Gay Patriot Header Image

Where Is Your (Gay) Money Going?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:11 am - January 25, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Gay America,Gay Politics

I’m starting to get angry. The Human Rights Campaign has raised tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars with their concentration camp-esque scare tactic fundraising techniques in the decade. They have themselves a beautiful multimillion dollar building in the heart of Lobbyist Row in downtown Washington, DC.

Meantime, the Log Cabin Republican national organization claims to have tens of thousands of supporters and grown its budget from a few hundred thousand a couple years ago to over $3 million, if I recall from my chat with LCR Prez Guerriero last year.

So my fellow gay Americans, I ask you…. Where Is Your Money Going?

A study released today offers up some of the most disturbing figures surrounding the gay marriage debate. Even more so than the actual numbers for which voters approved state bans (ration of 3-1). What is more frightening than the 3-1 ratio of people who feel I should not be granted equal rights is the amount spent on the 2004 campaigns dedicated to the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. 13 states voted on gay marriage in 2004 and only $13 MM total was spent on the political campaigns. And even more upsetting was the fact that the ban proponents spent more ($6.8 MM) than our (gay) lobbying groups ($6.5 MM).

I’m shocked. I thought we were in this war to win it. I thought that our lobbying groups were fighting the good fight. And by that, I mean spending our money on campaigns to oppose the gay ban on marriage. Where was the HRC, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Log Cabin Republicans, GLAAD? All groups which promised me in their literature asking for my time and donation that they were fighting for my right to marry. What the F*CK did they do with the money I sent to them? And the money YOU sent to them?

The gay lobby only spent $6.5 MM to fight bans in 13 states? No WONDER we lost.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. These so-called gay “rights” organizations have got to become more accountable to their members and those of us who just send money from time to time. We must demand transparency and open books. If it is good enough for Congress (in the wake of the lobbying/corruption scandals), why not HRC, LCR, GLAAD and others?

I don’t give money to any of these groups anymore since they all have become virtual mouthpieces for the liberal wing of the SurrenderCrats. I won’t give any of my hard earned money to Log Cabin until they truly put the “Republican” back into their organization.

But I know a lot of you do support these groups. Friends, you are getting ripped off. Your money is lining the pockets of well-paid lobbyists and PR masters who work for registered charitable organizations. You need to demand to know where your money is being spent. You need to demand accountability and open books. The time is now to demand these answers from our “gay leaders.”

Right here. Right now.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

53 Comments

  1. I do not donate to any of these groups.
    Why?
    For precisely the reasons you mentioned.

    I also feel that the whole thought of “gay leaders” makes about as much sense as “black leaders”, neither of which “leads” or represents the majority of people they claim to be helping.
    Besides, the last thing I need is for some “group” to presume to speak for me.
    1. They usually get it wrong
    2. I’m more than capable of speaking for myself.

    Comment by JonInAtlanta — January 25, 2006 @ 8:25 am - January 25, 2006

  2. You’re right.

    Comment by hank — January 25, 2006 @ 9:34 am - January 25, 2006

  3. We don’t donate to the national groups like HRC and NGLTF either, but largely they are ineffectual and aren’t likely to accomplish anything any time soon for gay people. We do donate to state (Massachusetts) and regional (New England) groups, but largely because they have actually accomplished something for gay people.

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 10:25 am - January 25, 2006

  4. I too refuse to send them one red cent. The fact that these organizations are gay advocacy groups means very little – they are no better than any other “union” or other organization that takes the dues ponied up by the members and uses that money to support the lifestyle of those running the organization.

    They are in it for them, not for us. Not one f’ing dime.

    Comment by Robert — January 25, 2006 @ 10:30 am - January 25, 2006

  5. Let’s check in with the political party the HRC and the NGLTF act on behalf of: Maryland Democrats Seek to Block Gay Marriage

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2006 @ 11:55 am - January 25, 2006

  6. Sad article VK. The Democrats are trying to cut the GOP at the pass and delay the marriage debate until after the election because they know the Republicans are going to use it as a Pavlovian mechanism to get their base out to the polls. So once again, gay people get to be used as the demons that bring the high turn out for the social conservative wing of the Republican party. It is so sadly predictable how well the Republicans can play the gay-baiting game.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 25, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - January 25, 2006

  7. What’s even more sad and disturbing is that the DEMs are trying to delay the marriage debate because of the problem they are facing. If it happens now they will have to actually choose a side on the marriage issue before an election. That is just so unfair! My prediction is that, as it happened here in Texas and elsewhere, those with safe seats will remain “friends” and those who are in competitive races will come out in favor of a gay marriage ban. Of course HRC, NGLTF, etc. will “understand” because they aren’t really bigots even though they take the same position and vote the same way as the evil Republicans. They just had to do it but they feel really bad about it (in private of course) so it’s OK.

