Gay Patriot Header Image

Virginia House Approves Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 7:49 pm - January 17, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Hello everyone. Dan and Bruce were kind enough to invite me to guest-blog here at GayPatriot, an invitation I was pleased to accept. A little bit about me, I’m in my 30s, hail from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, I am Catholic, generally conservative and former active-duty military (from a military family). I also run the Average Gay Joe weblog. Beyond all this I’ll save other personal information for later.

Since my time is somewhat limited this week and the story in this article is currently “Big News” in my home state, I decided for my first posting here to use something I put on my own weblog the other day. (GP Ed. Note: Dan and I are happy to welcome AGJ to GayPatriot!!)

********

From The Washington Blade:

The Virginia House voted 73 to 22 to approve a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage rights for gays. The proposal must be voted on by the Senate and signed by Gov.-elect Tim Kaine (D) before it can go to voters in November.

Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said that the governor-elect will sign the bill to call for a referendum. Kaine supports the amendment and opposes civil unions, she said. She added that he is interested in discussing measures — to make sure people can still be able to contract with each other.

My prediction: the Senate will likewise approve this proposed amendment, the new Governor will sign it (as his spokesman indicated), and the electorate will endorse it with nearly 60% or more in favor making Virginia the 19th state to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage. It looks like we will be at the half-way mark in support under Article V of the US Constitution for the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Sad but I believe accurate.

There is one item worth noting: a Democrat governor is going to sign this to put it on the ballot and Virginia, like the other states which adopted such amendments, will find it being passed with majority support from the rank-and-file in both parties (along with independents). I haven’t forgotten that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress which in 1993 passed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and a Democrat president which signed it into law, thus codifying the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the Armed Forces. I seem to recall that the Defense of Marriage Act attracted majority support among Democrats in the Senate, along with a sizable number in the House, and was signed into law by a Democrat president in 1996.

Tell me again just why I should sacrifice my core beliefs for the crumbs the DNC tosses out now and then, all while selling out whomever it takes for it’s insatiable lust for power?

– AverageGayJoe

UPDATE (from GPW): I doubt that gay groups will treat this Democratic governor as harshly as they treated my Republican Governor (Schwarzenegger) who, unlike his Virginia Democratic counterpart, favors civil unions.

Share

58 Comments

  1. Should I start calling these bad state the “Boo States”?

    And it seems all the schill screams from the “Community” only makes things worse. I wonder, would the 14th Amendment trump the FMA, if it were ever to be ratified???

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 17, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - January 17, 2006

  2. No, it would not. There may be some wiggle room within the 14th Amendment to make the proposed FMA, should it adopted, not so draconian, but it would not “trump” it. That is the danger FMA presents. If Article V of the Constitution is invoked and the process is completed to adopt FMA, there is nothing stopping it. Nothing is prohibited from being amended in the Constitution, save for representation of the States. It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, in fact it’s only been done 27 times out of approximately 10,000 proposals in over 200 years. However, if FMA is adopted it would be the supreme law of the land and would be as much of the Constitution as the First Amendment.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — January 17, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - January 17, 2006

  3. Tell me again just why I should sacrifice my core beliefs for the crumbs the DNC tosses out now and then, all while selling out whomever it takes for it’s insatiable lust for power?

    Historically, I’d agree with you, but now I find that this statement applies equally to both parties.

    Comment by Rob — January 17, 2006 @ 9:26 pm - January 17, 2006

  4. After viewing all of the Clintonista regime and most of the Bush presidency, I have to state that we as gay people received the most benefits and recognition under this administration than Bill & Hill/Juan and Eva.

    If you have specific proof to cite to prove the opposite, post it now.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 17, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - January 17, 2006

  5. This has to be the coolest (after Iowahawk, naturally) blog I have EVER seen. I had to stop going to GSA meetings at my school because I’m told that I’m too conservative and close minded. This is awesome! Anyway, democrats are total bigots and hypocrites who bash Republicans for being ‘bigoted’ while at the same time making damned sure that us gays are kept down so they can keep getting the gay vote by using smoke and mirror tactics to blame the republicans for all our woes. It’s the same that they do to every minority movement. Keep them unhappy so that they vote democratic.

    Comment by Amy — January 17, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - January 17, 2006

  6. Amy says:

    This has to be the coolest (after Iowahawk, naturally) blog I have EVER seen. I had to stop going to GSA meetings at my school because I’m told that I’m too conservative and close minded. This is awesome! Anyway, democrats are total bigots and hypocrites who bash Republicans for being ‘bigoted’ while at the same time making damned sure that us gays are kept down so they can keep getting the gay vote by using smoke and mirror tactics to blame the republicans for all our woes. It’s the same that they do to every minority movement. Keep them unhappy so that they vote democratic

    I edit:

    This has to be the coolest (after Iowahawk, naturally) blog I have EVER seen. I had to stop going to GSA meetings at my school because I’m told that I’m too liberal and open minded. This is awesome! Anyway, republicans are total bigots and hypocrites who bash Democrats for being ‘bigoted’ while at the same time making damned sure that us gays are kept down so they can keep getting the gay vote by using smoke and mirror tactics to blame the democrats for all our woes. It’s the same that they do to every minority movement. Keep them unhappy so that they vote republican

    Both statements are accurate.

    And Amy, you need to get your butt back into that GSA. People who never hear any voice but their own tend to believe they are correct out of default. You don’t need to challenge every statement, but its perfectly fine to openly disagree with others. Consider it good training in patience and courtesy.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 17, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - January 17, 2006

  7. 4: If you mean recognition to be used as the last minority to be villified, stepped upon, and (as the anti-gay marriage laws & proposed ammendment show), then you bet we are getting tons of benefits and recognition. Once again, we are being used as the one remaining large minority in this country that remains OK to dsicriminate against. I guess I should feel priviliged that discrimination against you, me, the other people on this site and millions of Americans may soon be codified in the US Constitution.

    Frankly, I’d like you to site proof of your statement of the benefits, recognition we are getting from our current administration. Dick Cheney talking about how he loves his gay daughter doesn’t count.

