Gay Patriot Header Image

Putting All Eggs In One Basket – Gay Groups Wail to Democrat Senators

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:30 pm - March 24, 2006.
Filed under: General

Hey you moaning, whiny leaders of the supposed “non-partisan” HRC, Lambda Legal and NGLTF (aka – Gays for Socialism) — get a grip. These Democrat Senators don’t give a rip about gay rights. They will throw us under the bus quicker than you can find a hanging chad in Broward County, FL. Listen to me verrrrry closely: All they want out of you is your money. And you all are stupid enough to give it to them carte blanche.

Gay Activists Confront Dem Senators – Washington Blade

The activists say that by remaining passive or by taking ambiguous and “tortured” positions on same-sex marriage and other hot-button gay issues, the senators and other Democrats are hurting the gay rights movement.

“One of our concerns as a group is that they don’t necessarily hear enough back from the community on how we hear and perceive the sometimes tortured and hair-splitting positions they try to take,” Cathcart said. “We are tired of being seen as the embarrassment to the party.”

Now, how about spending some of your valuable, multi-hundred of thousands of salaried time meeting with the people in power — Republicans. Don’t give me that crap about they don’t even admit gays exist. Sen. Tom Coburn will, most likely, singlehandedly save the Ryan White Act this year. I could go on and on.

And here is a radical thought for a bunch of American radicals — start giving campaign donations to Republicans so you can show up at their fundraisers and quietly talk to them instead of making every thing a PR bash-case. Our national gay leaders have less political maturity than this brave 16-year old Virginia boy who debated US Senator George Allen. Your bias about Republicans is hurting our cause just as much as Republicans bias about gays. How do you expect Republicans (the majority party in power) to come our way, if you won’t even put skin in the game?

Just get a friggin’ grip. Reality is calling you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

52 Comments

  1. Good Grief. How many times have I seen this blog excoriate GLBT political orgs for kissing Democrat ass too much? Now when they finally start developing hints of a spine you criticize them again? You ought to be cheering them on and offering encouragement.

    BTW, here is one little story of an attempt to speak to the GOP, in this case regarding DADT: It didn’t end well.

    http://freedomtoserve.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-date-with-duncan-hunter.html#fp

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 24, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - March 24, 2006

  2. Patrick has you dead to rights on this one, GP.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - March 24, 2006

  3. Patrick/Gryph-

    With that attitude, we won’t get anywhere for decades.

    -Bruce

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 24, 2006 @ 2:33 pm - March 24, 2006

  4. PS – What kind of a spine does it take to sit down with people who only want your money and wail to them? How about the people who actually pass legislation? Duh.

    Democrats in Washington are like Sunnis in Baghdad. Irrelevant except for the bomb throwing.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 24, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - March 24, 2006

  5. Here’s the problem, Gryph:

    The meeting was closed to the media and public.

    Or, later on, according to Harry Reid’s flack:

    “These are important meetings for Senator Reid and the committee,” Manley said while declining to comment on the issues discussed at the meeting. “We never talk about what is discussed at these meetings. It’s more conducive to frank discussion if we keep these meetings private.”

    To borrow from Kenny Chesney’s words, “Talked a good game when we were out with the guys/But in the back seat, we were awkward and shy”.

    You expect me to believe that the gay groups that diverted tens of millions of dollars away from fighting antigay state initiatives and into the campaigns of homophobic Democrats who supported these initiatives because the Dems ordered them to do it so as not to embarrass said Democrats are going to be in any way candid OR frank with, or even confront, the Democrats?

    This is window-dressing, pure and simple. Solmonese, Foreman, and the rest of their ilk have a demonstrated record of being nothing but whores for the Democrats, and I have zero reason to believe that they did anything in that meeting other than crawl around on their hands and knees, kissing toes and worshiping ankles.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - March 24, 2006

  6. You expect me to believe that the gay groups that diverted tens of millions of dollars away from fighting antigay state initiatives and into the campaigns of homophobic Democrats who supported these initiatives because the Dems ordered them to do it so as not to embarrass said Democrats are going to be in any way candid OR frank with, or even confront, the Democrats?

    err….No. But I do think that this, along with the comments by that gay group toward Hillary Clinton in New York a few weeks ago are an interesting development. And that such things should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 24, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - March 24, 2006

  7. Now, how about spending some of your valuable, multi-hundred of thousands of salaried time meeting with the people in power — Republicans. Don’t give me that crap about they don’t even admit gays exist. Sen. Tom Coburn will, most likely, singlehandedly save the Ryan White Act this year. I could go on and on

    Actually GP, there is an opportunity coming up for you to prove that the GOP is at least receptive to their gay and lesbian constituencies.

    SLDN’s annual Lobby day is coming up in May. So groups of gays and lesbians (and lots of GLBT Veterans) will be coming in from around the country to discuss “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, and to lobby their Congressional representative to support the pending legislation to repeal it. There will be no sign-holding, whistles, marches, or any of the things you abhor, it will be business suits and decorum for all involved.

    So go to Washington DC in May and lobby your Congressman or help others to lobby theirs. Although I forget, do you support DADT?

    I don’t know yet if I will be able to go, I would like to, my Congressman is a Republican social conservative who has not signed on to the repeal of DADT. Yet. I think he should however, still agree to meet GLBT Veterans out of respect for their service. Don’t you?

    If nothing else, it would make for some interesting blog entries I think, don’t you?

