

    Golly, I guess you missed the pics of Bush actually meeting with and actually talking to some of the people. I suppose it’s preferable to have Sen. Landrieu make TV appearances and threatening to punch the president rather than to be actually getting her nails dirty helping the people of her state. And how about Gov. “I really should have asked for the military sooner” Blanco showing a news crew how her beach house was damaged? Is that better?

    And while your damning DeLay, maybe you could explain to me why the liberals were demanding an Ethics Committee hearing, but when DeLay agreed to it, the subject was dropped. Maybe you’d like to explain Pelosi’s fine or the investigation of Harry Reid, since no other liberal dares broach the subject.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 1:31 am - October 3, 2005

  75. But of course we all know all Bush had to do was to run to a bank of microphones, bite his lower lip and tell us how he feels our pain.

    That is the funniest thing I’ve heard since Bush said, “Nice job, Brownie.”

    What? Should he have told Mayor Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin that instead?

    Know what’s funnier than that? The fact that Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) is on the panel investigating the Katrina response. You remember Jefferson, don’t you? He’s the representative who utilized NG troops to check on and move stuff out of his house while N.O. residents needed to be rescued.
    Pretty damn funny, eh?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 2:31 am - October 3, 2005

  76. “Know what’s funnier than that? The fact that Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) is on the panel investigating the Katrina response. You remember Jefferson, don’t you? He’s the representative who utilized NG troops to check on and move stuff out of his house while N.O. residents needed to be rescued.
    Pretty damn funny, eh?”

    Louisiana, it’s a third world country. 🙁

    I’ve said that about New Mexico (my new home) as a joke. I won’t do that again. It’s not funny when you see it for real.

    Comment by Synova — October 3, 2005 @ 3:12 am - October 3, 2005

  77. Louisiana is an excellent example of the failure of liberalism.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 3:20 am - October 3, 2005

  78. Is it liberalism?

    It reminds me of the Philippines, and not in a good way either. Um… oh, here’s an example. While I was there, there were charges of the national lottery being “fixed.” The politician who lead the crusade to get to the bottom of the corruption… surprise!… won the lottery, declared the lottery un-corrupt, and refused to give up the money. You could tell that the people wanted honest government but it wasn’t reformable because *everyone* was corrupt. If an honest person were elected they were expected by their family and everyone else to be “uncle” and it wasn’t exactly optional. (I hope that in the years since then they’ve made progress.)

    It was so freaking incomprehensible and frustrating I gave up interest in politics. It took 10 years to regain a sense of detachment.

    So I’m not making “oh they’re poor and brown” comparisons to the third world. And that upsets me. 🙁

    Comment by Synova — October 3, 2005 @ 3:43 am - October 3, 2005

  79. Funnier still is the fact that Mayor Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin invests in New Orelans by buying a house in Dallas, TX. Then, according to Wizbang, essentially tells some N.O. residents to piss off.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 7:01 am - October 3, 2005

  80. No. 61 (and sympathies to CG) gave you some very real examples of the inequities in Federal (and State) marriage law, but most of you Gay Patriots simply averted your eyes to that and went on about your all-yah-GOP-all-the-time. And you wonder why 80% of gay people consider you freaks.

    No. 69, you seem disturbed by the playback of little Thirty’s bigotry in his own words, right in front of all his friends. What worries you? That somebody might be keeping track of your own vile inanities?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 7:49 am - October 3, 2005

  81. So, basically, in #38, QP objects to ND30’s open-mindedness about self-determination and the ability of human beings to assert control over their nature if they choose to do so.

    Comment by V the K — October 3, 2005 @ 8:02 am - October 3, 2005

  82. And you wonder why 80% of gay people consider you freaks.

    Guess that “80%” loves being lied to.

    No. 69, you seem disturbed by the playback of little Thirty’s bigotry in his own words, right in front of all his friends. What worries you? That somebody might be keeping track of your own vile inanities?

    Nope. You’re just a lying, spinning prick. Nuff said.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 10:03 am - October 3, 2005

  83. “Louisiana is an excellent example of the failure of liberalism.”

    Still looking for that shining example of the success of neoconservatism — preferably a state without a divorce rate through the roof, a population comprised of more than potential Jerry Springer guests, and an incarceration rate lower than an third world country. And to keep it on-topic, a state that extends basic human rights to gays and lesbians.

    My nominee: Massachusetts, led by the conservative Mitt Romney.

    Comment by smallr — October 3, 2005 @ 10:17 am - October 3, 2005

  84. OK, first problem in your statement, BK (emphasis mine):

    Oh, ND, you are truly priceless. That is the funniest thing I’ve heard since Bush said, “Nice job, Brownie.” You can argue that gay leftists have to put up with Demo politicians sometimes doing things against their interest, but to say Americans oppose gay rights because of that is either intellectually dishonest or deluded.

    Now, I shall repeat my statement, this time with emphasis:

    The reason the American public is confused about gay rights and their importance is because gay leftists tell them that gay rights are not important when Democrats propose stripping them, but do the opposite when it’s Republicans.

    “Confused” does not automatically equal “oppose”.

    The issue here is, BuddhaKitty, that when Democrats take actions that are patently antigay and bigoted, i.e. state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, supporting the FMA, and supporting DOMA, you and the major gay rights organizations continue to call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    In short, you’ve told people that it isn’t antigay to vote in favor of and support taking rights away from gay people — indeed, you’ve called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 10:55 am - October 3, 2005

  85. #83

    Massachussettes is completely run by liberals as is Louisiana. Don’t let the Republican governor fool you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2005 @ 9:46 pm - October 3, 2005

  86. No. 82, you call QP a “spinning prick” with a certain hint of admiration; get your mind out of the gutter — you’ll not twirl on this one!

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 10:26 pm - October 3, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.