    Comment by Kevin — January 17, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - January 17, 2006

  8. Yeah, Amy…just make sure that while you are sticking to your guns and espousing your beliefs to the Left, that you are prepared for them to dis you, mock your opinions and claim that you are less than what you are simply because your rationale is different than the liberal status quo. And do it with humor…because these Neanderthals don’t have any.

    Regards (and best wishes),
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 17, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - January 17, 2006

  9. Okay, #8 –

    Did you know that this adminstration spent more per capita on AIDS and HIV than the previous one? Did you know that Bush’s AIDS czar is a proud, out homosexual? Did you know that it is mostly African-American voters who routinely get mobilized to pass anti-gay legislation because their own status is being threatened? (I cite the Texas example where I live – minority voters accounted for the 60% “no” voters who provided the state with a definition of marriage.)

    And while we’re exploring…are you wearing a number tattooed on your wrist? Are you prohibited from living where you are, working where you are, and entering into legal covenants with your significant other? (I’m in Texas, the proud home state of the president, and my partner and I have a civil partnership as defined by our wills and codicils. So don’t tell me I need “marriage” to make my needs known and met.)

    Are you prohibited from voting? Are you hung by your heels by Islamo-fascists trying to beat the “gayness” out of you? Are you prohibited by law from public displays of affection? Are you denied service in restaurants, hotels, airlines etc?

    Crickets chirping….

    Didn’t think so.

    As I said earlier, come up with SPECIFIC examples of the Bush Administration to cite the opposite and post away. Frankly, your rhetoric bores me.

    And for the record…Dick Gephardt has yet to embrace his lesbian daughter publicly.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 17, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - January 17, 2006

  10. Peter-sort of a hijack, but your stats on minority votes in favor of the various gay marriage amendments is intersting. Has anyone tried to figure out why?

    Comment by Just Me — January 17, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - January 17, 2006

  11. #11
    Just off the cuff. No voter, on an issue by issue basis, follows any one party line completely. That voter may vote for only one party in a general election but, given the choice on only one issue, he doesn’t feel like he is betraying his party by voting differently on a single issue.

    It is very similar to the views of gay conservatives here. Each of us, given the choice of his very own political platform, would pick and choose those issues that are most important to us personally.

    I don’t know the sociological reasons why minority(black and hispanic) voters overwhelmingly voted for the amendment. In general terms, they are not that different from non-minority(white) people. Draw your own conclusions.

    Comment by John — January 18, 2006 @ 12:26 am - January 18, 2006

  12. AverageGayJoe, I wish you could consider not simply calling this a ban on gay marriage. This will ban almost all , if not all, contractual rights for gay couples.

    As for being at the halfway mark for passing the Federal Marriage Amendment, the amendment has nowhere near enough votes in Congress for passage. The only way that might happen is if the Supreme Court overturns DOMA, which is a long way off. Are we surprised that Virginia would support this ban? I’m not. There are still, for now, enough state legislatures which would not ratify the amendment if it went to the states (California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, probably Minnesota, probably Maine).

    -Did you know that this adminstration spent more per capita on AIDS and HIV than the previous one?-

    The problem is when so much money goes to abstinence funding instead of safe sex education. Abstinence is not a success for teens, and yet this is all we keep hearing about.

    I thought the AIDS czar had been replaced. Am I thinking of someone else?

    Amy, I’m curious as to what you said in this GSA which made you leave. If they attacked you solely because you are a conservative, then I’m sorry they put you through that. I would only say that a lot of gay teens are put under constant pressure, and feel everyone is out to get them. They feel their country or their government hates them. So they may take it out on you because they aren’t thinking clearly.

    Comment by Carl — January 18, 2006 @ 12:45 am - January 18, 2006

  13. Something else in regards to the Bush administration and gay issues which is often ignored. Scott Bloch.

    http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/log-cabin-calls-on-scott-bloch-office-of-special-counsel-to-resign.html

    This understates some of the concerns. I read somewhere that Bloch’s office has gone as far as to outright dismiss claims by federal officials who have witnesses and proof to back up being discriminated against because they’re gay.

    Comment by Carl — January 18, 2006 @ 12:51 am - January 18, 2006

  14. #11 Easy. The Black Church is as anti-gay/homophobic as any Jerry Falwell/ Pat Robertson fundamentalist congregation. In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with a more anti-gay ethnic group than the African-American community who BTW also happen to be the bedrock of the Democrat “Rainbow Coalition”. If you don’t believe me, ask any black gay man or woman. What I want to know is, if you support and are active in a Party that is filled with so many gay hating bigots, are you a self-hating “Jewish Nazi”?

    Comment by Bobo — January 18, 2006 @ 12:52 am - January 18, 2006

  15. Amy…. you may want to skip your GSA meetings and attend your remedial English course.

    Comment by Come On! — January 18, 2006 @ 1:27 am - January 18, 2006

  16. #16
    You just reinforced Amy’s argument.

    Comment by John — January 18, 2006 @ 1:47 am - January 18, 2006

  17. #15

    How about Hispanics? “Machismo” and what not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 18, 2006 @ 2:43 am - January 18, 2006

  18. Aren’t we supposed to believe that all liberals love us?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 18, 2006 @ 4:20 am - January 18, 2006

  19. I thought Virginia had already passed a ban? What am I remembering here?

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 18, 2006 @ 8:32 am - January 18, 2006

  20. Right Wing Prof – Virginia passed the ban last year, but it has to be approved by two consecutive sessions. The Governor then signs the measure to go to the ballot.

    THERE ARE SEVERAL KEY STEPS HERE

    1) The Governor can sign the measure to go to the ballot as is.
    2) The Governor can amend the measure.
    3) The Governor can reject the measure.

    There is much debate in Virginia – from both gay Republicans and Democrats – as to the best approach. Virginia Governors traditionally do not reject ballot measures – seeing their role as simply to validate that it was passed with correct proceedures. Contrary to a false media report, the Governor’s office has said that it has made no decision at this point.

    Right now, the best thing to do is contact the Governor’s office to tell him why this amendment is bad. People are very hopeful that he gut through amendments the worst aspects of this amendment. Heck, there is even a chance we can get him to reject it. My point is, the amendment is far from assured that it will go to voters as is. We need to contact the office of Governor.