    Here is more information:

    http://www.sldn.org/templates/action/record.html?section=141&record=1820

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 24, 2006 @ 3:20 pm - March 24, 2006

  8. Saving the Ryan White Act might be a priority for Coburn, but does he have positive plans for the “Gay” part of Gay Patriot?”

    I hope you’re right in your trust in him.

    Comment by Gene — March 24, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - March 24, 2006

  9. And that such things should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

    Oh, I have.

    But for all I know, that meeting involved Democratic congresscreatures ordering every gay in the room to kneel, beating the offender who made the indiscretion of publicly criticizing Mistress Clinton, and having Joe Solmonese and Matt Foreman piss on him.

    That would be about par for the course, especially since these selfsame leaders fawned all over Democratic homophobes in 2004, calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as they encouraged people to vote gays out of existence.

    One also wonders why, if Dems are so hep to support the gay community, they demand that gays only meet with them behind closed (closet) doors.

    Meanwhile:

    There will be no sign-holding, whistles, marches, or any of the things you abhor, it will be business suits and decorum for all involved.

    HA. Very funny. Thanks for giving me a laugh.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 3:48 pm - March 24, 2006

  10. “We are tired of being seen as the embarrassment to the party.”

    One wonders, then, why they insist on being an embarrassment. If you want to be treated like an adult, stop acting like a child.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - March 24, 2006

  11. NDXXX, the choice of a Chesney quote/line was P-E-R-F-E-C-T in the sublime. It fits.

    The GayLeft groups need to change their name to simply GayDemocrats and quit acting like they represent the gay community’s interests… they are simply gayDemocrats and that distinction explains away all of their support of anti-gay politicians from their party –they are Democrats first, gay second. No problem with that –I just wish they’d be more honest.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - March 24, 2006

  12. What are “Democrat” Senators? I wonder if the letters “I” and “C” thus making the word “Democratic” are missing from your keyboard……Such a Rovian tactic-atleast try to be less obvious about it!

    Comment by Kyle — March 24, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - March 24, 2006

  13. “What are “Democrat” Senators? I wonder if the letters “I” and “C” thus making the word “Democratic” are missing from your keyboard…”

    Um, if the “C” were missing, he woulda called ’em “Demorat” Senators.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 24, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - March 24, 2006

  14. I;m afraid I must agree with Patrick’s salilent point on this issue.

    Sorry guys, but each of us brings our own set of values to the table, and in this case, I’m chowing fown with the Gryphmeister!

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 24, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - March 24, 2006

  15. GP, once again you’ve mislaid the blame. There are plenty of GLBT groups who would love to meet with Republican leaders. Problem is, the party leadership doesn’t want to meet with them. The last time a GOP leader held a meeting with HRC (in 2003), Christian fundamentalists raised holy hell. Not only was HRC not invited back, but Bush had to throw his weight behind the Federal Marriage Amendment to woo them back.

    With Bush’s approval ratings falling through the floor and the Democratic party effectively running a referendum election, the Republican Party can’t afford to alienate the Religious Right in even the slightest way. If that contingent stays home this November, the GOP will lose control of Congress (which it may do anyway). Which is why Gay-rights groups won’t score a meeting with leading Republicans anytime soon.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - March 24, 2006

  16. in last sentence of 1st paragraph, “them” = “fundamentalists” — apologies for the unclear referent

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - March 24, 2006

  17. Classic. The more I read on this blog, the more I feel that many of the gay right are no different than many on the gay right. While blasting the gay left for hatred of Bush no matter what he does, we now see the gay right has the same disdain for the gay left no matter what they do. If they do “A” (such as support Democrats no matter what) it’s wrong and ridiculed. Now when they finally do “Not A,” that’s wrong too.

    In the meantime, since GP suggests that gay groups should speak to the party in power, I would be interested in how successful LCR and other conservative gay groups have been with the Republicans in the power. So far, I’ve heard Bush mutter once about civil unions, but has only mentioned FMA in SOTU. Again, if I’m missing something that MSM isn’t reporting, I’d be interested.

    Comment by Pat — March 24, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - March 24, 2006

  18. Oops. One of the “right” should be “left” in the second line above.

    Comment by Pat — March 24, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - March 24, 2006

  19. Tim, why should Republicans bother to meet with a group that a) flings hate speech at them constantly and b) who have no intention of endorsing, supporting, or voting for them anyway?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 8:52 pm - March 24, 2006

  20. Yeah, it was a Democratic congress that passed the DOMA and killed the Ryan White funding in the first place.

    Seriously, where do you buy your boxer-briefs? You’ve got some balls touting a single Republican for saving the Democrats ass when they failed to save us from the–wait for it–Republicans!

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 24, 2006 @ 9:54 pm - March 24, 2006

  21. If they do “A” (such as support Democrats no matter what) it’s wrong and ridiculed. Now when they finally do “Not A,” that’s wrong too.

    Excuse me, Pat, but I didn’t see “Not A”. I saw “Still doing A, but trying to make it more publicly-palatable”.

    Why? Simply put, what did these groups even remotely make as a consequence?

