Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin Welkomez Nuu Cheef of Staph

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:42 pm - March 28, 2006.
Filed under: Log Cabin Republicans,National Politics

Perhaps if one spent more time working to meet with White House officials for the past 5 years (including the very important role of Budget Director), one would be able to actually spell the name of the now-new White House Chief of Staff. This from Log Cabin (Republicans) own press release:

Log Cabin Republicans Thank White House Chief of Staff Andy Card for His Service to the Nation

(Washington, DC) –”Andy Card has served the country and President George W. Bush with distinction. We thank him for his service to the nation,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero. President Bush said, “Andy Card has served me and our country in historic times: on a terrible day when America was attacked, during economic recession and recovery, through storms of unprecedented destructive power, in peace and in war.”

“As a fellow Massachusetts native and former state legislator, I’ve seen Mr. Card bring his integrity and commitment to public service to the White House during remarkably challenging times,” said Guerriero. “We wish him well in this new phase of his life. Log Cabin looks forward to working with Josh Bolton [sic] as he takes over as White House Chief of Staff.”

President Bush’s new Chief of Staff spells his last name B-O-L-T-E-N. Our United Nations Ambassador, John Bolton, does spell his name the Log Cabin way. Maybe Patrick was confused?

Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that Patrick has no problem spelling abortion, Solomonese, hatred, victimhood, Massachusetts Republican, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, first-class airfare, fundraising, behind closed doors, and rubberstamp.

I just wish the Log Cabin gang could spell: DIALOGUE and PARTNERSHIP and use them in the same sentence as REPUBLICAN MAJORITY.

-Broose (GahPatryote)

Share

50 Comments

  1. Would that be the Josh Bolten who lied to Congress about the size of the prescription drug giveaway and wrote a laughable denial/defense of Bush’s profligate spending for the Wall Street Journal?

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - March 28, 2006

  2. I furgeht.. askt Patricck.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 28, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - March 28, 2006

  3. It takes two sides to make a dialogue, GP. Log Cabin is doing plenty of talking, but the GOP leadership isn’t listening or responding.

    LCR’s strategy of criticizing anti-Gay Republicans while promoting Reagan conservatism values within GLBT communities might prove beneficial for the party in the long term. Christian fundamentalists can’t control the GOP forever (nor can the GOP control Congress), and eventually party leaders will need a little social-moderate street cred. This latest announcement suggests that LCR will be there for them when they come around.

    1: Yup, same guy. Laugh, and the prez laughs with you; lie, and you get a promotion. Welcome to the Bush administration, V.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 28, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - March 28, 2006

  4. Meow. Someone get gaypatriot a saucer of milk. 😛

    Comment by PatriotPal — March 28, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - March 28, 2006

  5. but the GOP leadership isn’t listening or responding.

    And why should they? The LCR wants special official victim status and validation. They’re not going to get it from the adults.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 28, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - March 28, 2006

  6. #5 — Indeed, why should they listen when the message of the LCR is “You know that Christian base that you can’t win elections without? Screw ’em. Instead, you should try to pander to a much, much smaller slice of the electorate that’s going to support Democrats financially and electorally no matter what you do.”

    Gee, the Republicans must be NUTS to turn down that offer.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - March 28, 2006

  7. Broose, come on guy. You can do better than belittle your inferiors –just because the LCR’s aren’t giving you the opportunity to effect change at a real convention, you don’t have to appear petty by blasting ’em for this kind of screw up. No rational human has ever maintained that the LCRs make a difference.

    Besides, despite what Tim might think is the likely scenario for the GOP and LCRs in the distant future, these guys aren’t important, effective or constructive. They shot their 15 minutes of fame by not endorsing Bush, taking the press attention and hoping Kerry would win… but then they’ve had a tough first 15 years, too.

    The Democrats don’t listen to their gay activists, why should the Republicans? LCRs are like CollegeRepublicans >>they get pulled into service when the nat’l convention needs sgt @ arms or there’s crowd control responsibilities at the Inaugural balls.

    You should leave ’em alone; they’re an asterisk. Create your own group of conservative gay GOPers. Put ’em out of biz; it’s the free market way!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 28, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - March 28, 2006

  8. Indeed, V the K — assuming that said “Christian base” even exists. It’s kind of hard for me to believe that 57% of the people in Oregon, for example, are Christian fundamentalists; yet they still voted to strip gays of rights.

    To me, it’s just a rationalization for why “gay activists” can’t break their hate speech habit and quit kissing up to homophobes and FMA supporters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - March 28, 2006

  9. What do you expect – they don’t have a press person – and have not for years. They can fly Patrick around first class, let him double dip on his expenses and pay him 200k a year and keep a bare bones staff – actually just a office manager who also does press – or staff up like they should. – but with little money coming in they simply can’t do both. When a kid right out of school is running the office it is gonna be tough for him to keep the press calls/releases/contacts all together. Don’t blame James for this typical snafu – blame the board and the ED.