    Comment by Bobo — January 25, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - January 25, 2006

  8. Bobo, what the Dems really need is a Rovian type operative that can cut through these types of issues with good PR campaigns. Your main opposition candidate is an ex-POW war hero that adopts 3rd world children–paint him as being emotionally unstable mess from his wartime experiences and a man who has out of wedlock children with black people. It’s really quite genius of the man. As we highlighted in a previous article, Dems problem is lack of pushing an ideological message. They could easily turn the gay rights issue back on the social conservatives, thus increasing their power and the power of moderate Republicans. They don’t, and the moderate Republicans kowtow to the social conservative leadership instead. So some how the bigots with 20% of the vote get to run the country, go figure.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 25, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - January 25, 2006

  9. Great post, Bruce!

    Here in Michigan, the gay community’s liberal leadership begged Gov Granholm to work against the gay marriage ban 18 months ago and she, self-purported leader of the Democrat Party, was demur at best. And she’s done little to assist in the court battle that followed.

    Zero help in fundraising. Zero help in any meaningful media campaign. Zero help in motivating progressive Christians to offset the fundamentalists. Zero, zilch, nada.

    And our two aging Senators (both Dems, Stabenow and Levin) weren’t much help either. When confronted by the media for their silence on an important civil rights ballot issue, they said it was “State issue” not a federal issue. Last time I checked, they were state residents and the dodge amounted to nothing more than a swift Washington two step. Federal issue, my ass.

    And yet after Michigan became one of the 11 states adopting anti-gay bans, the buffons in our gay community went right back to sitting in the Dems laps like good lap dogs. Talk about PLANTATION POLITICS! Argghhh –and I’m not even pirate.

    Screw the HRC. I want to know when our fearless self-appointed leaders in the Michigan gay community are going to renounce the failed leadership of the Dems and find other uses for their hard earned, but disposable, income.

    Wait, I have an answer: Never. Fealty is blind.

    Adding insult to injury, now in Michigan there’s a ballot initiative to reverse affirmative action policies. Guess what? The Dems are out in force! Working hard, cutting commercials, lining up votes on the State Bd of Canvassers, arming the proponents with lots of $$$. They’re outraged! They’re the Party of Civil Rights and decency and Mom and…

    Argggh!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - January 25, 2006

  10. And so JonInAtlanta said the ugly truth we ain’t a monolithic people. Civil rights movement didn’t succeed because people felt it was the right thing to do, it succeeded b/c numbers were on their side. Politicians are an evil scumb sucking bunch, who check the prevailing trade wind, collect all sorts of money from all sorts of groups and then determine which of these causes is expendable because on the whole they agree with our other message.

    I think I may have OD on my bitter pill this morning.

    PS: Bruce, next time you decide that you want to blog, don’t announce it. Your blog eats up my time – not sure if it is b/c it is well written, much to read, or simply entertaining. In any event, good job!!!!

    Comment by ralph — January 25, 2006 @ 4:13 pm - January 25, 2006

  11. This site spends a lot of time attacking people / groups. Not just in this post, but several others. So what are y’all doing to fight these anti-marriage initiatives? You bitch and moan about what these groups aren’t doing right. Have you given up on fighting for gay rights because it’s just too convenient to attack the left leaning gay rights orgs?

    Comment by Kevin — January 25, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - January 25, 2006

  12. Re: Mr. Moderate #8 – I nominate Markos at the Daily Kos. Check out this Rovelike brilliance:

    “That’s Osama Bin Laden. And wow, he sounds just like Republicans!

    Let’s not forget that ultimately, Osama’s vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right’s vision of America. Remember these old posts? On homosexuality, on militarism, on women’s rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don’t share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country.

    The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we’re fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.”