    These Senators were just sitting back and laughing: “Look, whoreboy, we know that you’ll endorse and defend FMA supporters, as long as they’re Democrats. We’ll let you come up here, make your speeches, go back pounding your little hairless, puny chests about how you ‘confronted’ us, but you’re still our little bitch, and you always will be. Meanwhile, we’re locking down this meeting so that we can completely deny your existence when we go talk to the fundies, who unlike you DO vote and DO pull their support when you double-cross them. Bye now.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - March 24, 2006

  22. NDT, what can I say? We are all getting laughed at here. Yes, the gay left was wrong when blindly supporting Democrats. But the Republicans are laughing too. Because Bush and others know that they can imply that homosexuality is a sin* among other things and still get about 23% of the gay vote. You’ve made the point about contributed money to Democratic homophobes, but because I’m not completely cynical, it all comes down to who receives the most votes. So both parties continue to receive votes from us, despite their anti-gay positions.

    Twenty-three percent is still a fairly large bloc of voters, and what has that produced? We hear that Tom Coburn will “save the Ryan White act.” How is that? Is he the only Republican in the Senate that can propose such a bill? And George Allen meets with a 16 year old boy to tell him why he won’t support including sexual orientation in a hate crimes bill. Yes, I’m sure GP and others can “go on and on” while they continue to laugh at us.

    As some of the posters here rightly noted, this is a change of strategy in the right direction for gay groups. Will it succeed? Probably not, but we’ll see. It may not be enough, but it’s a good start. A New York gay group has refused to endorse Hillary Clinton because of their stance. Personally, a DNC representative called me, and I told her that I was disappointed with the recent actions of the Democratic Party regarding gay rights, and would withhold contributions unless they head back in the right direction. I also said I would withhold my vote if they continue in their current direction, and become not much better than the Republicans on gay rights.

    *Maybe it’s just me, but when someone responds, “We are all sinners” to the question, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, it is exactly the same as responding, “We all have crosses to bear” when asked “Do you think ethnic or racial group X is inferior to other groups of people?”.

    Comment by Pat — March 25, 2006 @ 8:12 am - March 25, 2006

  23. Tim, why should Republicans bother to meet with a group that a) flings hate speech at them constantly and b) who have no intention of endorsing, supporting, or voting for them anyway?

    GOP leaders meet with African-American groups all the time, even though they’re even less supportive than Gay-rights groups are. One reason Republicans meet with CORE and the NAACP is that they don’t want to look like a bunch of racist bigots, and they know that gestures of racial and ethnic inclusiveness play well with suburban white voters. But another reason they do this is that the party genuinely wants African-American votes, and its leaders are willing to undergo a little public humiliation (e.g. Coretta Scott King’s funeral) to get them.

    Contrast with the GOP’s approach to Gay-rights groups: The party has learned, the hard way, that its fundamentalist base will not tolerate even a brief meeting between a GOP insider and the HRC. So the appearance of anti-Gay bigotry (and the near-complete shut-out of Gay and Lesbian supporters) during each election cycle becomes a necessary strategy for their reelection, though the benefits appear short-term at best (and diminishing).

    The reason the GOP won’t meet with Gay-rights groups is not that Gay-rights groups are insufficiently supportive — after all, one can’t rightly expect to obtain a group’s support if one refuses even to meet with it. No, the real reason is that the GOP doesn’t want Gay and Lesbian support: It would alienate their fundamentalist base. That’s why the party took extraordinary measures in 2004 to alienate both Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition, even though these groups had previously expressed their support for the party and the president. And it reaped its reward with fundamentalists, who failed to turn out for Bush in 2000 but pushed him over the top (and some would say the edge) in 2004. Now Republicans need that fundamentalist vote like a junkie needs smack.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 9:06 am - March 25, 2006

  24. 22: Pat, Allen didn’t “meet” with that 16 year old kid. That kid stood up at a “town hall” meeting and ambushed the senator with a barrage of questions that left him stammering and confused. It’s a major embarrassment for Allen, getting bested by a high-schooler. And it’s odd to see GP praising this tactic, given that he’d probably blast an HRC spokesperson for doing the same thing. But what the hey: Welcome back to the Gay-rights movement, Bruce.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 9:16 am - March 25, 2006

  25. Because Bush and others know that they can imply that homosexuality is a sin* among other things and still get about 23% of the gay vote.

    And yet another example that liberals not only have no morals, but don’t even understand the concept.

    Bruce, you have had a lot of those here lately. Whassup?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 11:49 am - March 25, 2006

  26. Rightwingprof, I come on this site to learn what people with differing opinions think, as well to try to challenge others opinions. And I have learned some things and changed my mind on some issues. I have no illusions that I’m right about everything, that I’m not always good in making the points I want, and I admit to being ignorant when it comes to some issues. But GP wonders how 3/4 of gays support Democrats and I countered by asking why 1/4 of gays should support Bush. It’s a fair question, and I think my point about Bush implying homosexuality is a sin was also fair.

    Could you explain why my comment indicates why liberals have no morals? If my comment implies a lacking of morals, I’d like to understand why, since you suggest I don’t understand the concept. Seriously, Rwp, I would like an answer. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — March 25, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - March 25, 2006

  27. There are plenty of GLBT groups who would love to meet with Republican leaders.

    Oh? Who would those groups be?

    Problem is, the party leadership doesn’t want to meet with them.

    And considering that the only thing they want are “special victim group status” and to “demand” rights that don’t exist, who can blame the administration? I wouldn’t want to meet them, either.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - March 25, 2006

  28. Could you explain why my comment indicates why liberals have no morals … Seriously, Rwp, I would like an answer.

    Okay, here’s what you said:

    Because Bush and others know that they can imply that homosexuality is a sin* among other things and still get about 23% of the gay vote

    We’ll get to the “imply” later. First, apparently you fail to understand that many people in fact do believe that homosexuality is a sin, inborn or not. There are a number of good reasons for this, most notably passages in the Bible. I am not one of them, but I am a practicing Catholic, and I do not sneer at others’ morals. You, from what you wrote, don’t even understand the above.