    Comment by Jeremy — January 18, 2006 @ 9:41 am - January 18, 2006

  21. All the snarking aside, conservative or liberal doesn’t matter….read below for the reality of the situation. Time to work together folks…

    *******************
    Partner’s death ends happy life on ranch
    2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342

    By Jessie Torrisi
    Columbia News Service

    On the face of it, Sam Beaumont, 61, with his cowboy hat, deep-throated chuckle and Northwestern drawl, is not so different from the ranch hands in Ang Lee’s critically acclaimed film “Brokeback Mountain,” which opened in Indianapolis on Wednesday.

    More “Romeo & Juliet” than “Rent,” “Brokeback Mountain” challenges modern perceptions of what it means to be gay in rural America.

    “Listen,” the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. “I’m thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together — little cow and calf operation, your horses — it’d be some sweet life.”

    That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. “I was raised to be independent. I didn’t really care what other people thought,” Beaumont said.

    In 1977, Beaumont was divorced and raising three sons after a dozen years in the Air Force when Meadows walked up to him near the Arkansas River.

    “It was a pretty day — January 15th, 65 degrees,” Beaumont said. “He came up, we got to talkin’ till 2 in the morning. I don’t even remember what we said.” But “I knew it was something special.”

    Beaumont moved to be with Meadows in his partner’s hometown of Bristow, Okla., a place of 4,300 people. Together, they bought a ranch and raised Beaumont’s three sons. The mortgage and most of the couple’s possessions were put in Meadows’ name.

    “I had two dads”

    During the day, Meadows worked as a comptroller for Black & Decker. He’d drop the boys at school on his way to work. At home, Beaumont took care of the ranch, feeding and tagging cattle, cooking and cleaning, and once built a barn.

    “As far as I was concerned, I had two dads,” said one of Beaumont’s sons, now 33, who requested anonymity. He was 2 years old when Meadows joined the family.

    “Dad helped with schoolwork and all the stuff around the house, taught me to ride horses and milk cows. Earl used to take me to the company picnics and Christmas parties. He bought me my first car.”

    Most of their friends, Beaumont said, were straight couples, women who worked at Black & Decker, “teachers and doctors and lawyers,” and childhood friends of Meadows who often came to dinner at the ranch.

    “People treated them fine,” said Eunice Lawson, who runs a grocery store in Bristow.

    But in 1999, Meadows had a stroke and Beaumont took care of him for a year until he died at age 56.

    That’s where the fantasy of a life together on the range collides with reality. After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn’t recognize domestic partnerships.

    Meadows’ will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.

    Unequal under the law

    A judge ruled the rancher had to put the property, which was appraised at $100,000, on the market. The animals were sold. Beaumont had to move.

    Because Meadows had no biological children or surviving parents, his estate was divided up among his heirs. When the ranch sells, the proceeds are to be divided among dozens of Meadows’ cousins.

    “They took the estate away from me,” said Beaumont, who said he put about $200,000 of his own money into the ranch. “Everything that had Earl’s name on it, they took. They took it all and didn’t bat an eye.”

    Every state has common-law marriage rules that protect heterosexual couples. If someone dies without a will, or with a faulty one, his or her live-in partner is treated as the rightful inheritor.

    But only seven states currently give gay couples protections — such as inheritance rights and health benefits — through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What’s more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.

    Today, there are roughly 90,000 gay couples living in small-town America, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, and more than 5,700 in Oklahoma.

    Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.

    Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2006 @ 11:04 am - January 18, 2006

  22. Amy…. you may want to skip your GSA meetings and attend your remedial English course.

    Comment by Come On! — January 18, 2006 @ 1:27 am – January 18, 2006

    #16
    You just reinforced Amy’s argument.

    Comment by John — January 18, 2006 @ 1:47 am – January 18, 2006

    And the next time any GOP’ers feel like complaining about the liberal PC elite’s running college campuses, take a good look at yourselves in the mirror as the root cause of the problem and then shut up.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 18, 2006 @ 11:12 am - January 18, 2006

  23. […] Hat tip: Commenter Kevin on Gaypatriot […]

    Pingback by Blowhard » Unequal Under the Law — January 18, 2006 @ 11:35 am - January 18, 2006

  24. only one party has within its official platform wording expressing their hateful position on equality. that is the republican party, home of liars, cheaters, thieves and bigots.

    Comment by rightiswrong — January 18, 2006 @ 1:00 pm - January 18, 2006

  25. What words? Sounds like another moonbat delusional fantasy.

    Comment by Calarato — January 18, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - January 18, 2006

  26. Calarato, the idea is that opposition to gay marriage itself means hate. It doesn’t matter if there no hateful words or Bush says ‘Let’s be sure we debate with respect on all sides.’

    Comment by RegisAndKathy — January 18, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - January 18, 2006

  27. 26: How about the Texas Republican party platform? I downloaded it and read it. They specifially call for denying equal rights to families with same sex partners. seems to me the moobats are the people who wrote that bit of it and those in the party who approved.

    Check out my previous post about Sam Beaumont from OK. That’s what it’s all about. I think it’s a nice touch that not only did those SOB cousins take away his inheritance, they’re also trying to get rent money out of him for the years he spent on the ranch with his partner.

    Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - January 18, 2006

  28. It won’t surprise me if Virginia’s Democratic governor signs this legislation — he’s a Catholic who even opposes civil unions. It would be interesting, AverageGayJoe, to see a breakdown of the vote in the legislature by parties.

    Peter Hughes, #10 — Dick Gephardt did publicly embrace his lesbian daughter during the 2000 campaign. It could have been somewhere else, but I seem to recall that the article was in either Newsweek or US News and World Report.

    John, #12 — I don’t know how accurate the post was about minorities being the majority that passed the anti-gay amendment in Texas but there is an explanation for how minorities feel on the subject. Most blacks tend to be Baptists or in other fundamentalist churches. Most Hispanics are Catholic.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 18, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - January 18, 2006

  29. Um….first off, that article needs to check its facts. Common-law marriage has in fact been abolished by statute in all but nine states (three others have quirky laws that allow some semblance of it).

    Of course, it’s good for “gay activists” to push the lie that heterosexual couples, married or not, “automatically” get benefits — the better to make us look like victims. But, when the truth is revealed, it ends up making all gays look like liars — something these “activists” never think about before citing their articles or actually READING them.