    Comment by buckeye bill — March 28, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - March 28, 2006

  10. Weak, GP. I love you for most things, but damn, what is it about LCR that flips your teenage girl bitterness switch? Sure, they aren’t perfect, but they’re doing a lot more on the hill and in local activism than you are right now. You know the saying – get on the bus or get out of the way. There’s nothing productive in your constant attacks on LCR… hell, it almost makes you sound like democrats ripping on President Bush. Get over it.

    Comment by AnAthena — March 28, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - March 28, 2006

  11. #10 — Unfortunately for you, GP is not an obedient little lapdog who exists to parrot the party-line, be it the gay activist party line or the LCR party line. But I can understand why you would be threatened by criticism.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - March 28, 2006

  12. Hmmm….

    This:

    Create your own group of conservative gay GOPers. Put ‘em out of biz; it’s the free market way!

    Coupled with this:

    You know the saying – get on the bus or get out of the way.

    makes me think a new organization would be a good idea. Couldn’t hurt.
    I want to join such an organization, but have my doubts of LCR. So how ’bout it Bruce?

    Think Dan would come out of hiding to join in?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - March 28, 2006

  13. You really don’t like Mr. Guerriero, do you?

    Comment by Bla — March 28, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - March 28, 2006

  14. 5: The LCR wants special official victim status and validation.

    Sorry, rwp, but no. What LCR wants is for the Republican leadership to quit pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment. But the GOP just can’t stay away from the Kool-Aid:

    http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Mar2806MarriageAmendSD.pdf

    6: Gay and Lesbian communities in Washington, D.C., elected David Catania. They’ve been supportive of Giuliani, and haven’t derailed Bloomberg. At the moment, Republicans are pretty strictly a rural and suburban party, but they’ve been able to make inroads in heavily Democratic urban centers: Social moderation, fiscal conservatism, and a tough-on-crime stance have been established as a winning platform for urban Republicans.

    But I’m glad you’ve finally conceded that Republicans are willing to sell out their Gay supporters in order to coddle the Christian Right.

    8: Indeed, V the K — assuming that said “Christian base” even exists.

    You’re claiming that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Bob Jones University and the Southern Baptist Convention (among many, many others) do not exist? Karl Rove certainly thinks that Christian base exists — he based Bush’s entire 2004 reelection campaign on it, and won. John McCain seems to think it exists, too: He’s busy mending fences with Jerry Falwell.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s a quote from the PEW Research Center (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103):
    “In 2004, white evangelicals made up 23% of the population, and 37% of the Republican Party.”

    Thirty-seven percent sounds like a base to me.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 28, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - March 28, 2006

  15. Yet another cheap shot from GP. Ran out of “issues” again I see.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 28, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - March 28, 2006

  16. #14

    Thirty-seven percent sounds like a base to me.

    Sounds like paranoid hysteria to me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 28, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - March 28, 2006

  17. Meanwhile…. Here is a Republican that GP actually should be criticizing and spending some of his bile on. But why why focus on something that actually matters instead of taking cheap shots at people he is so plainly jealous of?

    Some Gay Couples Adopt to Molest, State Rep Says
    Posted: 3/27/2006 10:57:00 PM
    Updated: 3/27/2006 11:06:32 PM

    Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville, said she still believes homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children. In fact, in addition to e-mail correspondence with a master’s student at Vanderbilt publicized recently, in which she said as much, she has also said homosexual couples may molest the children they adopt.

    “We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse,” she said.

    “In all cases to paint with a broad brush strokes is unfortunate,” said adoptive parent Dr. Christopher Harris.

    Harris is a pediatrician by day and a single gay adoptive parent by night.

    “She brings such joy into my life,” he said. “It’s always said pediatrician doesn’t finished his training till he or she has a kid.”

    Harris fits every requirement for the state’s definition of a good adoptive parent: loving, healthy and financially stable. He is also gay, and for Maggert, that means he’s unqualified.

    “I have strong convictions. I just feel kids in our foster have been through enough. They need the optimum family unit, and that is a mother and a father,” she said.

    In the e-mail with the Vanderbilt student, Maggart said research shows most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.

    A lot of debate has circled around the evidence on whether gay adoptions are good for kids.

    Harris said a career in pediatrics has shown children of gay and lesbian parents turn out just fine.

    Maggert said it’s just the opposite, and the research she’s read comes from a variety of sources, including the ACLU and Focus on the Family, a Christian group.