    Then there’s that “imply” there. It is precisly because liberals are amoral that whenever morals comes up, they 1) talk about “learning to talk about morals” (usually when they lose elections), because they don’t understand that morals aren’t about appearance or talk, but action; 2) scream “homophobia!” or “misogynist!” or “whateverist!” to evade the issue, and intimidate the other participant in the discussion; 3) shriek “hypocrisy!” (the only moral that liberals care about, and only when it applies to others) because liberals do not believe conservatives actually do have morals (this is known in psychology as projection); or 4) use periphrastic phrases such as you did to imply that, again, conservatives do not have morals.

    Your statement suggests (well, that’s not quite strong enough, but it will have to do) that “Bush and others” have no morals, do not think homosexuality is a sin, but merely pretend to have morals in order to curry favor. You have no facts to back up that opinion. All you have is that ever present amoral liberal sneer that, frankly, demonstrats that like every other liberal, the very concept of “morals” escapes you.

    Thanks.

    You’re quite welcome.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - March 25, 2006

  29. Because Bush and others know that they can imply that homosexuality is a sin* among other things and still get about 23% of the gay vote.

    So what? Kerry can say flat-out that gays are inferior because of a characteristic with which they’re born, then argue that his religion gives him the right to put that into fundamental law — and still get 75% of the gay vote and the vast majority, tens of millions of, gay dollars.

    Your argument, Pat, is that gays must keep pumping votes and money to Democrats, especially to homophobic Democrats, in order for them to become and remain pro-gay. But if money is what converts homophobes, then why aren’t you pumping any to the Republicans?

    What I think it boils down to is that gays will give the lion’s share of money and votes to Democrats and not to Republicans. Thanks to the whoring of the gay left groups, the majority of gays have been brainwashed into believing and defending as dogma that sexual orientation determines political affiliation.

    *Maybe it’s just me, but when someone responds, “We are all sinners” to the question, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, it is exactly the same as responding, “We all have crosses to bear” when asked “Do you think ethnic or racial group X is inferior to other groups of people?”.

    It is just you.

    Bush’s answer is perfectly comprehensible when one turns it into the way Jesus put it: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” The point was simply that a) we are all sinners before God and b) that is hardly relevant to whether or not someone else thinks YOU’RE a sinner.

    What I find hilarious is how gay activists blew a blood vessel over that, but cheered and clapped during the debates as Kerry in essence said, “Gays are born different, so it’s OK to discriminate against them”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - March 25, 2006

  30. SLDN’s annual Lobby day is coming up in May. So groups of gays and lesbians (and lots of GLBT Veterans) will be coming in from around the country to discuss “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, and to lobby their Congressional representative to support the pending legislation to repeal it.

    And, as I have written my congresscritters, until all attempts to feminize and sensitize military culture are dropped, DADT should stay in place.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - March 25, 2006

  31. One reason Republicans meet with CORE and the NAACP is that they don’t want to look like a bunch of racist bigots, and they know that gestures of racial and ethnic inclusiveness play well with suburban white voters.

    The problem is, Tim, that Republicans, especially Bush, have repeatedly SNUBBED groups like the NAACP quite publicly; yet, the white suburban voters have stayed quite nicely with the GOP. Why is that?

    Likely because these voters don’t like being told that they are a “dark underside”, that “their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side”, that they “reject democracy and equality”, that they are Nazis and the Taliban, and that prominent black conservatives like Colin Powell are “puppets”and “ventriloquist’s dummies”.

    Oddly enough, just like gay-rights groups say about these voters. They’re “ignorant”, “superstitious”, and letting them vote on issues like gay marriage is “immoral”.

    The Republican strategy to capitalize on this in the black community is to ignore the main hate groups like the NAACP and work cooperatively with smaller groups that share similar goals. This not only improves outreach to the community, it cleverly drives the NAACP and their ilk, who cannot STAND being ignored, to even greater heights of hate rhetoric, thus undermining them among whites AND blacks.

    The problem is that, when it comes to gays, there ARE no other groups. Gays for Life is close, but small, LCR is OK, despite their choice of hate rhetoric during the 2004 campaign; however, the remainder of the gay groups out there are going around calling Bush Hitler, saying Republicans are Nazis and Taliban, and insisting that gay concentration camps are already operating.

    In short, Republicans have realized, especially with the gay hate groups’ support of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and the FMA, that it has nothing to do with whether or not their actions are homophobic; it’s simply that the vast majority of gays hate Republicans and will never do anything else.

    Of course, Tim, blaming “fundamentalists” for the fact that Republicans won’t meet with you is much more psychologically palatable than admitting you irrationally hate Republicans and make hideous smears about them. It fits in well with the standard gay psychology that nothing is our fault; we’re merely victims.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - March 25, 2006

  32. 31: It’s not a “smear” to note that when Marc Racicot met with Gay-rights advocates in May of 2003, the religious right threatened to leave the party over it. That, ND30, is what people call a fact. We also know that the GOP can’t win elections against an energized Democratic base without the support of the Religious Right — and we’re about as certain as mere mortals can be that the Religious Right won’t support a candidate it perceives as Gay-friendly. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what this will mean for Gay and Lesbian Republicans.

