Gay Patriot Header Image

US Gay “Rights” Leader Denounces Democracy As ‘Immoral’

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:23 am - November 14, 2005.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Liberals

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and self-described socialist, is now in the hunt to replace Howard Dean as the Fortune 500 Left Wing Loon of the Year.

“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.” (Hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow)

So let’s see….. when you lose an election because you haven’t changed people’s opinion… they are the ones who are immoral. When you subvert the democratic process and storm into the court system to force feed gay marriage without reaching out to mainstream America…. they are the ones who are immoral.

Perhaps it is time for Mr. Foreman to move to a country he is more comfortable with? One where they embrace socialism, border on anti-capitalism, border on anti-Christian, and have fully embraced their “minority” population….

So now I would like to demand that Matt’s comrades-in-gay-marriage, Patrick Guerriero (Log Cabin Republican president) and Joe Solomonese (head of the Human Rights Campaign), to publicly state whether or not they believe American democracy is “immoral.”

If they do not, they need to publicly condemn Mr. Foreman’s words and demand an apology.

Mr. Foreman does not speak for me or millions of other gay Americans who love this country, revel in the freedoms we do have, celebrate capitalism, celebrate religious freedom, and look forward to the day that gays are more accepted in our society as they are more and more each day. I value my rights as an American, even if you do not, Mr. Foreman. If France isn’t to your liking…. what about Iran? Sometimes you value the things you take for granted the most when you don’t have them anymore.

In any case….Mr. Foreman — Do Not Speak In My Name.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

40 Comments

  1. What an asshat.

    Comment by glisteny — November 14, 2005 @ 9:05 am - November 14, 2005

  2. Well said, Bruce.

    Comment by josh davenport — November 14, 2005 @ 10:40 am - November 14, 2005

  3. Do you have a lot of “whites only” restaurants where you’ve now moved to? That was a decision stormed into the court system, no?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 14, 2005 @ 11:08 am - November 14, 2005

  4. #3
    Actually, NO.

    If liberals still had their way, we would still have them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 14, 2005 @ 11:12 am - November 14, 2005

  5. #4 – And how do you justify that kind of logic?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 14, 2005 @ 11:21 am - November 14, 2005

  6. Those aspects of the Civil Rights movement that were enacted legislatively … such as the Voting Rights Act… are respected by majorities of the public. What the courts have imposed … quotas, racial preferences, busing… remain widely and rightly resented.

    Comment by V the K — November 14, 2005 @ 11:26 am - November 14, 2005

  7. So you’re saying, for example, that something like Brown v. Board of Education is “widely and rightly resented?” I don’t believe it was “enacted legislatively.”

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 14, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - November 14, 2005

  8. gaycowboybob…. why do you even try to argue? These people worship Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and FOXNews. Just come here just for the comic relief….. you know, like blaming democrats and the “liberal” media for the incompetency of this administration and why approval ratings are below 40%….. Seriously, your blog calls them what they are…. don’t try to argue with morons, you’ll just get quotes from “the gipper” and moral lectures about blowjobs….. and we all know that people who complain about blowjobs are the ones that have a hard time getting them…..

    Comment by oops! — November 14, 2005 @ 12:49 pm - November 14, 2005

  9. Who needs courts anyway? /sarcasm

    Seriously though, why do the conservatives decry the courts and want to neuter that whole branch? Then they run to the same courts when they want one of their lawsuits heard and enforced by the judiciary.

    Comment by Jon — November 14, 2005 @ 1:25 pm - November 14, 2005

  10. If only (for your benefit) there were truth to your claim conservatives “want to neuter that whole branch”.

    Then your comment might have been interesting in some way.

    Comment by Calarato — November 14, 2005 @ 1:34 pm - November 14, 2005

  11. #9 — Um, maybe because the courts are the legal mechanisms within society that exist for the purpose of hearing lawsuits.

    Comment by V the K — November 14, 2005 @ 1:51 pm - November 14, 2005

  12. Interesting how liberals hate federalism when it suits their purposes, but suddenly love it — when it suits their purposes. So the “will of the people” is all important when trying to prevent honest constructionists from being appointed to the court, but when it doesn’t push their agenda, it’s … what did this leftist call it again? Immoral?