    Second off, every will can be challenged. If you don’t dot your i and cross your t, that makes it even easier. Fact of life.

    Furthermore, given Creek County’s political demographics, is anyone else amused by Kevin’s calling all Republicans horrible antigay bigots while posting a story that shows a totally different reality?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - January 18, 2006

  30. #3: Well, I have to agree in that I’m not very impressed with either party when it comes to protecting civil rights for homosexuals.

    #5: Amy, you keep voicing your opinion and don’t ever let anyone, liberal or conservative, ever try and silence you.

    #6: To each his own. Personally I think Richmond is a great place, particularly in The Fan and the Westside.

    #12: Good point. Take this possible referendum. I imagine the state GOP will endorse the amendment but I myself will vote against it (not that it will do much good).

    #13: You may be right, but it all would depend upon how the courts interpreted the proposed FMA if it were adopted.

    #15: Good point. Black churches, which normally are big supporters of the DNC, came out in strongly in favor of these amendments in each of the states they have been adopted. Their congregations voted heavily in support of the bans on gay marriage, alongside Republican and Independent voters.

    #16: Don’t be an ass.

    #18: True, but dang are some of them cute. 🙂 Besides, in some Latin countries they are further ahead in protecting the rights of homosexuals than we are, ironically enough.

    #19: Yeah, I feel the love everytime James Carville opens his mouth on TV…

    #20: It hasn’t been fully adopted yet.

    #23: Sad story. This is exactly the kind of thing I’d like to see prevented.

    #25: The Left tickles your ears with pretty words while knifing you in the back. Actions speak louder than words and until the Dems are able to get their act together on this and other matters they can forget ever getting my vote.

    #29: The Delegates voting for and against can be found here, while the party affliations of each Delegate can be found here. Also, I always take polls with a grain of salt but here’s one from CBS to give you an idea: “58% of whom say they would not consider voting for a candidate who doesn’t share their views on the issue of gay marriage”. I’ve seen exit polling, which again I do not entirely trust but it’s all we really have, that show support among Dems in many of the states which have adopted these amendments above 55%, some into 60-70%.

    30: Would this be like how Republicans supposedly stole the 2000 election in Florida even though almost all county election commissioners were Dems? 😉

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — January 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - January 18, 2006

  31. #13: I forgot to address the rest of your comments. First of all, Oregon adopted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004. Secondly, if SCOTUS followed the example of the Mass. Supreme Court by trying to impose gay marriage, all bets are off on the red-blue breakdown. Most of the states on your list have DOMA-type legislation on the books and if there was enough clamor from their constituents you’d better believe enough legislators could be rounded up to vote for FMA. Don’t forget that Washington state, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are also on the way to putting such a constitutional amendment before the voters.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — January 18, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - January 18, 2006

  32. I would really like someone here to suggest a way to come together to fight this. I see a lot of attacks on gay dems/liberals because of supporting “kooky ideas”. To stop this hatred, I’d be more than happy to work alongside the most conservative, Bush-supporting gay/lesbian I can imagine.

    Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - January 18, 2006

  33. #33 I’ll start. As illustrated by the Texas Republican Platform, a large segment of the Party is made up of anti-gay people with whom I have very little in common with except that we both vote Republican but for very different reasons. I choose to fight from within the Party against these idiots because I am in fact a conservative in most areas.
    Now if you are truly looking for dialog you will need to admit that gay Democrats are in pretty much the same spot. The largest chunk of your coalition is at least as anti-gay as the Christian Right. The only substantial difference is that in our Party they tell us that they don’t want us around and then screw us. In the Democrat Party they say nice things keep you around to get your vote and money and then do the same thing. Personally, I prefer the direct approach because I know exactly where I stand.
    Many of the DEMs that we worked with in opposition to the Texas Marriage Amendment agreee with the above privately and it made for a good political relationship. We don’t agree on a host of issues but we can respect each other as reasonable people who disagree.
    When those on the Left can treat conservatives like me as a reasonable people who share common goals but who also have different but valid stands on other issues, we can act as a true coalition and be much more effective. Until then, the Community will continue to get screwed by Republicans who know that won’t get the Gay vote no matter what they do and by DEMs who know they won’t lose the Gay vote no matter what they do.

    Comment by Bobo — January 18, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - January 18, 2006

  34. 30. “Of course, it’s good for “gay activists” to push the lie that heterosexual couples, married or not, “automatically” get benefits — the better to make us look like victims. But, when the truth is revealed, it ends up making all gays look like liars — something these “activists” never think about before citing their articles or actually READING them.”

    Your statement is completely ludicrous. It’s a simple fact that the simple document of a marriage certificate gives people a slew of legal benefits not afforded to same-sex couples or male/female couples who choose not marry. The tragedy of Mr. Beaumont is a perfect example. If he and Mr. Meadows had the opportunity to get a government sanctioned marriage certificate, then he wouldn’t have lost his home of over 25 years, nor would he be hounded by his partner’s slimebag, distant relatives for 25 years of “rent”. Sorry, but there’s nothing “victimizing” in simply saying that everyone should be afforded the same rights and dignity in this country. It’s not a conservative/liberal issue.

    Comment by Kevin — January 18, 2006 @ 8:57 pm - January 18, 2006

  35. -Of course, it’s good for “gay activists” to push the lie that heterosexual couples, married or not, “automatically” get benefits — the better to make us look like victims.-

    Why do you think gay activists wrote that article? Wasn’t it an article from a local paper, or the AP? The error is the fault of the reporter.

    I wish you had commented on the actual situation, instead of something which barely covered that.

    Comment by Carl — January 18, 2006 @ 9:32 pm - January 18, 2006

  36. #23

    So it’s Bush’s fault liberals suck ass?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 19, 2006 @ 3:30 am - January 19, 2006

  37. Gee, there’s a surprise, Kevin starting to spin:

    It’s a simple fact that the simple document of a marriage certificate gives people a slew of legal benefits not afforded to same-sex couples or male/female couples who choose not marry.