    As for Bush’s relationship with the NAACP, it’s more complicated than you claim. The President met with Mfume in late 2004, which leads me to think that he would still like to make inroads among African-American voters. But you won’t see Bush holding a meeting with Patrick Guerriero of LCR — even though (unlike Mfume) Guerriero is a member of the president’s own party. Bush won’t meet with “Gays for Life,” either.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - March 25, 2006

  33. First, apparently you fail to understand that many people in fact do believe that homosexuality is a sin, inborn or not. There are a number of good reasons for this, most notably passages in the Bible. I am not one of them, but I am a practicing Catholic, and I do not sneer at others’ morals.

    It is no sign of disrespect to oppose other people’s “morals” when they impinge on one’s own liberty, rwp.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - March 25, 2006

  34. We also know that the GOP can’t win elections against an energized Democratic base without the support of the Religious Right

    We do?

    Pathetic. Energized Democratic base, indeed. You mean wackjob nutcase leftie America-hating socialist Democratic base.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - March 25, 2006

  35. Something very important I got out of this exchange came from the following remark:

    “Contrast with the GOP’s approach to Gay-rights groups: The party has learned, the hard way, that its fundamentalist base will not tolerate even a brief meeting between a GOP insider and the HRC. So the appearance of anti-Gay bigotry (and the near-complete shut-out of Gay and Lesbian supporters) during each election cycle becomes a necessary strategy for their reelection, though the benefits appear short-term at best (and diminishing).”

    The problem with the above statement is the assumption that HRC and leftists Democrat (no Democrat”ic” is not the name of the party–and is far from descriptive of what this party has demonstrated it actually stands for) groups such as HRC somehow are the soul representatives of the entire gay and lesbian community. If you mistakenly believing this, all I have to say is that I am lesbian and I am not represented by HRC and its left-wing, socialist stands in the least. I would be happy to vote for neither Democrat politician nor Republican. I would be very happy if someone stepped forward to form a new party which was built fully on the support of Individual rights to life, liberty, “property”, and the pursuite of happiness and the required minimized, tight-fisted with money, pro-America government that would necessarily accompany this condition. I would vote Libertarian if they could figure out how to produce a strong enough candidate. In my opinion, homosexual people, at least those who don’t live their entire life around their sexual preference (there are some of us), would be much better represented by such a candidate. If we all united around Individual rights vice social engineering of one ilk or another, we could swing the power balance in favor of freedom in this country!
    Have a great day–make a stand for freedom.

    Comment by elrica — March 25, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - March 25, 2006

  36. Bruce, we don’t need any more gay organizations going to the Republicans to try to get some progress on gay rights, BECUASE we already have … ta da.. *~the Log Cabin Republicans~* .. The Republicans would listen to them anyway more than they would to other gay organizations. Of course we all know how far the LCR have gotten trying to “advance gay rights from with the Rep party”. (What was the last thing they got disinvited to?)

    If you ask me, the position of the Dem party sounds like what you’ve been advocating – civil unions, no gay marriage. I know, you didn’t ask me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really expecting rationality from you.

    You said Bush supports civil unions? Why haven’t we heard him talking about that? I lean toward believing that Bush is not homophobic himself, or wasn’t when he was first annointed president, but he has become so dependent on the religious radicals for his core support that he must publicly behave like a homophobe. An antigay agenda has become a litmus test for Rep candidates across the country. That’s why they’re not going to support RI Rep Senator Lincoln Chaffee in November.

    I understand what you’re trying to do by urging gays to bolt the Dem party and vote Rep. I would be frightened too, if I were you looking at the dismal ratings that the public is giving Reps in polls this week. It looks like Dems may take back both the Senate and the House, and the only this that can prevent it is if they fragment like they have in the past instead of being unified. You can hope the Greens will come forward again and shoot us all in both feet.

    Comment by pogovio — March 26, 2006 @ 1:29 am - March 26, 2006

  37. 31: It’s not a “smear” to note that when Marc Racicot met with Gay-rights advocates in May of 2003, the religious right threatened to leave the party over it. That, ND30, is what people call a fact.

    References, please.

    Besides that point, you overstate your case; the “religious right” may threaten, they may huff and puff, but if they leave or don’t vote, they get stuck with antireligious abortion-pushing Democrats. They know that; it was the lesson of the 2000 elections.

    Again, Tim, you’re in denial. The “religious right” is a massive bloc built solely of the imagination of hatemongering gay leftists who need a convenient excuse to cover their complete success in alienating everyone with which they speak and getting antigay initiatives passed in overwhelming number.

    The math is obvious. Do you really think 57% of the people in Oregon, the number who voted for the John Kerry-endorsed amendment stripping gays of rights, are “religious rightists”? Or are they, as I postulated, regular “suburban white voters” who are tired of being namecalled and harangued by gay leftists?
    .
    Read my lips: the majority of Americans don’t hate gays because we’re gay. They hate us because the vast majority of us use being gay as an excuse for being an ass to them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2006 @ 1:42 am - March 26, 2006

  38. If you ask me, the position of the Dem party sounds like what you’ve been advocating – civil unions, no gay marriage. I know, you didn’t ask me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really expecting rationality from you.

    Actually, that’s a lie; as we all know, the Democratic Party supported the Missouri constitutional amendment which barred BOTH gay marriage and civil unions, according to gay activists.

