While social conservatives may control the GOP in a few states, they are far from controlling the GOP at the national level. Just look at the president’s agenda this year. And note that despite a few throwaway lines in a couple of speeches to social conservatives (and one regrettable line in the State of the Union address), he has not pushed the FMA (or whatever it is now called) at all. And there doesn’t seem to be a serious effort by the congressional leadership to bring it up for a vote.

That’s one of the harzards, by the way, of stretching everything into a Bush-bash. You run the risk of appearing rather dim.

First call John Kerry an antigay bigot who panders to theocrats who want gays exterminated to get elected, Kevin. You do it to Republicans; call Democrats who do the same thing by the same names.

You can’t and you won’t, because your bitching has nothing to do with gay rights; it has everything to do with bashing Republicans, fairly or not.

I remember very clearly the attitude of politically active Republicans I knew starting in the 80s. Their attitude was to say whatever the religious right wanted to hear to get them to the polls and vote republican. Much of it was grounded in anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority rhetoric. Not stated or written specifically, but the message was clear and (with some variations) is still used today. They were viewed as hay seeds who could be easily manipulated into voiting for Republicans because their religious ideals matched a conservative agenda. Back then, no one thought they would gain any kind of real power, but you can see it’s slowly happening now.

Blame who you will for starting it, but it was Republicans who mainly backed anti-gay marriage initiatives to get voters to the polls in 04. (yes, I know, Kerry’s support, let’s not get into again, it’s been talked about linked etc). I said *mainly* Republicans. Republican strategists were salivating over the fact that marriage became the hot button, “it doesn’t really affect anyone but sure gets the blood of the conservative voters up and will get them to polls where they can also pull the lever for the conservative president to boot”.

And I already know the response of conservatives here: “Well, it was the fault of those lefty gays for not waiting for the right time/way to address this issue” Well please tell me, when is it exactly the right time to beg and grovel to those in power for the same rights that others have?

PS: I noticed today our friends at the TSA have decided to stop looking for any sharp instruments with blades shorter than 7 inches (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/02/airport.screening/index.html). As I recall, those were the weapons used by terrorists to murder the pilots on the flights that eventually killed over 3000 people. I won’t exactly feel safer (note the end of the linked article). Then again, I’m sure we’re somehow saving money because of this change. whew

Whoever claims that there is no evidence of Che’s and Castro’s persecution of gays has never met any gays exiled during the Mariel exodus. Gert Hekma mentions the Mariel exiles in the article http://www.gay-news.com/article04.php?sid=123 Reynaldo Arenas or Gay Hedonism in Cuba. Hekma also writes about the UMAP camps.

A side point, since today is AIDS day: Cubans face compulsory AIDS testing, and internment in camps. While the NYT http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/clueless-about-cubas-quarantine.html praises Cuba’s AIDS policies, discussing AIDS as a human rights issue is impossible in Cuba.
(with apologies for all the links to my blog)

Also keep in mind, Kevin, that 90% of the roughly 150,000 Americans visiting Cuba each year are Cuban-Americans. How awful for those Americans to go see their relatives.

If that were even remotely true, it sure would beat the hell out of being dependent on depressed America hating, Commie loving, fascist neosocialists.

Guess they don’t mind going to a country where kids are put into indoctrination camps at a young age so they be brainwashed to believe Castro is the only thing that matters. How about we bring democracy to a dictatorship 90 miles from our shores?

#16: You’re 3rd paragraph is quite true….maybe not about Pat Robertson per say, but the Republican Party has become dependent upon ultra right wing, religious conservatives to help increase its numbers and get republicans into elected office. Many of these religious beliefs include anti-gay, anti-woman dogma (among other things). Who’s to say that one day the bill won’t come due from them if they feel they’re not getting out of elected republicans that they were promised? Ultimately religious rule and democracy don’t mix.

Your last paragraph is pretty lame-ass in terms of lack of evidence, pure innuendo, etc.

Dan Cobb’s comments are a stretch. The far-right wackos in charge of the Republican Party may hate gays, may want to strip gays of their civil rights, but haven’t yet advocated concentration camps and death sentences. Although if a cruise ship full of gays sank in the Atlantic, I’d guess that James Dobson, Allan Keyes and Pat Robertson wouldn’t mourn their loss.

But a word of caution to Calarato in #6. Pat Robertson once set a goal of taking over the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and enough state legislatures to meet in convention to amend the U.S. constitution. If that were to ever happen — and the wackos are part way there — gays might not be safe. About the same time the good reverend set those goals, a Republican Party county convention in Californa adopted a resolution asking that the death penalty be extended to include abortion doctors and “homosexuals”.