    All I can say is please keep it Kos.

    Comment by Bobo — January 25, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - January 25, 2006

  13. Because I know nothing of its sexual preference, I refuse to label my currency as “gay” or any other way. Let’s not be silly. Consumers may be gay but money is money is money.

    Comment by glisteny — January 25, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - January 25, 2006

  14. Bobo, see that’s not how Rove does it. That is totally in your face hyperbole. Rove’s tactics are much more subtle and more effective than that. His way is more akin to a George C. Scott line from the movie Patton, “Give me a week and I’ll have us a war with those sons-a-bitches (the Russians) and make it look like their fault!”

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 25, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - January 25, 2006

  15. The difference, Mr. Mod, is that HRC and NGLTF won’t be giving any money to Republicans, because Republicans oppose same sex marriage. These same groups will be giving lots and lots of money to Democrats, even though Democrats will also oppose same-sex marriage.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - January 25, 2006

  16. My gay money goes into my business. Have nothing left over. I hate it. But that’s business when you own your own.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 25, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - January 25, 2006

  17. This site spends a lot of time attacking people / groups. Not just in this post, but several others. So what are y’all doing to fight these anti-marriage initiatives? You bitch and moan about what these groups aren’t doing right. Have you given up on fighting for gay rights because it’s just too convenient to attack the left leaning gay rights orgs?

    Well, here’s the problem, Kevin…..as long as gay organizations spend roughly twice as much to promote as “gay-supportive” and “pro-gay” the candidates who support these amendments as it does on fighting these amendments, it is a losing cause.

    After all, what are we telling voters? “These amendments are immoral and wrong, but it’s pro-gay and gay-supportive for you to praise, support, and vote for them.”

    Furthermore, Kevin, when we’re dealing with gays like you who swiftly condemn any Republican who opposes gay marriage as a horrible bigot, but who just can’t even bring themselves to condemn Democrats in the same fashion, it’s even worse.

    Why don’t you demonstrate to us first that you support gay rights, not the Democratic Party? You see, we don’t need another gay like you walking around telling people it’s all right to be homophobic because you’re a Democrat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - January 25, 2006

  18. Dems problem is lack of pushing an ideological message.

    Because they know nobody would vote for the party of doom, gloom, surrender and higher taxes.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 1:52 am - January 26, 2006

  19. Oh and thinly veild Socialism.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 1:52 am - January 26, 2006

  20. #11

    This site spends a lot of time attacking people / groups. Not just in this post, but several others.

    You spend a lot of time bitching and attacking Bruce & Dan and not enough time leaving.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 1:56 am - January 26, 2006

  21. Michigan-Matt, you r right on the money. I am also in Michigan, where we have groups like the Triangle Foundation that marches in anti-war demonstrations when they should be focusing on gay issues here in Michigan.

    The national groups seem to have forgot that there are gay people here in the middle of the country. Not all gays are on the east and west coasts. I never once saw any ads paid for by HRC or any other national gay organization against the anti-marriage ammendment here.

    Comment by republic — January 26, 2006 @ 3:07 am - January 26, 2006

  22. Well, let’s see the larger picture. Jonathan Rauch, a libertarian-conservative by everyone’s standards writes:

    “The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is, strictly speaking, a deficit-reduction act only in the Washington sense of the term—meaning, it is part of a plan to increase the deficit. It consists of about $40 billion of reductions in spending on entitlement programs, spread over five years (fiscal 2006 through 2010). Based on Congressional Budget Office forecasts, the Deficit Reduction Act will reduce entitlement outlays by about 0.5 percent over that period and cut cumulated deficits by about 2.5 percent. Wow.

    “Meanwhile, another budget bill is slated to cut taxes by $70 billion over the same five-year period. The net effect of the two bills (known as reconciliation bills) would be to increase the deficit by $30 billion. “The fact that the overall effect of reconciliation taken together was to enlarge rather than reduce the deficit undermines the credibility of anyone claiming that this was a deficit-reduction package,” says Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal-watchdog group.”

    Don’t get me wrong. I’d like to know how, when, where, and why my voluntary contributions to GLBT groups are spent more on socials rather than political action. But the CONFISCATORY contributions I am coerced to pay tax cuts to the affluent (58% of the tax cuts goes to just 1% of the population). Meanwhile, while you lament, and rightly, that our political contributions don’t seem to get much bang for the buck, what’s going on in Washington to curtail spending is a farce.