    Oh yes, the Dems CLAIM they do; however, their actions make it obvious that they don’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2006 @ 1:45 am - March 26, 2006

  39. Rightwingprof, thanks for responding to my post above.

    We’ll get to the “imply” later. First, apparently you fail to understand that many people in fact do believe that homosexuality is a sin, inborn or not. There are a number of good reasons for this, most notably passages in the Bible. I am not one of them, but I am a practicing Catholic, and I do not sneer at others’ morals. You, from what you wrote, don’t even understand the above.

    Actually, I all too well understand that many people believe that homosexuality is a sin. And my purpose was not to sneer at others’ morals either. If you don’t believe that, feel free to add “liar” to your laundry list of what you think of me. When Bush was asked the question, I was interested in an answer. It was a yes/no question, but answered with some silly, obvious retort. You and I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, others do. I was interested in Bush’s take on it. In my opinion, his answer led me believe that he either believed it was a sin, or wanted many Americans to think he thought it was a sin.

    Then there’s that “imply” there. It is precisly because liberals are amoral that whenever morals comes up, they 1) talk about “learning to talk about morals” (usually when they lose elections), because they don’t understand that morals aren’t about appearance or talk, but action; 2) scream “homophobia!” or “misogynist!” or “whateverist!” to evade the issue, and intimidate the other participant in the discussion; 3) shriek “hypocrisy!” (the only moral that liberals care about, and only when it applies to others) because liberals do not believe conservatives actually do have morals (this is known in psychology as projection); or 4) use periphrastic phrases such as you did to imply that, again, conservatives do not have morals.

    I can’t speak or presume to speak for all liberals, like you seem to like to do. As for me, 1) I am well aware what morals are about. 2) I believe I addressed the relevant issue here, and I’m definitely not capable of intimidating anyone. 3) That’s funny, because you have also shown that you do not believe liberals actually do have morals (this is known in psychology as projection) This further exemplifies when I said that many on the gay right are just like the gay left. 4) (Had to look up periphrastic) No. If I thought that Bush had no morals, I would have stated so. I wrote what I wrote about what I thought Bush thinks of homosexuality. As for other conservatives having or not having morals, I suppose it depends on the individual person.
    Your statement suggests (well, that’s not quite strong enough, but it will have to do) that “Bush and others” have no morals, do not think homosexuality is a sin, but merely pretend to have morals in order to curry favor.

    You could be right about that, except for the part that Bush and others have no morals.

    All you have is that ever present amoral liberal sneer that, frankly, demonstrates that like every other liberal, the very concept of “morals” escapes you.

    Rwp, I suppose we can continue to engage is a p&ssing contest as to which of us lacks morals or doesn’t understand it, but don’t think it will accomplish anything. The fact that the likes of you questions my morals, or your perceived lack thereof, confirms I’m doing something right. But I do thank you again for your response.

    Have a blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — March 26, 2006 @ 11:19 am - March 26, 2006

  40. Pat, speaking only for myself, I would ask for some clarification on something:

    If the president believes that homosexuality is a sin (and I believe he probably does), what’s the issue with that? My mom believes it’s a sin as well, but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s a good person, does it?

    So the guy believes my sexual orientation is sinful. Big F*ckin Deal. I’m not looking for a politician to validate my sexual identity any-damned-way, any more than I’m hoping Congress can get my next project green-lighted.

    I’m not trying to be sarcastic; I really would like to know where you’re coming from.

    Eric in Sin

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 26, 2006 @ 11:35 am - March 26, 2006

  41. Tim (#32) – Patrick G. would be the last person I would ever meet if I were President Bush considering he somehow found $1M to run TV ads against the President in 2004.

    PS – A Massachusetts Republican does not a Republican Party member make.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 26, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - March 26, 2006

  42. #40, Eric, no, I don’t necessarily believe that a person who believes that homosexuality is a sin is a bad person. There is a host of reasons why that is the case. In my view, it could be ignorance, because that was what one was always taught, irrational hatred, sexual repression, and other reasons. I don’t buy “because it’s in the Bible,” because there are things like not eating pork and shellfish, and not wearing glasses to the altar, etc., and hardly anybody buys those things as sins any more. I certainly don’t know what your mother’s reason is, and I’ll take your word that she is a good person.

    As for Bush, if I had to guess one way or the other, then I’d say he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin. Do I care whether or not he thinks homosexuality is a sin? Yes, somewhat. No, I certainly don’t need Bush, Kerry, or whomever to validate my sexual identity or my relationship with my partner. However, his saying that homosexuality is not a sin would be, in my opinion, leadership on his part, and a start for his part in helping advance gay rights.

    Comment by Pat — March 27, 2006 @ 7:57 am - March 27, 2006

  43. #29

    So what? Kerry can say flat-out that gays are inferior because of a characteristic with which they’re born, then argue that his religion gives him the right to put that into fundamental law — and still get 75% of the gay vote and the vast majority, tens of millions of, gay dollars.

    NDT, so putting those two percentages together, about 100% of the gay American voters settled and voted for one of two homophobic candidates. We can argue, and probably disagree as to voting for which one was worse.

    Your argument, Pat, is that gays must keep pumping votes and money to Democrats, especially to homophobic Democrats, in order for them to become and remain pro-gay. But if money is what converts homophobes, then why aren’t you pumping any to the Republicans?