    That’s not what the article said, though:

    Every state has common-law marriage rules that protect heterosexual couples. If someone dies without a will, or with a faulty one, his or her live-in partner is treated as the rightful inheritor.

    So if one of my straight friends moves in with his girlfriend, if she dies within a week, without a will, he gets everything, regardless of in what state they are.

    Go on, Kevin; say that’s true.

    And Carl, I didn’t say gay activists wrote it; I said that there were falsehoods in it that gay activists were exploiting and pushing.

    Next up:

    If he and Mr. Meadows had the opportunity to get a government sanctioned marriage certificate, then he wouldn’t have lost his home of over 25 years, nor would he be hounded by his partner’s slimebag, distant relatives for 25 years of “rent”.

    Or perhaps if they had checked their legal paperwork.

    Meadows’ will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.

    As I pointed out, you can contest any will you like. But if a will is properly written, signed, and notarized, you probably won’t get past summary dismissal when you contest it, especially in the case of an individual having no direct biological heirs. This one wasn’t.

    So in other words, Kevin, you push information that isn’t remotely factual and you exploit something that could have been nicely solved by ten seconds worth of document review as a reason for gay marriage.

    Sorry, but when I go looking for alliance partners, I look for people who can check facts and think beyond ideology.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 19, 2006 @ 4:13 pm - January 19, 2006

  38. Well folks, #38s post shows exactly what conservatives (especially gay conservatives) have to contend with in their own ranks. His attitude is that of a completely cold-hearted, unfeeling son of a bitch who says “fuck you, you made a mistake and therefore anyone can profit from it as they see fit”. Compassionate conservatism doesn’t seem to be at play with him. I don’t lump all conservatives into one group and I know that not all conservatives are as mean and nasty as this guy here. How exactly are people supposed work together for even 1 or 2 common goals, when gays on either side of the political fence have attitudes like this guy? He says screw you to people who might have even the slightest of common bonds. It’s no wonder why conservative gays get the (mostly unfair) label of being self-hating homophobes.

    And by the way, I wasn’t commenting on the common law issue mentioned (which by the way, the author was wrong in saying all states, as few states have common law marriage laws on the books), I was specifically commenting on the host of legal protections people gain when they get that little piece of paper from the government that says they’re married. And frankly I don’t feel like a victim living in this great country of ours….I simply want to be assured that I can have the same rights as everyone else. period.

    Comment by Kevin — January 19, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - January 19, 2006

  39. You’re absolutely right, Kevin, because that’s the way the law is. It doesn’t say, “Well, we’re going to ignore this requirement here, and that requirement there, just ’cause”; it says “Do it right, or else you have no protection”.

    This is why homophobes are so successful at convincing people; they have ample examples like this to show that gays don’t want the same rights; they want special rights. They go around telling people that all heterosexual couples “have rights” when they don’t, and then they demand that Oklahoma law on inheritance be overturned to allow it through what is legally an invalid will.

    In short, you’ve demanded rights based on falsehood, and you’ve shown you have no respect for the law. If, like Sally Struthers, you think picking up a starving kid, shoving them in my face, and telling me I’m “cold-hearted” is going to scare me off, you’ve got another thing coming, because I know you don’t give a rat’s ass about the kid except as your propaganda tool.

    How do I know? Simple. If you had valued Meadows’ and Beaumont’s relationship, you and your fellow gay leftists wouldn’t have been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to FMA supporters. If you had given a damn about their rights, you wouldn’t have been dropping millions on politicians who wanted to strip them while throwing pennies to initiatives to stop such things.

    Moreover, I can see it by what you’ve said here. Not one word about sending money to help pay Beaumont’s legal bills. Not one word about getting him some form of support. Not one word of thanks to the town and people who accepted and supported them. Just more ravings about how Republicans are homophobes and this “proves” we need gay marriage.

    In short, Sally, I ain’t giving you no dollar to feed that kid, because she’ll get ten cents of food and you’ll pocket ninety of it for “overhead”. This isn’t about gay rights or helping gays; this is about you needing a sob story to exploit to advance your own agenda. And I’ve seen that agenda — filled with rhetoric against the religious, against Republicans, the red states, claiming “death camps” are being built and that the US is slipping into fascism, all while spinning excuses for Democratic homophobes — and I want no part of it.

    Bobo, GP, GPW, and the others who have corresponded with me, as well as those who work with me, know what I’m like and what I’ve done. The side you get of me is the “cold-hearted, unfeeling son of a bitch” one, and to be quite honest, I think I’m being kind relative to what I think you and yours deserve. There are plenty of examples of me sticking up for people with whom I have nothing in common ideologically or partnering in unlikely places, but frankly, I don’t think you’d even bother reading them.

    So call me what you like.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2006 @ 12:05 am - January 20, 2006

  40. You want to know the difference between a gay conservative and a gay liberal/Democrat, Bob?

    Conservative

    What a liberal calls “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”

    GP/GPW nailed it. Let’s see you namecall the Governor of Virginia the same way you did Schwarzenegger. Since you call everyone who supports amendments stripping gays of rights a vicious antigay bigot and homophobe, let’s see you do it for Democrats.

    Ain’t gonna happen. You’ll spin some kind of line just like you do to protect Massa Clinton, who didn’t really want to sign DOMA, even though he lobbied for it to be passed, signed it, and advertised the fact as “fighting for American values” on Christian radio stations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2006 @ 10:49 am - January 20, 2006

  41. Um, GCB, let’s see about Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Democrat Sam Nunn objected to Clinton’s plan.

    At the time, Clinton could have rescinded the ban with a stroke of a pen. There were Democratic majorities in both House of Congress. You accuse us of blinding following the GOP. Yet, here you are blaming Democratic actions on the GOP.

    We’re pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay left in getting all huffy every time a Republican says something which might in some context be interpreted as anti-gay while ignoring Democratic actions which hurt gay people.