    So, if GWB and the Republicans can misuse our public trough for their buddies, I guess I won’t cry over the pittance that could be better spent on GLBT activism. And, we do agree; GLBT activism ought to be JUST that. Abortion, while legally salient, since it opened the door to privacy, is not OUR cause, but not irrelevant to it either.

    Comment by Stephen — January 26, 2006 @ 6:09 am - January 26, 2006

  23. This site spends a lot of time attacking people / groups. Not just in this post, but several others.

    Says the guy who accused Republicans of wanting to “exterminate” gay people.

    Comment by V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 8:20 am - January 26, 2006

  24. But the CONFISCATORY contributions I am coerced to pay tax cuts to the affluent (58% of the tax cuts goes to just 1% of the population)

    Well, first off, that 1% of the population pays far more than 1% of the tax.

    Second off, what “confiscation”? Do you not pay any taxes at ALL?

    Second off

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2006 @ 8:43 am - January 26, 2006

  25. What Stephen fails to note is that his beloved Democrats vigorously protested even the miniscule amount of reductions Republicans were proposing.

    Eliminate the Rx drug giveaway (or, at least, means-test it), return Education and Ag spending to Inflation-adjusted Clinton-Era levels, eliminate the pork-barrel earmarks from the Transportation bill, and that would significantly reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, no Democrats and only conservative Republicans support real budget reform.

    Comment by V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 9:00 am - January 26, 2006

  26. V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 8:20 am – January 26, 2006

    Says the guy who accused Republicans of wanting to “exterminate” gay people.

    Of course Republicans don’t want to exterminate gay people. Just as they don’t want to outlaw abortion. If they did either, they wouldn’t have the issues to pander to their religious right base with.

    It’s all public relations.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 9:38 am - January 26, 2006

  27. I used to donate to HRC, but won’t any more, until they get their house in order, if that ever happens. GP gives some of the reasons. The others are that, as some have mentioned, is that they are too aligned to the Democratic party, and also endorse candidates based on issues that are not gay right’s issues.

    I don’t have a problem with HRC endorsing a candidate who has a position or two that is anti-gay, as long as it’s a case in which the other candidate is more anti-gay, and if the election of the candidate shows promise of advancing gay rights in the jurisdiction that they represent. Until we have equality, we do have to make realistic choices. But HRC should be honest about it, and express reservations when endorsing a candidate. And HRC should make a bigger effort in supporting Republicans, when the Republican candidate is a better choice for gay rights than the Democratic candidate. For example, if in the next Senate race, Kerry runs against a Republican candidate who favors gay marriage in Massachusetts, or at least quiet about it (but supportive of all other gay rights issues as Kerry), then HRC needs to endorse Kerry’s opponent.

    Yes, more money should have been spent on preventing the anti-gay state amendments from passing. And I am not sure what HRC and other organizations’ reasons for not doing so. But it seems to me that in almost all of the states, throwing $1 trillion wouldn’t have made a difference. And even in the states where it might have made a difference, the anti-gay opponents would have countered with more money.

    Comment by Pat — January 26, 2006 @ 10:45 am - January 26, 2006

  28. # 27 little “p” pat, while I agree with your comments, the last one you make is almost like total capitulation –no matter what gay rights groups could have spent, it would have had little benefit in some states and been outweighed by what the anti-gay groups were able to spend.

    I can only speak about Michigan. But frankly, with as little as $680,000 more, we could have probably defeated the ballot initiative –money and political advocacy are the right tools to defeat even ballot initiatives that seem sound, reasoned and prudent –just look to CA in the last elections. Big Labor and the teachers union used money to defeat reasonable, prudent initiatives. Soundly.

    We could have done that hear in Michigan IF the Dem-aligned gay rights groups had been spending wisely and been more deliberate in the public advocacy. We lost because of a lack of access to money to get our message to the voters. Period. End of story.

    If any gay rights groups says that money didn’t matter, they’re nuts. And frankly, like Bruce noted above, they don’t deserve cab fare home.

    Money wouldn’t have made a difference? It sure as Hell woudl have in Michigan.