    That might be many gay Democrats argument, but not mine. In my opinion, what Kerry originally promised would have advanced gay rights (even in Massachusetts, ironically), despite having the anti-gay marriage stance. I contributed money to his campaign partly for that reason. After he apparently flip-flopped on some of his pro-gay stances, I still thought he had the potential to advance gay rights, although I probably wouldn’t have contributed money based on his modified gay rights stances. When a Republican candidate emerges with a gay rights position that advances gay rights more so than his/her opponent, that candidate will get my money (of course, it would also depend on the candidate’s other positions as well). We now, finally, see signs that gay organizations are not blindly supporting Democrats any more. I think that, at the very least, is a good start in the right direction.

    It is just you.

    Bush’s answer is perfectly comprehensible when one turns it into the way Jesus put it: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” The point was simply that a) we are all sinners before God and b) that is hardly relevant to whether or not someone else thinks YOU’RE a sinner.

    Maybe so, NDT. I was looking for leadership from John Kerry, and he flip-flopped. I was looking for leadership from George W. Bush, and he couldn’t admit that homosexuality isn’t a sin. I don’t agree that it’s hardly relevant whether or not Bush views homosexuality as a sin. When I made the comparison to this point to the question of whether Bush would view a particular ethnic or racial group as inferior, my guess is A LOT of people would be insulted if his answer was “everyone has their crosses to bear,” even though 1) (the response itself) may be something that Jesus would say, and 2) many people might argue that it shouldn’t matter whether other people think you are inferior.

    What I find hilarious is how gay activists blew a blood vessel over that, but cheered and clapped during the debates as Kerry in essence said, “Gays are born different, so it’s OK to discriminate against them”.

    Just as I found it hilarious when those on the right said virtually nothing when Alan Keyes called Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist, but blew a gasket when Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney in a positive manner. Go figure. NDT, we obviously disagree over whether Bush’s silly, obvious response was worse than essentially what Kerry was saying. But we do agree that Kerry is discriminatory. However, there have been many posters here who are gay, and feel their sexual identity and relationships are just as valid as straight people (some don’t, but most do), but don’t feel they are being discriminated against because we don’t have gay marriage. In fact, many of them say we shouldn’t ever have it, and believe that civil unions would be appropriate (although some don’t think that is necessary either). So maybe that’s part of the reason that many people had no problem with Kerry making that “statement.” In fact, NDT, you’ve made the point that the original intention of marriage was for provided a stable environment for children, and that if and when gay marriage is allowed, the structure for marriage should be changed. I may not have the details right and please correct me for anything inaccurate, but I believe this is essentially what you have posted in your blog. We’ve disagreed about that, but it ironically seems like Kerry’s views of marriage may be more in line with your view than mine.

    Comment by Pat — March 27, 2006 @ 8:44 am - March 27, 2006

  44. #42 Second sentence should read, “There are a host of reason why someone believes homosexuality is a sin.”

    Comment by Pat — March 27, 2006 @ 8:48 am - March 27, 2006

  45. It is no sign of disrespect to oppose other people’s “morals” when they impinge on one’s own liberty, rwp.

    Yes, it is.

    Two of our closest friends are a married, practicing Mormon couple. She and I started grad school the same year, and I’ve known her for twenty years. They’re conservative, they homseschool their children, they’re nearly self-sufficient, and though their income is below the poverty level, they don’t take a penny of public funds, and they all have health insurance.

    Do they believe we are living in sin? Possibly. I don’t know. They’ve never volunteered, and we’ve never asked. Do they support gay marriage? No, nor abortion on demand, nor entitlement programs — especially as they are a direct contradiction to the need for entitlement programs.

    I suspect they do think we’re living in sin, but I don’t care. I respect them and they respect us. They come (er, came — we moved out of the state) to our home, they have us to their home.

    They’re as red state as it gets, Utah in Indiana.

    Yes, screaming “hate speech! homophobe!” because somebody believes that homosexuality is a sin is not only disrespectful, but makes you look like an idiot. They are entitled to their convictions, as is anyone else.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 27, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - March 27, 2006

  46. Just as I found it hilarious when those on the right said virtually nothing when Alan Keyes called Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist, but blew a gasket when Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney in a positive manner.

    Well, there’s a rather significant difference, Pat.

    Alan Keyes is a homophobe and he’s honest about it.

    John Kerry is a homophobe and lies about it.

    What exactly was “positive” about what Kerry said? It was basically, “Mary Cheney should be discriminated against because she was born gay, but she should feel good because I patronized her. That’s really all gays deserve.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2006 @ 11:44 am - March 28, 2006

  47. Okay, NDT,so you’re saying that it’s okay for Republicans to justify homophobia and namecalling simply because one of their own, who is an extreme homophobe is honest about it. Actually, if you ask Keyes if he’s a homophobe, I’m not sure he would say yes, but I digress. To put it another way, I doubt the reason that Republicans didn’t say anything about Keyes had anything to do with his supposed honesty about his homophobia, and I also doubt that the gasket being blown had to do with Republicans being upset with Kerry because he wants to discriminate by banning gay marriage, since that is what most Republicans want anyway. Forgetting about the personalities now, I’ll leave up to Mary Cheney whether she would like to be referred to as a selfish hedonist, or be referred to by the comments from John Kerry.

    So let’s now both be honest and say that the only difference between both situations that we found hilarious was one was about Democratic partisanship, and the other was about Republican partisanship. Fair enough?