    Of course, the really ludicrous thing is that a liberal would mention morality at all.

    Comment by rightwingprof — November 14, 2005 @ 1:53 pm - November 14, 2005

  13. 1) How come when courts / judges rule “In Favor” or a republican – they are doing thier job…? But, when courts “Rule” on something that the Repugs and Religious Reich don’t like they are “Activist”???

    2) Mr. Foreman does not speak for me or millions of other gay Americans who love this country, revel in the freedoms we do have, celebrate capitalism, celebrate religious freedom, and look forward to the day that gays are more accepted in our society as they are more and more each day. I value my rights as an American, even if you do not, Mr. Foreman. If France isn’t to your liking…. what about Iran? Sometimes you value the things you take for granted the most when you don’t have them anymore.

    ..EXCUSE ME — THE FREEDOMS WE DO HAVE? BVECAUSE OUR GOV’T DOESN’T KILL US FOR BEING GAY – WE SHOULD BE SATISFIED – RIGHT? I DO NOT GET YOU “GAY-PATRIOTS” AT ALL….NO ONE I-OTA! SEEMS YOU’RE HAPPY WITH THE SCRAPS THROWN AT YOU…..WELL, I FOR ONE AM NOT…..I DO NOT WANT TO MARRY ANYONE – BUT I WILL FIGHT TIL MY DYING BREATH TO ACHIEVE THAT RIGHT – FOR THE YOUNG GAYS GROWING UP AND THOSER NOT BORN YET! SO THAT ONE DAY – GAY PEOPLE CAN GROW UP – KNOWING THAT THEY TOO – CAN MEET SOMEONE – COMMIT TO THEM – AND EVENTUALLY MARRY IF THEY WANT TOO! LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL IN HYPOCRITICAL AMERICA!

    Comment by JRC — November 14, 2005 @ 2:35 pm - November 14, 2005

  14. …. but when San Francisco exercises their rights in a democracy of voting to oulaw handguns and to keep the military sales teams out of their schools, you all go on about how they deserve a terrorist attack…. I love how your democracy works…..

    Comment by Freedom Fries are French Fries — November 14, 2005 @ 2:57 pm - November 14, 2005

  15. #8

    Wow. Talk about comic relief.

    Speaking of which, when does the countdown start for when the liberals finally figure out what the hell they stand for?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 14, 2005 @ 3:01 pm - November 14, 2005

  16. Is it me or are the libtards like Oops, JRC and Freedom Fries really going off the deep end?

    LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL IN HYPOCRITICAL AMERICA!

    Is that the new liberal douchebag cheer?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 14, 2005 @ 3:05 pm - November 14, 2005

  17. Is it me or are the libtards like Oops, JRC and Freedom Fries really going off the deep end?

    IT’s You – plain and simple! Shame to be so cold hearted towards tyour fellow Gay Americans….keep being the republican lap dog that you are…..I aint saying the dems are much better….but at leat they don’t allign themselves with Religious Nutz who try rule of American Laws via thier Bible. I’d rather be a Liberal anyday…..hmm, wasn’t Jesus a Liberal?

    Comment by JRC — November 14, 2005 @ 3:10 pm - November 14, 2005

  18. #12 — Actually, I’m quite at a loss for examples of conservatives filing lawsuits in order to advance their social policies. Conservatives have tended to pursue change through elections and legislation.

    #13 — DON’T Y’ALL JUST LOVE UNHINGED RANTS IN ALLCAPS!!!!!!!

    Comment by V the K — November 14, 2005 @ 3:15 pm - November 14, 2005

  19. Gay-Rights Groups Waking From Slumber?

    I was heartened to read this in Saturday’s WaPo:As U.S. gays and lesbians prepare to battle a raft of state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that will likely be on the ballot next fall, activists are recasting the issue as one that…

    Trackback by The Malcontent — November 14, 2005 @ 3:35 pm - November 14, 2005

  20. First off, sorry all….I’ve been flying most of the day and am just now getting back to a ‘Net connection.

    Now, to the issue at hand:

    Do you have a lot of “whites only” restaurants where you’ve now moved to? That was a decision stormed into the court system, no?