    The gay adoption bill is still in the House committee on children and family affairs and has several more steps before lawmakers can take a vote.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 29, 2006 @ 12:01 am - March 29, 2006

  18. aggart said research shows most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues

    People I know who are still in the dating scene make the same complaint.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2006 @ 5:48 am - March 29, 2006

  19. I mean, just reading any single post from Ridor, Stephen/DSH, or JRC should be enough to tell you there’s a lot of emotional dysfunction in the gay community.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2006 @ 6:13 am - March 29, 2006

  20. Patrick at #17, “But why why focus on something that actually matters instead of taking cheap shots at people he is so plainly jealous of?”

    I know, Patrick, I risk your ire if I point out inconsistencies in your posts or ask that you be held accountable for your outrageous comments, but how else would you classify your comments in this thread BUT AS cheap shots by you at GP?

    Like the one about “GP running out of issues”? This from you, a guy with a blog that offers inconsequential post after post equal to those of GayCowboyBob or Gene?

    Or like the one about GP being “…so plainly jealous of (LCR’s leader)….”? And that isn’t a cheap shot, Patrick? You need to look in the mirror, Patrick.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 29, 2006 @ 8:47 am - March 29, 2006

  21. Like the one about “GP running out of issues”? This from you, a guy with a blog that offers inconsequential post after post equal to those of GayCowboyBob or Gene?

    Oh look! Yet another personal attack from michigan-matt.. Oh the sheer drama of it all! Yawn.

    And old bird do stop sending me all those e-mails begging me for a date. It makes you look very pathetic and the answer is still “No”.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 29, 2006 @ 9:14 am - March 29, 2006

  22. Gramps Gryph, LOL. You are a crack up even in a tin foil hat.

    Thanks for proving my point about the cheap shots with yet… oh gheez… another cheap shot.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 29, 2006 @ 10:37 am - March 29, 2006

  23. I haven’t figured out whether Gryph’s pattern of attacking people with cheap shots and name-calling and then whining about other people using cheap shots and name-calling is the usual “I’m a lib so I’m completely devoid of any awareness of my own hypocrisy” thing or some kind of Andy Kaufman-like absurdist performance art.

    But, whatever, you know…

    If you wanna talk about adoption, I know I had to jump through a whole bunch of extra hoops to get my adoptions approved, but for the most part, I don’t have a problem with that. A two-parent, traditional family is the best environment for raising children, and when a child is going to be placed in a different type of environment, it seems prudent to subject the family to extra scrutiny.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2006 @ 11:07 am - March 29, 2006

  24. What LCR wants is for the Republican leadership to quit pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Exactly, special little victim group status. When, and only when, the SCOTUS has gone back to reading and interpreting the text of the Constitution, instead of pushing their own little pet agendas in the name of non-existant penumbras or implementing foreign law, then, and only then, will the FMA not be needed.

    Until then, there is nothing else that can be done.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 29, 2006 @ 11:35 am - March 29, 2006

  25. “…some kind of Andy Kaufman-like absurdist performance art.”

    Good one, VdaK; I think that nails it as rationally as any possible explanation. Thanks.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 29, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - March 29, 2006

  26. “Massachusetts Republican”

    I used to be one of those, until someone smacked me on the side of the head.

    Julie the (registered Independent) Jarhead

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 29, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - March 29, 2006

  27. LOL….poor, poor Timmy. Next time you may actually wish to READ your source.

    President Bush’s successful reelection effort owed much to the support he received from highly religious voters, especially white evangelical Protestants. But what has been largely overlooked is Bush’s success with less religious voters. In fact, compared with four years ago, Bush made relatively bigger gains among infrequent churchgoers than he did among religiously observant voters.

    Amazing, isn’t it? In fact, it is a broad-based gain across BOTH religious status AND level of participation. How is that possible, if the Republicans are only appealing to the highly-religious and evangelical?

    You see, if Bush were completely dominated by the “Christian fundamentalist” base, as you claim, he would not be able to appoint gays to any government position whatsoever. Yet he has, and to visible ones too — all because of these broad-based gains.

    The genius of Karl Rove, Timmeh, is that he realizes that irrational Bush-haters like yourself can be manipulated into doing virtually anything if they think it’s anti-Bush. Thus, his whole strategy is to drive you farther and farther to the wacko fringe by exploiting the fact that you are congenitally unable to do anything BUT bash Bush. As he pushes you and your fellow hatemongers farther and farther left, the less you have in common with other voters, and the more they have in common with the religious right.

    Want an example? Oregon. You still haven’t answered how, since only “Christian fundamentalists” want to strip gays of rights in your world, that 57% of Oregon residents are Christian fundamentalists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - March 29, 2006

  28. 16: Prove it or lose it, TGC.