    But let’s bring back the issue I discussed in the same post from me that you quoted. You said that John Kerry is a homophobe. Here’s the problem. As I pointed out, many posters here, who believe their sexual identity and their relationships as equally valid as straight persons identities and relationships, believe that there should not be gay marriage, and many of them further believe that should not even be civil unions. I wouldn’t classify these posters as homophobes. Further, I have agreed with you that Kerry’s stance of marriage (and now maybe civil unions) is anti-gay, but now am rethinking that, because posters here have brought up reasonable arguments against gay marriage (although I still disagree). So now, if posters feel that marriage should stay as it is, I’m having a hard time calling that position anti-gay, as well as John Kerry. I’m hardly giving Kerry a free pass now, since other criticisms of him are still valid in my view.

    Comment by Pat — March 28, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - March 28, 2006

  48. Alan Keyes is a homophobe and he’s honest about it.

    He’s also an idiot. What they were thinking in Al-Inois, I’ll never know.

    And Republicans dragged Keyes over the coals for his statements about the Vice-President’s daughter, unlike Democrats, who uttered not a peep about Kerry’s patronizing and cheap attempt to score points.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 28, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - March 28, 2006

  49. Okay, NDT,so you’re saying that it’s okay for Republicans to justify homophobia and namecalling simply because one of their own, who is an extreme homophobe is honest about it.

    “Justify” is an extremely odd choice of words, Pat.

    I don’t recall ever saying that what Keyes was doing was right.

    Matter of fact, I don’t recall many people of ANY political stripe saying that what he was doing was right.

    I said he was honest about it. That’s all.

    Now, the reason that that is better than what Kerry did is simple; Keyes did not take money, time, and support from the gay community under false pretenses. He did not pretend to favor gay rights one day and then praise and endorse stripping them away the next. He did not pay gay rights groups and activists to conduct wholesale coverups of his actions, proclaiming publicly how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” he was and diverting money and resources away from fighting the antigay ballot initiatives that he was supporting.

    In short, Pat, John Kerry deliberately lied to the gay community for his own personal and financial gain. He espoused positions for the sole purpose of misleading gay people and getting their money, and he unscrupulously exploited gays — all with full knowledge of the fact that his actions would result in a direct diminishment of gay rights.

    How much more homophobic can you get?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - March 28, 2006

  50. NDT, the silence was deafening regarding Keyes outrageous statement, and subsequent banishment of his child. But it’s possible I missed Bush and other Republicans unequivocally repudiate Keyes’ statement and actions. As for Keyes being honest, I makes me think of someone who broke several bones in his arm, but says that at least he doesn’t have a hangnail.

    How much more homophobic can you get?

    Let’s see. We could have a President who claims that he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a choice. Even if you could possibly believe that statement, then essentially he is saying that it is okay to discriminate, because there is a chance it may not be a choice. And as a bonus, never modify his position of being in support of anti-sodomy laws. NDT, as I stated, I was not entirely happy with Kerry, and I certainly didn’t like it when he flip-flopped. But again, I ask, is Kerry really a homophobe, when many gay people also feel that marriage is between a man and a woman? If so, do gay people who feel that we shouldn’t have gay marriage are necessarily homophobes? I don’t believe so. In any case, we were stuck with two poor candidates, and I went with the candidate that I felt was better on gay rights. You disagree, and that’s fine.

    Comment by Pat — March 29, 2006 @ 9:54 am - March 29, 2006

  51. Let’s see. We could have a President who claims that he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a choice. Even if you could possibly believe that statement, then essentially he is saying that it is okay to discriminate, because there is a chance it may not be a choice.

    Have you discovered the absolute deteminant for homosexuality, Pat?

    Things that are “not a choice” are ones like eye color, hair color, and skin color, all of which we can trace to a direct and distinct cluster of genes. You can’t opt out of these, not without DNA-level changes.

    What evidence do you have that homosexuality is like that? Where’s your DNA map with the gay gene identified? Where’s your process pathway that identifies precisely how a person develops to be gay?

    Bush’s saying “I don’t know” is an absolutely correct and defensible scientific position. We DON’T know.

    Contrast that with Kerry, who says positively that we DO know. Do you have scientific evidence that proves that point?

    I think what you’ll find, Pat, is that Bush’s answer is correct. Kerry’s answer is pandering to what he thinks you want to hear.

    Now, let’s apply that.

    Bush thinks that homosexuality may be a choice and that it is all right to discriminate, based on the logic that gays may choose to be gay.

    Kerry thinks that homosexuality ISN’T a choice and that it is all right to discriminate, despite the fact that gays don’t choose to be gay.

    In short, Pat, Kerry thinks you should be discriminated against because of a condition with which you were born and over which you have no control. Bush thinks you should be discriminated against based on your actions over which you do have some control.

    Which do you prefer?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - March 29, 2006

  52. NDT, we’ve been through this before, and you know what I mean about choice. No, we don’t know the scientific reasons of why one is gay, bisexual, or whatever, but we all know that you do not choose who you are attracted to. Bush knows that personally by being attracted to women, including his wife. Further, and I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m sure Bush knows plenty of people in the health community personally and professionally, who can tell him that who one is attracted to is not a choice. So, frankly, I believe Bush is being deliberately obtuse when he says he doesn’t know. However, even if I am some how totally wrong here, and he really doesn’t know, then no, it still doesn’t make Bush better.

    But my question still is, does being opposed to gay marriage and perhaps even civil unions make one a homophobe?

    Comment by Pat — March 30, 2006 @ 7:14 am - March 30, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.