    We would have been outspent anyway? No, even the anti-gay bigots have limits to the wallet –no anti-gay group I know of in Michigan has the enviable ability to dun its members for politicial contributions like Big Labor enjoys.

    Moeny and public advocacy would have made a huge difference in Michiga –even without the support of Granholm, Stabenow, Levin or Labor.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 26, 2006 @ 11:38 am - January 26, 2006

  29. Did we all forget that one of the main principles of the Republican plank is more state control and less Federal Control? Our giving should be the same way. We should give to organizations on the state level since most, if not all, of the issues we are dealing with right now are fought on the state level.

    I never give to ANY national organization, ie. Red Cross, United Way, etc. National organizations have too much overhead, too much corruption and way too much in the CEO paycheck. Local organizations can use the money where it counts…on the local level.

    Comment by DJ — January 26, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - January 26, 2006

  30. Matt, I agree that my last comment sounds like capitulation. Money should have been spent in states like Michigan where the vote was close. If you say it would have made a difference, then fine. And even if it brought out the opposition to spend their money, that would have been fine too, since that would have diverted their money from some other anti-gay cause.

    Anyway, that was a nice touch with the little “p” garbage. I guess we have to expect that infantile crap from conservatives as well. Or maybe my assumption that you are an adult was incorrect. Later.

    Comment by Pat — January 26, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - January 26, 2006

  31. # 30, sorry for the offense, Pat; none was intended. I meant it to differentiate from the other Pat –who goes by GryphPat or PatGryph or something. I thought you did your name in lower case.

    No offense intended; once again, sorry it came across that way.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - January 26, 2006

  32. #30, Pat –and actually it was republic that did the lower case. Again, sorry for the offense.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 26, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - January 26, 2006

  33. To throw in a couple of cliche’s that seem to be true, all politics are local so think globally but act locally. Put money into local organizations as it keeps the money closer to the people. But then I should also add I am no fan of the National Orgs.

    Comment by blowhard — January 26, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - January 26, 2006

  34. North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2006 @ 8:43 am – January 26, 2006

    Well, first off, that 1% of the population pays far more than 1% of the tax.

    This is true for federal income taxes, but when the complete mix of federal, state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes, and various fees are figured in, it is far too complex to confirm.

    Regardless, I’ll merely throw out a quotation from my law school contract professor in the early 1970s: you can’t get blood out of a turnip. The relevance of this? The poor and middle class don’t have enough combined income to be taxed to support the various levels of government, including federal corporate welfare and the federal government’s foreign military adventures, neither of which benefit them.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - January 26, 2006

  35. I won’t give any of my hard earned money to Log Cabin until they truly put the “Republican” back into their organization.

    So Bruce… Remind me again exactly why you hate LCR? I mean other than the fact that they didn’t endorse Bush? In which other ways are they not “Republican”?

    And it seems to me that whats gone on with HRC is the same thing that has gone on with Trent Lott’s “Pay to Play” philosophy. Democrats will only listen to lobbyists that are democrats. So HRC becomes mouthpiece of Democrats. Especially since the GOP literally campaigns proudly on being “anti-gay”. And on Capitol Hill, the GOP will only deal with lobbying firms that hire only Republicans. So now the majority of lobby firms in DC are GOP owned controlled, and staffed by …Republicans. So now who is the mouthpiece again? If the GOP were actually willing to listen to gay and lesbian Americans, then I suspect HRC would be a lot more diverse in its make-up. Of course, the Democrats are pretty entrenched, but still.

    At least with the GOP you don’t have to ask “where has the money gone “. You know it went directly to GOP campaign chests from the hand of lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 26, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - January 26, 2006

  36. So now the majority of lobby firms in DC are GOP owned controlled, and staffed by …Republicans. So now who is the mouthpiece again?

    Could be true, but I doubt it. You forgot to mention the larger liberal lobbying firms, which would dwarf the GOP ones, that is the liberal media.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - January 26, 2006

  37. V the K, or whatever. Are you aware that it was GWB’s idea to hoist this Medicare Part D on the public? Nobody, but a crazed bureaucrat would have contrived such a convoluted plan, and THEN handed it off to the INSURANCE and PHARMACEUTICAL companies to manage! One thing ordinary Medicare is: It’s a fiscally sound, efficient, and well-operated governmental program. But Medicare Part D is NONE of that. No. It’s payback from GWB for the piles of money the insurance and pharmaceutical companies contributed to his political campaigns.