    And you’re so obsessed with the GOP than you’re blind to your own party’s failings.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 20, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - January 20, 2006

  42. GPW and NDT, you’ve made good points about the hypocrisy of those who criticize Schwarzenegger, but not Kaine, if and when he does sign the anti-marriage bill. A couple of things though. I’ve spent a lot of time in Virginia the last couple of years (in the blue city of Alexandria), and a lot of it wasn’t pretty regarding the anti-gay attitudes in the state in general. Although NOrthern VirginiA is a blue region with mostly progressive views on gay rights, it appears that any anti-gay proposals of legislation, etc., was from the Republican side. Anyway, the sad fact is that in order to win the governorship of Virginia, one cannot be supporting of gay marriage. In fact, my recollection (although possibly incorrect) is that one of Kilgore spins against Kaine was that, if Kaine was elected then gay marriage would become legal. So, I’m hoping that Kaine hasn’t decided to sign the bill yet, but clearly, if Kilgore was governor, the law would have been a done deal already.

    If Kaine does sign the bill, he does deserve the same criticism from the gay community. I do see a difference here though. Kaine would be signing the bill, as opposed to vetoing it like Schwarzenegger did. Also, the consequences of allowing gay marriage are different here too. Had Schwarzenegger signed the bill, that would not have put him in danger of reelection. Kaine’s vetoing the bill would have guaranteed a Republican win the next election. In any case, I see some hope in the near future for California, but not the same for Virginia. I no longer travel regularly to Virginia, and I’m afraid to say I don’t miss it.

    Comment by Pat — January 20, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - January 20, 2006

  43. Pat in #44 hits the nail on the head. They are “pro gay rights” as long as it doesn’t hurt them politically. When it does you get DOMA, DADT and the now overturned Texas Sodomy statute. Since they get no real heat and in fact loads of cash and votes from the very group that “understands” that they were “forced” to do these bad things, they continue to do them. And who gets the short end of this deal? Look in the mirror.

    Comment by Bobo — January 20, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - January 20, 2006

  44. Anyway, the sad fact is that in order to win the governorship of Virginia, one cannot be supporting of gay marriage.

    Kaine’s vetoing the bill would have guaranteed a Republican win the next election.

    And yet we waste time and millions of dollars sucking politico butt when we know damn well that they cannot and will not ever stand up for gay rights because of the voters.

    You have just proven in one fell swoop why pimp and ‘ho organizations like HRC, who give millions of dollars to homophobic politicians at the expense of voter campaigns, are total and complete wastes of time, space, and money.

    You have also proven why the “gay activist” tactic of blaming Republicans for everything and sucking Democratic ass is useless — because it alienates a minimum of half the population and empowers the homophobic majority of the other to act.

    That’s why this next statement is false, in my opinion:

    Had Schwarzenegger signed the bill, that would not have put him in danger of reelection.

    Oh yes it would have. That’s called expecting liars and thieves to keep their word. When HRC’s executive board members and future President endorse an FMA supporter because she’s pro-abortion and a Democrat, or when every major gay organization calls a Democratic candidate who advocates stripping gays of rights based on his religious beliefs “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, only an idiot would still believe that “gay activists” vote on record and not on political affiliation.

    Put more starkly, Schwarzenegger comes out AGAINST amendments stripping gays of rights and STRONGLY in favor of civil unions, and he’s called a horrible antigay bigot. John Kerry comes out in FAVOR of amendments that strip gays of rights and, as in the case of Missouri and Michigan, ban civil unions as well, and he’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    If Kaine does sign the bill, he does deserve the same criticism from the gay community.

    But he will never get it. The “Jewish Nazi” and “self-loathing” gays like myself, GPW, GP, and others will criticize him, but according to HRC and their ilk, we’re not really gay and we don’t count, so maybe they’ll just start another round of harassing our families and our bosses to try to get us fired.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - January 20, 2006

  45. So, Pat in #44, you basically make it clear that it’s all about keeping a Republican from being elected governor of Virginia.

    Gov. Schwarzenegger actually did a good thing for gays by vetoing the bill as it decreases the likelihood that a harsh anti-gay marriage anti-civil unions referendum could pass in the Golden State. (Indeed, social conservatives are having trouble gathering signatures for their proposed referendum.) If the legislature enacts gay marriage (and the Governor signs the bill), watch for those supporting a referendum to gain momentum.

    And as to the difference between signing a bill and vetoing one, that’s not the real issue here. The real issue is the political cowardice of Democrats on gay issues. If they can get votes by appealing to the gay community, then they will do so. But, if they risk losing votes from centrist voters by supporting pro-gay legislation, they run for the hills.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 20, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - January 20, 2006

  46. 40: You spend an awful lot of time in your posts putting words in people’s mouths, you know that? For myself, and I would venture the majority of gays/lesbians out there, we we simply want to enjoy the same legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy in this country (ie those you get with a marriage certificate). It’s nonsense that same sex couples have to jump through hoop after hoop after to simply get the same thing.

    I (and others across this country) want to simply enjoy the same rights that everyone else enjoys, by the simple fact of the equal protection laws and clauses of our federal and state constitutions. All laws, rights and freedoms granted by our government process need to apply to everyone. Why exactly do you continue to twist this into demands for special rights?

    As you do in your other posts, you make far reaching assumptions about individuals who write here with absolutely no information about them, their beliefs, who they support politically, etc. And, of course, you use the most negative assumptions you can think of to portray anyone with a liberal leaning (or even moderate conservatives for that matter) in the worst light possible. I have never claimed in anything I have ever written here that there are some kind of gay death camps in existence in this country. You stupidly took a item I wrote about the future could be if we continue to allow leaders of our government to go unchecked and I’ve noticed you choose to say it over and over and over again. Just because you use this tactic doesn’t make it true.

    Comment by Kevin — January 20, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - January 20, 2006

  47. I (and others across this country) want to simply enjoy the same rights that everyone else enjoys, by the simple fact of the equal protection laws and clauses of our federal and state constitutions. All laws, rights and freedoms granted by our government process need to apply to everyone. Why exactly do you continue to twist this into demands for special rights?

    Because, Kevin, you want the state of Oklahoma to honor an invalid will because the participants involved are gay. And when someone has the balls to point out that that’s wrong, you namecall them as a “cold-hearted, unfeeling son of a bitch”.

    Don’t invoke laws for which you obviously have no respect when they don’t go your way.

    As you do in your other posts, you make far reaching assumptions about individuals who write here with absolutely no information about them, their beliefs, who they support politically, etc. And, of course, you use the most negative assumptions you can think of to portray anyone with a liberal leaning (or even moderate conservatives for that matter) in the worst light possible.