    Congratulations, Bob; an excellent attempt to spin the discussion away from the fact that you and your fellow liberals consider elections to be “immoral”.

    That is primarily because you can’t win them.

    If you look at the Constitution, at the Federalist Papers, throughout it the message is clear — the word of the voters is the absolute authority. However, because of voter apathy over the past few years, the gay left has developed the unusual premise that, because voters didn’t previously speak, they lack the power to do so.

    As a result, you and yours got arrogant. You started calling people “ignorant” and “superstitious” because of their religion. You started stereotyping people based on their political party. Finally, you practiced blatant hypocrisy in calling antigay Federal and state legislation “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because you were ordered to by Democrats. Then you found liberal judges who were using laws that are foreign (literally) to the Constitution of the United States to override the voters.

    Now, all of a sudden, the voters have realized two things — one, that you and yours are arrogant asses, and two, that they do indeed have the power to shut you up — permanently. Via state constitutional and Federal constitutional amendment, they will deprive the judiciary, if they haven’t already, of its ability to overreach.

    Not one of these states has put in its amendment against gay rights without consulting the voters. That is the natural check built into our system. However, you and yours are terrified of the voters, as well you should be, because they will hold you accountable for your hatemongering and bigotry. Arguing that an election is “immoral” is the argument of a sad, pathetic person who keeps spitting out hate speech against people and then wondering why they won’t vote in his favor.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - November 14, 2005

  21. Why is it the job of Solomonese and Guierriero to comment on Foreman’s statements? They are in different groups. NGLTF has always been the most liberal and outspoken of any of the major gay rights organizations. This type of remark is typical of them. You say that you don’t want Foreman to “speak in your name”, and yet by wanting Guierriero and Solomonese to comment on these remarks and demand an apology, aren’t you implying that he WAS speaking in our name? How would you react if someone demanded that Guerrierro demand an apology from the gays who voted for President Bush, since LCR did not endorse him last year? Gays can and should have minds of their own. I thought that was the whole point of this site. Yet this article suggests they should be in lockstep.

    And what is the point of saying that they are “comrades in gay marriage”? A lot of gays believe in gay marriage. So do a lot of straight people. Are they somehow complicit in Foreman’s statements because they believe in gay marriage?

    I think Foreman put his foot in his mouth but I don’t think he was saying elections are immoral, I think he was saying that any vote which takes away the basic legal protections for gays and lesbians is immoral. If this law causes someone to not be able to make medical decisions for their partner or to be there when they die, then yes, I do think that is immoral.

    Comment by Carl — November 14, 2005 @ 4:09 pm - November 14, 2005

  22. Whoa, whoa, whoa… while the Task Force has done plenty that I disagree with, I’m not sure that what Foreman has proposed here is actually an offense. I read that article before checking this blog today, and what I saw in that was not him arguing that democracy is bad, but rather that putting marriage rights to a vote is wrong, and that the way gays frame the debate must change, so as to show to the straight world that there is something inherently immoral about having one of the most personal parts of somebody’s life (who or if they marry) decided by an uncaring and impersonal electorate. Foreman sees marriage as a right – okay, so some of us can disagree with him there, fine – but if you accept that that is the presupposition that he is standing on, then you can see how the denial of a basic human right by mere force of majority rule strikes as an act of tyranny, and thus these constitutional amendment ballot initiatives are, indeed, immoral elections. Of course I could be reading him wrong, but I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

    Comment by Casey — November 14, 2005 @ 4:53 pm - November 14, 2005

  23. Moreover, even though his argument may not stop these iniatives from happening (which may or may not be a desirable outcome) it does help to start framing the debate in such a way that even those still leery of granting marriage rights to gays can see an immorality in denying them. It doesn’t matter what the issue – taxes, abortion, welfare, etc – there is a moral aspect in all of them, on the yes or the no sides. Foreman seems to be exposing the unfair and unjust side of voting in favor of one of these bans – isn’t that just what we’d want him to do?

    Comment by Casey — November 14, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - November 14, 2005

  24. 13: Well, the issue is now that Republicans are running scared because even judges seen as conservative are voting on the side of the law and not on the side of the Republican party. This makes them activist judges. Why do you think Republicans now engage in tactics such as attempting to pass certain laws which don’t require that they be constituional (making them unconstitutional immediately of course). I’ve looked up some of these bills on the Congressional record. They state that no court shall have jurisdiction over them. That’s pretty scarey.