    EVEN DEMS could not have been THIS stupid! No one but GWB could have conceptualized a program as stupid, arcane, idiotic, anti-consumer, and big-government as THIS nightmare! But hey, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies love it. Gee, I wonder why?

    Comment by DSH — January 26, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - January 26, 2006

  38. I agree with Patrick. LCR showed me that they are REAL Republicans, not big-government, social-conservative republicans, by refusing to endorse GWB’s reelection. Of course, it might also be that GWB has used the “gay” card for division and alienation. Or, that GWB is a bigger spender than LBJ. Or that GWB believes he’s above the law. Don’t get me started. There are hundreds of reasons why a REAL Republican would never endorse GWB. And, I for one, rewarded LCR for their courage.

    Comment by DSH — January 26, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - January 26, 2006

  39. 17: As you regularly do, you didn’t answer the question I asked, you created a cyclical arguement and you put words into my mouth I didn’t say. Why can’t you answer the question you fucking moron?

    Comment by Kevin — January 26, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - January 26, 2006

  40. 27: Thank you. (even if you weren’t responding to my question directly) That’s the kind of intelligent, reasonable answer I was looking for on this topic.

    Comment by Kevin — January 26, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - January 26, 2006

  41. Um – You don’t HAVE any money to give.

    Comment by Downtown Lad — January 26, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - January 26, 2006

  42. So Bruce – Where does the money that says “Make a Donation” on the right side of your site go? Inquiring minds want to know…

    Comment by Downtown Lad — January 26, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - January 26, 2006

  43. Into a PayPal account that helps support the upkeep of this website, including advertising.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 26, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - January 26, 2006

  44. 17: As you regularly do, you didn’t answer the question I asked, you created a cyclical arguement and you put words into my mouth I didn’t say. Why can’t you answer the question you fucking moron?

    Oh, I’ve answered it. You’ve just never bothered to read the answer because you were too busy assuming all that we do is sit around and bitch.

    The reason we bitch, Kevin, is because we’d be even more effective if people would stop associating unlimited abortion, teenage sex, socialism, and Cindy Sheehan with gay rights, not to mention if people realized that you can’t be called “pro-gay” while you’re pushing amendments to strip gays of rights. But those are antithetical to what HRC, the gay left, and yes, you believe.

    Feel free to prove otherwise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2006 @ 12:07 am - January 27, 2006

  45. #37 — Reality Check. Bush and Conservative Republicans originally proposed a program only 1/5th the size of what passed and what Bush ultimately signed, that was intended to cover only seniors that actually needed it. It was Democrats like Tom Daschle and liberal Republicans like John McCain that insisted on nothing less than a massive entitlement program that entitles wealthy seniors to pick the pockets of middle-class families for their prescription drugs. I fault Bush for signing the law, I fault Bush and Tom DeLay for lying about how expensive it would be, and I fault moderate Republicans for going along with it. But the Democrats, despite your delusions, are not the pillars of fiscal responsibility you make them out to be. To them, this massive and unnecessary waste of money is just the beginning.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 5:38 am - January 27, 2006

  46. #31 No problem, Matt. And I’m sorry for going overboard in my reaction.

    Comment by Pat — January 27, 2006 @ 8:16 am - January 27, 2006

  47. #11 Kevin, to answer that question you think didn’t get answered by others, to wit: rather than just bitch, what are we doing to combat anti-gay marriage initiatives?

    Read thru #9 and #28 again. I can’t speak for all gay conservatives as a block –and I doubt you want anyone to. But for me, in Michigan in 2004 ballot initiative, I logged 4,550 miles in a volunteer speakers bureau effort to travel to 64 of Michigan’s 83 counties in the lead-up to the vote. There were 12 conservative or moderate gays in that effort solidly against the ballot proposal. It was mostly night-time speaking engagements, usually a debate format, usually with a hostile crowd –certainly not unbiased or undecided.

    Why? Because each of us knew good public policy makes good politics and that can lead to opportunities to positively affect public perceptions –hopefully in our favor.