    I believe this is to what you are referring:

    How do I know? Simple. If you had valued Meadows’ and Beaumont’s relationship, you and your fellow gay leftists wouldn’t have been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to FMA supporters. If you had given a damn about their rights, you wouldn’t have been dropping millions on politicians who wanted to strip them while throwing pennies to initiatives to stop such things.

    Moreover, I can see it by what you’ve said here. Not one word about sending money to help pay Beaumont’s legal bills. Not one word about getting him some form of support. Not one word of thanks to the town and people who accepted and supported them. Just more ravings about how Republicans are homophobes and this “proves” we need gay marriage.

    Feel free to contradict any of those. But in the process, Kevin, you’re going to have to admit that Democrats are homophobic bigots and that gay leaders are mendacious and greedy idiots who waste vast sums of money on homophobes, and, in my opinion, you are no more capable of that than you are of spreading your arms and flying.

    I have never claimed in anything I have ever written here that there are some kind of gay death camps in existence in this country. You stupidly took a item I wrote about the future could be if we continue to allow leaders of our government to go unchecked and I’ve noticed you choose to say it over and over and over again. Just because you use this tactic doesn’t make it true.

    LOL….oh please. That one is pushed by prominent gay Democrats who are supported by such luminaries as Harry Reid and Louise Slaughter. You CAN’T say that isn’t true, Kevin; that would mean that Democrats are lying to gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2006 @ 6:30 pm - January 20, 2006

  48. Does anyone know when Mike Rogers is leaving the country? I know that it can take a while to pack but it’s been over a year now and some might question his credibility if he doesn’t relocate soon.

    Comment by Bobo — January 20, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - January 20, 2006

  49. 49: Sorry, but you prove my point once again. You take the statement(s) of individal and automatically assign them to every gay liberal in existence. That’s just wrong. I’m an individual responding on a website. I don’t portend to be a “gay leader” who speaks for or agrees with each and every thing that every liberal says. I’ve said as much before when commenting on other topics (especially when I’ve actually agreed with one of 2 of the conservative viewpoints here), but you and a few other people conveniently ignore that.

    Here’s a question: There are some anti-gay conservatives out there who make ridiculous statements like “all gays are child molestors”. Do you agree with that just becaue you’re a conservative? I would hope not.

    Comment by Kevin — January 20, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - January 20, 2006

  50. #47 GPW, you’ve got to be kidding me. I thought it was only the Democrats that were good with spin. Let me see if I understand this. It is wrong for Kaine to sign the legislation because it will help keep Republicans out of office and thus help gay rights, but Schwarzenegger’s veto will help gay rights. So basically, you are essentially justifying the same type of action you and NDT are criticizing the liberals. Don’t you think there will be backlash if Kaine vetoes the bill? My point is that I don’t like either’s actions. But they are both doing it for political reasons. Either side can have arguments as to which actions will help gay rights in the long run. It just seems like that when a Democrat does it, it is praised by Democrats and criticized by Republicans, and vice versa.

    Also, a good point was made above about both parties being anti-gay. The Democrats will say nice things to gays and then stab them in the back, whereas, supposedly, you know where you stand Republicans. Sounds like a big philosophical difference, but it’s not. Both parties are simply saying things that will get more votes from their voting bases, period. We saw this with the President. While governor of Texas, he supported keeping homosexual sex a crime. But in order to become President with a broader voting bases, his position conveniently changed. I don’t like it, but the political reality is that politicians like Schwarzenegger, Kaine, Bush, and Kerry are going to do the politically expedient thing many times.

    NDT, I understand your distaste for the HRC as well as their hypocrisy. I understand that they have endorsed anti-gay Democrats and criticized Republicans that are more pro-gay. But I am curious if there is an example where in a race between a Republican and a Democrat where HRC endorsed a Democrat over a Republican who was more pro-gay. This goes way back, but I remember HRC endorsing Alphonse D’Amato over a Democrat for Senate once, and although he was relatively progressive towards gay rights, I don’t recall him being more pro-gay than his opponent. Personally, I can only remember one instance where the Republican was more pro-gay than his opponent (in an election I cast a vote for). He got my vote easily.

    The other thing is that the perception by most gays is that the Democrats are more pro-gay (or less anti-gay) than the Republicans in general. My view is that it is more than a perception, factoring in the hypocrisy of both parties. I do believe that anti-gay actions by Kerry and others should be criticized, and that (if everything else is about equal) should vote Republican if that candidate is better on gay rights. But I kind of liken liberals closing their eyes to anti-gay Democrats to liking a favorite sports team and hating their rival. When your rival does something bad, you tend to point it more than when it’s your team doing the same thing. Yes, it’s still hypocrisy, but that’s the way it is. And one can say the same about Republicans who say that they are no more anti-gay than the Democrats. It sounds to many people that they say that to excuse their support for Republicans.

    Comment by Pat — January 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am - January 21, 2006

  51. Sorry, but you prove my point once again. You take the statement(s) of individal and automatically assign them to every gay liberal in existence.

    I repeat myself:

    Feel free to contradict any of those. But in the process, Kevin, you’re going to have to admit that Democrats are homophobic bigots and that gay leaders are mendacious and greedy idiots who waste vast sums of money on homophobes, and, in my opinion, you are no more capable of that than you are of spreading your arms and flying.

    Here’s a question: There are some anti-gay conservatives out there who make ridiculous statements like “all gays are child molestors”. Do you agree with that just becaue you’re a conservative? I would hope not.

    Obviously you aren’t reading my blog.

    But therein lies the difference, Kevin. I have no qualms about criticizing the views of someone who may share some points of ideology or belief with me. I can’t even get you to apply your “anyone who opposes gay marriage is a hateful homophobic bigot” rhetoric equally.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2006 @ 1:50 am - January 22, 2006

  52. And one can say the same about Republicans who say that they are no more anti-gay than the Democrats. It sounds to many people that they say that to excuse their support for Republicans.

    The difference is, Pat, that that construct requires IGNORING the sins of your own party. I don’t.

    Also, it again buys into the myth that organizations like HRC “have” to endorse politicians at the expense of voter initiatives which, as I pointed out above, is completely futile.