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 5:46 pm - November 14, 2005

  25. Oh you whacky conservatives! I read the news article that was linked and the meaning was pretty plain. Foreman wasn’t saying that elections and the democratic process were immoral: The comment specifically was targeted at the fact that anti-gay marriage initiatives ending up on ballots was immoral. The fact that we are supposed to live in a land of freedom, but ballot initiatives appear that allow the majority to deny equal rights to people in a minority group is just rotten to its core.

    Once again you allegedly gay posters rally around those who are content to see that you don’t have the same rights that others have. Boy, if we just changed some of the wording on these initiatives, people would be in outrage. How about “a marriage is defined as being only between a christian man and a christian woman” or “marriage is only legal between a man and a woman who are of the same color skin”?

    As soon as we use our constitutionally mandated freedoms like free elections, the legislative process and the judicial process to make minorities “unequal” with the rest of the population, then the entire country is in deep trouble. We as gay people have fought for decades to ensure we have the same rights as all the citizens of this country. If we give up now, what will happen to others who’ve had to fight for their freedoms and equal rights?

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - November 14, 2005

  26. I’ve noticed so far that not one conservative here has yet to respond to gaycowboybob’s comment (#7) about Brown vs. The Board of Education. Sure is a deafening silence from y’all on that topic.

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - November 14, 2005

  27. #20: Keep in mind that the Federalist papers were written by 3 people, not exactly a vast majority of the total number of men involved in the Constitutional convention. The constitution was cunningly crafted by all those involved to see that even though the majority would rule, it would not run over the rights of the minority. \

    That’s the reason why we have (at least for the moment) the checks and balances of the 3 branches of the federal government. That’s why certain laws must be enacted by 2/3 vote instead of a simple majority. That’s why the ammendment process to the constitution is so difficult to complete. Our founding fathers knew that America would grow and change over the years, but they knew that it couldn’t be subject to the whims of the mob. Much has happened to our nation through the constitutional processes, both good and bad, for nearly 220 years, but in the end things do have a way of turning out right. Even Prohibtion, probably the most heinous ammendment to ever appear in the Constitution, was overturned within a few years. Some dismissed it simply because Ameica was in the middle of the Great Depression and people just needed a stiff drink to get through. In the long run though, it made no sense to have it there: 1st and foremost it denied something to the citizens of the US, 2nd, it had nothing to do with the running of the federal government or the rights of the citizenry as a whole.

    If the majority should rule as you say, then why do we have the Electoral College and use that process to elect the president? By your definition, then we should do away with it and have a simple national majority (which I believe myself). This would have affected a number of elections in our history. And, however your feelings about FL in 2000 aside, doesn’t that mean you agree that Al Gore should have been elected president? I just checked the final official tally and he beat Mr. Bush by 543,895 votes.

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 6:47 pm - November 14, 2005

  28. Kevin, is correct in term of the article. I think you are misinterpreting it out of context.

    We have a constitutional democracy, not a strict “pure” democratic form of government. The rights of the majority are supposed to be balanced against what are considered the unalienable rights of mankind, as recognized in, but not defined by, our Constitution. The “rights” are endowed upon us by God, not the government. Absolute democracy is mob rule and it is immoral because it defines what is “moral” relative to what everybody in the group thinks is moral, rather than any objective standard.

    I don’t think you are interpreting Foreman’s comment as he intended.

    But I don’t have any problem calling these initiatives immoral. Morality is not dependent on legality. These initiates are for the most part born of prejudice. They are not about preserving the “traditional” norms of marriage. They have one primary purpose, that being to punish and restrict the liberty of a particular and unpopular group of people. Any other reason given is for the most part pure rationalization bubble. The “defending traditional marriage” line is primely to salve the consciences of those who are voting for these amendment so they can avoid facing that they are in fact simply prejudiced. You can tell this is true simply because the amendments themselves don’t do a damn thing to preserve “traditional” marriage. And they are often put into place even where the question hasn’t come up yet. It’s a preemptive attack on our liberty and human dignity.