    Aside from the event, what we also ran into were parents and closeted gays who were there just to listen. Maybe connect with a larger community? I don’t know. But they saw positive role models, not afraid to speak on gay rights issues, and a hell of lot more prideful than queens and three-snap Democrats in thongs riding on floats in the summer.

    Kevin, part of the bitching about how our community has been largely sold-into-bondage with the Democrat Party by our self-professed “leaders” is I intend to hold these sell-outs accountable. Like VdaK and NDXXX and this website do, there’s a growing segment in our community that thinks being gay and political doesn’t have to equate to pulling the “D” lever in the voting booth. And it doesn’t mean pulling the “R” either.

    Don’t confuse accountability efforts with bitching, Kevin. They are different.

    Right now, our two US Senators in Michigan are arguing their opposition to Judge Alito based, in part, on his appearance of intolerance toward gay civil rights. Sorry, but that’s nothing more than high jacking gay civil rights to defend a partisan move. Pure and simple. I want those idiots out of Congress. Not because they’re Dems, but because they’re wrong for Michigan and out of touch with Michigan’s needs.

    And when fellow gays continue to walk lockstep with the gay community’s assumed Party of Choice, it is time to point out the inconsistencies in that allegiance. The Dems and Big labor and Teachers Unions in Michigan left gays to hazard the Ballot Initiative all on our own. National gay groups did it too. And whenever I attend a gay civil rights meeting and don’t show my decoder ring, do the secret handshake, or march lockstep with whale enthusiasts, abortionists, or labor interests, it’s met with intolerance.

    I think I have a sense of what black GOPers go through –because our community’s leadership is incredibly intolerant of conservative or GOPer gays. And that’s the other part of the combat>> changing the gay community leadership’s narrow, defeating vision of political alliances and what constitutes progress.

    For me, swilling cosmos with HRC staffers at a fundraiser of the Dem Party isn’t leadership or progress. It’s more the slaves coming to the Master’s house.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 27, 2006 @ 10:06 am - January 27, 2006

  48. glisteny said:

    Because I know nothing of its sexual preference, I refuse to label my currency as “gay” or any other way. Let’s not be silly. Consumers may be gay but money is money is money.

    I don’t know. The other day a opened my wallet to get some money, and there was a $5 bill stuck to, kinda wrinkled around, a $1 bill. I know I didn’t put them in there like that since I got the five some time after putting the one in my wallet. Since fives are Lincoln, and ones are Washington, and all forms of paper money in the U. S. are called “Bills”, I assume that US PAPER MONEY ARE OF THE MALE GENDER. So just what WERE they doing when I interrupted them??? You tell me. I’ve been around the block of the Castro district a few times. I’m not nieve. At least the bills weren’t stickey!

    OK. On second though maybe the money isn’t gay. Since the money had soo much free time to spend, just loafing around in my wallet, maybe they got bored, had a few cocktails, and were just experimenting. Maybe it was a “one-off” thing. Hey, I hear that happens. And we know how promiscuous some “Bills” can be.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 27, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - January 27, 2006

  49. Where is your gay money going?

    Why to the spank bank! 😉

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - January 27, 2006

  50. Just for the record, in case anyone reads the thread in the future and isn’t aware: DSH = continuation of Stephen

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 8:31 pm - January 27, 2006

  51. #51

    Any way we could get a discontinuation of Stephen?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 2:33 am - January 28, 2006

  52. #48

    You may not be “nieve” but you’re clearly naive in the spelling dept.

    Comment by glisteny — January 28, 2006 @ 2:57 am - January 28, 2006

  53. glisteny wrote:

    You may not be “nieve” but you’re clearly naive in the spelling dept.

    Oh, please. This is a blog – not a spelling bee! As if you’ve never misspelled or had a typo while posting a comment.

    PS. One of the reasons I started to blog was to exercise and improve my extremely poor typing and suspect spelling skills. Both are much, much better than they were a year ago, but still have a ways to go. If you want to be a collective proof reader for bloggers, I have no problem with that (it’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it I suppose). We all need that from time to time. But it would come off better if you said something like: “BTW, you misspelled this word – nieve – it should be “naive”, instead of using the mistake as some sort of snarky personal attack, which appears to be the goal of your comment. If you are a teacher, I hope you do not treat you student’s mistakes in the same fashion.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 28, 2006 @ 11:08 am - January 28, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.