    How about gay-rights organizations try standing up for gay rights instead of uselessly kissing politico ass? The reason they don’t is because whores like Joe Solmonese, Hilary Rosen, Elizabeth Birch, and others are paid by those Democratic politicians to manipulate the organizations to suit their ends.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2006 @ 1:56 am - January 22, 2006

  53. NDT, I don’t ignore the “sins” of the Democratic Party either. But I think we can agree that there are people on both sides of the aisle that do.

    I also agree with you about many of the problems at HRC. But we still disagree on the money issue. In my view, and HRC’s view, Kerry was the less anti-gay candidate and gay rights would have advanced more with Kerry as President. So I agree with them in endorsing (although it should have been conditional) and giving money to the Kerry campaign. Since the election was close, their money could have made a difference. Since the anti-gay state amendments mostly won by landslides, I don’t see the money going there making a difference. I know we’ve disagreed on this point, and I’m not sure there is anything else more to say on this issue, as I don’t think there is any chance of convincing each other otherwise.

    Comment by Pat — January 22, 2006 @ 10:26 am - January 22, 2006

  54. NDT – when did HRC endorse an FMA supporter? Salmonese worked at Emily’s List – and at that time, Emily’s List supported at least two FMA supporters – Stephanie Herseth and Inez Tanenbalm. Herseth won, Tanenbalm lost.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 22, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - January 22, 2006

  55. Make sure you read my statement completely, Eva:

    When HRC’s executive board members and future President endorse an FMA supporter because she’s pro-abortion and a Democrat,

    HRC isn’t quite THAT stupid as an organization, although I have zero doubt in my mind that they would do it if the DNC ordered them to or threatened the finances of their executive board. Robin Tyler blew the whistle on their little pimping scheme.

    And also, don’t you find it vaguely ironic, as I pointed out, that gay Democrats like John Aravosis DEMANDED that any gay person who worked for an organization that endorsed FMA supporters resign or be humiliated publicly, but stayed completely silent on Solmonese?

    In my view, and HRC’s view, Kerry was the less anti-gay candidate and gay rights would have advanced more with Kerry as President…..Since the anti-gay state amendments mostly won by landslides, I don’t see the money going there making a difference.

    Why not f*cking try it for a change, instead of pumping millions of dollars into supporting homophobes? HRC didn’t give squat to state initiatives — they gave Missouri barely $100k, versus the MILLIONS they gave the Kerry campaign — for a very simple reason; doing that involves voters, not politicians, and voters don’t pay them — politicians do.

    There is zero excuse for HRC to waste money on homophobes. ZERO. Tell them to play ball or go f*ck themselves, we’ll talk to the voters directly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2006 @ 1:31 am - January 23, 2006

  56. NDT, I would love it if we had two candidates for President that were both totally for gay equality, but we don’t. I don’t even know when we’ll get one. Until then, we are stuck with (everything else being equal) choosing the less anti-gay candidate so that, at least, gay rights could advance. We got stuck with Bush again, but at least it was close, and I don’t fault HRC for putting money Kerry’s way. In fact, I think it was the right thing for HRC to do. I realize you vehemently disagree with this point (enough so you added some invectives there), but that’s the way I feel. So be it. HRC probably should have put some money in the states where the vote was close for the amendment. Who knows, maybe it would have made a difference in one state. The way I see it, had HRC spent money in states where the amendment was going to pass anyway, that money would have been wasted when there was a good chance of getting the bigger homophobe out of the White House.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2006 @ 8:38 am - January 23, 2006

  57. HRC probably should have put some money in the states where the vote was close for the amendment. Who knows, maybe it would have made a difference in one state. The way I see it, had HRC spent money in states where the amendment was going to pass anyway, that money would have been wasted when there was a good chance of getting the bigger homophobe out of the White House.

    Brilliant. And how well did you succeed in that strategy?

    Let’s see….your favored homophobe isn’t President, but he certainly has remained .

    Meanwhile, state constitutional amendments passed overwhelmingly in every state, no doubt assisted by the fact that your homophobic candidate praised them so, making it clear to his party members that homophobia was the “right thing”.

    In short, you got all negatives and no positives.

    Well, one positive — I’m sure the Democratic lobbyists who run HRC and NGLTF and paid “consultants” like John Aravosis cleaned up for their campaigns to a) deliver 77% of the gay vote to a homophobe and b) terrorize the remaining 23% with namecalling and workplace harassment.

    This is what I don’t get though, Pat. You admit above that homophobic politicians are homophobic because voters demand them to be. Yet then you insist that, rather than spending money on changing voters, we pick and choose among homophobes instead.

    The day we get rid of homophobic politicians is the day when they realize voters won’t stand for it. However, as long as gay money is wasted on rewarding homophobes at the expense of voter campaigns, we’ll continue to get what we pay for — homophobic voters AND homophobic politicians.

    If you wanted to break the back of the FMA once and for all, the simple way to do it is to show people that the necessary three-fourths of the states wouldn’t ratify it. However, when massive majorities pass every single antigay initiative that comes along, that’s an impossible thing to do.

    Simply put, Pat, you get what you pay for. I just prefer educated voters to homophobic politicians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2006 @ 9:26 pm - January 23, 2006

  58. NDT, all I can say is that when making decisions about donating money to politicians before an election, you don’t have a crystal ball that tells you whether you candidate did win, especially if it is a close election. All indications were that the anti-gay amendments were going to pass overwhelmingly in most states. If my crystal ball said that Kerry was going to lose, maybe I would have used my $50 elsewhere. I’m also for “educating” voters as well. But so is everyone else.

    You make good points regarding HRC, Kerry, etc. And I agree with some of them. But the fact remains is that, somehow, we got a more anti-gay President (and an incredibly inept one at that) that was somehow reelected. You’re fine with that, and that’s okay. I wasn’t. But I’m over it, and looking ahead now.

    NDT, I appreciate your thoughts here, but again, I don’t think we are going to convince the other. It seems like we are both stuck thinking are own arguments make perfect sense, while the other person’s doesn’t.

    Comment by Pat — January 24, 2006 @ 7:40 am - January 24, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.