    So yes, Bruce, the people voting for these amendments are wrong. They may be misguided, or ignorant, or fearful, but they have also committed an act that is morally wrong.

    I am not interested in getting the majority of Americans to “let” us have gay marriage in the name of tolerance. It is more important that they do so as the result of recognizing our common human dignity. That is the core idea behind any push for civil rights. It should be the same for this one too.

    The fight is just. Don’t be afraid to make a moral argument for gay marriage. When you do so, you have the moral high ground. Don’t surrender it without a fight.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 14, 2005 @ 6:52 pm - November 14, 2005

  29. If you look at the Constitution, at the Federalist Papers, throughout it the message is clear — the word of the voters is the absolute authority. However, because of voter apathy over the past few years, the gay left has developed the unusual premise that, because voters didn’t previously speak, they lack the power to do so.

    At one point in our country’s not too distant past, Southern states enacted into law the concept of “separate but equal” which held about 50 years at the, one would think, the “word of the voters.” It was even originally upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. But along comes Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and the SCOTUS agreed that “separate but equal” was unjust. This was the equivalent of the dam being broke in the civil rights movement, something that had long been overdue.

    Are you saying, that in your construct of “the word of the voters,” this ruling should have never come about? That it represented a willful judiciary making laws from the bench? Was the SCOTUS right and the voters wrong? That segregation should have been left alone until the “word of the people” was finally ready for that change? And what if that enlightment of conscienceness never came about?

    Is something right simply because a majority of people say it is?

    Comment by gaycowboybob — November 14, 2005 @ 6:54 pm - November 14, 2005

  30. The fact that we are supposed to live in a land of freedom, but ballot initiatives appear that allow the majority to deny equal rights to people in a minority group is just rotten to its core.

    Once again you allegedly gay posters rally around those who are content to see that you don’t have the same rights that others have.

    LOL….so says the very same group of people who were calling that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving millions of dollars to promote it while spending pennies on fighting the actual antigay initiatives themselves.

    Gay conservatives, on the other hand, call it what it is and refuse to give money to people who support it, instead choosing to spend the money on friendly candidates and fighting the initiatives.

    Meanwhile, voters are allowed to put whatever they want on the ballot and elect whoever they want. The fact that gays lose so often is related to two issues; first, voters don’t like people who insult them and their beliefs constantly, as do you, Kevin, and your fellow gay leftists; second, you tell people it’s not antigay to support stripping gays of rights when Democrats do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2005 @ 8:58 pm - November 14, 2005

  31. #30: Is it possible you could, at any time, make a post with your views without your version of name calling? In your link, both Bush and Kerry are named as anti-gay bigots which make me wonder, who did you vote for president in 2004? I’m assuming then that you and every gay conservative in America didn’t give a dime to Bush? You make a lot of blanket statements in your posts about what gay conservatives are/do and you’ve obviously made up your mind that gay liberals are all in one convenient little box of labels that justifies your name-calling.

    As far as Kerry’s Gay-unions, but no marriage support? Nope, I’m not in favor of it either. At least he was in favor of something to start us on the path to have the same rights under the law (ie financial/tax status with civil unions), even though no marriage, per say. Seems to me that’s a compromise to start with to make it more palpable to the right rather than “insulting” them. Today, I helped a friend in putting together the document for he and his partner’s powers of attorney. It made me think of the ludicrous red-tape that same sex couples have to go through to get the same simple things that married people can do – heck, they can pretty much even get it as long as they have same last name without producing a marriage certificate. This is one protection civil unions would guarantee.

    I don’t forget that America, although started as a free country, started with slavery as its cross to bear for nearly 80 years. It then took another 99 years to enact laws to codify that all citizens were supposed to have the same civil rights. You always have to start with something and then move up from there. Long as we’re moving upwards and not backwards (downwards?) Whereas Mr. Bush is virulently against any equalization for gays and goes so far to deny them this right bigotry into the US Constitution. (Not to mention his assumed support for the anti-gay rhetoric contained in the Texas Republican party platform). Guess its ok for him to do that while he (allegedly) employees a closeted gay leather orgy party affciando as one of his top advisors.

    Non-Sequitur: Great bumper sticker I saw on a car with Texas plates last time I was down in Texas: “No REAL Texan was born in New England in the shadow of Yale University”. Now that’s a pretty good Texas-ism if I ever saw one.

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 9:37 pm - November 14, 2005

  32. 10: As I said in an earlier post, Republicans trying to pass laws that don’t have to pass the test of constitutional/unconstitutional is pretty good way to start in knocking down the judicial system.

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2005 @ 9:44 pm - November 14, 2005

  33. Kevin —

    First — where can I get that bumper sticker??!! Love it.

    Second — great liberal example of personal destruction via innuendo. It would be like saying something like this: I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s position on healthcare, even though she is (allegedly) a lesbian.

    Come on…. get real.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 15, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - November 15, 2005

  34. Whereas Mr. Bush is virulently against any equalization for gays and goes so far to deny them this right bigotry into the US Constitution. (Not to mention his assumed support for the anti-gay rhetoric contained in the Texas Republican party platform). Guess its ok for him to do that while he (allegedly) employees a closeted gay leather orgy party affciando as one of his top advisors.

    Are you aware of what John Kerry actually said concerning his position?

    The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.

    Of course, then the hilarious part:

    But they’re out there misleading people and exploiting it.

    Who’s doing the misleading? Is it the person who’s honest about their bigotry, or the one who lies and claims he’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” while admitting he holds the same position as the supposed “antigay” candidate? Kerry has apparently surrounded himself with enough yes-gays like you, Kevin, that he feels that he can be blatantly antigay and still get your cheers and millions of dollars.

    Since you call Bush’s position “virulently antigay”, Kevin, let’s see you do the same for Kerry, especially since Kerry admits he has the same position. Go on.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2005 @ 12:33 pm - November 15, 2005

  35. hmm, wasn’t Jesus a Liberal?

    I don’t recall Jesus being a hate filled liar.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2005 @ 2:21 pm - November 15, 2005

  36. No, Jesus wasn’t a hate filled liar. He told us not to judge each other. Yet in all of these comments I’ve read, I have yet to see a real debate–just judgements and namecalling. I don’t see much of an actual attempt at explaining your differences–you sound like a bunch of junkies fighting over a plastic spoon. How’s that for judgemental?

    Just because we’re gay doesn’t mean that our decrying of liberals or conservatives is inherently meaningful. And if you guys HERE can’t calm down, stop calling each other names and making worthless generalizations–what hope do we have of convincing straight people in actual society, not just the net, to take us seriously?

    Comment by Hyperionfan — November 15, 2005 @ 3:06 pm - November 15, 2005

  37. He told us not to judge each other.

    So you can never judge anyone? You can never say this is right and this is wrong. What’s the point in discussing anything?

    Comment by John — November 15, 2005 @ 11:00 pm - November 15, 2005

  38. Perhaps we should look at Our Savior’s words in context:

    ” 1. Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
    – Matthew 7:1-3 (New International Version)

    This reads to me like more of a caution against hypocrisy and a warning to tend to one’s own shortcomings, rather than a blanket prohibition against all judgment. After all, how can you determine right from wrong without making a judgment?

    Comment by V the K — November 16, 2005 @ 7:59 am - November 16, 2005

  39. I’ve read many sites – and I am a moderate liberal Gay man – but this site actually sickens me — these backers of this site actually beleive the BS spoonfed to them by the Repugs and religious reich….that’s right, keep your place – don’t ask or demand equal rights as a tax paying American citizen…be lucky that the NORMAL people put up with us…and take the crumbs they throw at us disguised to appease…til they ( the repugs & religios zealots) come up with another plan to deal with us gays. This site actually boglles my mind — I feel sorry for you gay men and women who truly beleive that the repugs are out for your best interest…because you are truly blind and DUMB if you think that!

    Comment by JRC — November 16, 2005 @ 9:55 am - November 16, 2005

  40. So, JRC, how then did you feel about “gay rights” organizations and liberals like Mark Leno calling John Kerry’s support of antigay state constitutional amendments “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as well as their deliberate deep-sixing of bills and events promoting gay equality at the request (or order) of the Kerry campaign, all for the “crumbs” thrown?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2005 @ 12:42 pm - November 16, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.