    17: Maggert is referring to a discredited 1996 study by the equally discredited Paul Cameron. Gryph, you’re absolutely right to note that GP should take a more active stance against anti-Gay rhetoric within the GOP — and you’ve probably guessed why it won’t happen.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 29, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - March 29, 2006

  29. GP should take a more active stance against anti-Gay rhetoric within the GOP — and you’ve probably guessed why it won’t happen.

    Because there are approximately 130,000 other weblogs that already cover that topic?

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - March 29, 2006

  30. How about we NOT start a new gay GOP group? Like, how about we pointedly decide NOT to segregate into a special interest group? How about we get involved in grass roots efforts to promote a small government, more individual freedom agenda as openly gay people alongside “ordinary” people? Wouldn’t that be a better statement and more effectively advance our goals?

    Things that make you go “hmm…”

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — March 29, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - March 29, 2006

  31. Absolutely correct, Dale.

    But you see, that doesn’t perpetuate our victimhood, and that’s what gay groups have to protect.

    Meanwhile, Gryph and Tim, relative to the gay adoption thing, I have reached the point where I am now sitting back and saying, “Go ahead and get yourself bitch-slapped, because you’re not going to listen to me when I tell you how to avoid it.”

    You see, the tactics of these people are simple. They know that gays will immediately start screeching how what they’re saying is a lie, how none of it is true…..and then these people will produce evidence that shows gay couples HAVE molested children, HAVE sought to adopt for that purpose, and DO have in some cases emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that make them unsuitable.

    Game, set, match. Once again, gays get torpedoed by the fact that we speak first, think later.

    Now, do you want help refuting this sort of thing? Or are you just planning to throw hate speech? If you want help, read this first, then call back.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - March 29, 2006

  32. 31: So, ND30, do you believe Paul Cameron’s study is essentially correct? If so, why? And if not, why are you defending Maggart’s reliance on transparently phony research?

    By the way, on #27, the first sentence in that paragraph discusses the Republican base. The other sentences don’t. Do you understand what political analysts mean when they use the term “base”?

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 29, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - March 29, 2006

  33. Meanwhile, Gryph and Tim, relative to the gay adoption thing, I have reached the point where I am now sitting back and saying, “Go ahead and get yourself bitch-slapped, because you’re not going to listen to me when I tell you how to avoid it.

    I’ve read your post. Nice try, but no biscuit.

    The best way to defeat these anti-adoption bills — as Gay activists did in Virginia — is to show how their supporters rely on quack scientists and phony research to demonize same-sex couples. Since opponents of Gay adoption all quote or refer to Cameron at some point (because his study is the only one to claim that Gay adoptive parents are disproportionately likely to molest kids), this task is remarkably easy.

    One of my favorite Cameron quotes, BTW, is here.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 29, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - March 29, 2006

  34. Tim, I didn’t get the sense that NDXXX was defending State Rep Maggart’s reliance on questionable research. I didn’t read that all –are you wearing GrampaGryph’s tin foil hat again? jk

    Why is that you seem to want to take an absurdist reduction of someone’s comments and then throw it back at them? Is debating public policy become that difficult for the GayLeft? Or is the point of your commentary to bait –then switch, ala Ian’s MO?

    It’s a legit question Tim, you seemed more interested in playing games than engaged in serious discussion about public policy. Just my take… it’s like watching Harry Reid try to score press sound bites rather than contributing something meaningful to the discussion.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 29, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - March 29, 2006

  35. He is playing games, Matt; that should be obvious. He hasn’t even read my post, as he claims he did.

    You see, if he had, he would have noticed the linkthrough to this:

    Instead, what one should focus on is the extrapolations that Kupelian makes from said quotes and from said facts; for instance, the whole “child molestation” thing can be rebutted by the fact that, while some gays were indeed molested as children and went on to molest children themselves, not all gays were, nor does everyone who was molested as a child turn out gay or molest children. Kupelian deliberately frames his argument in that case to push buttons — obviously, no one wants to be called a child molester or be associated with them — but in doing so, sets up an absolutist construct that can be easily and quickly refuted. Furthermore, it gives one the opportunity to point out that child abuse is a universal problem, not limited to “gay” or “straight”, and that both sides need to work together to stop it.

    You see, this is stuff I’ve honed in numerous other battles, including ones in far more potentially-hostile territory. This isn’t something “Virginia’s gays” came up with; it’s something that smart conservatives like myself have been doing for years, while the Timmehs of the world fling hate speech.

    The reason Cameron’s research is still cited and quoted is because there are nuggets and kernels of truth in it; gay couples HAVE molested children, HAVE sought to adopt for that purpose, and DO have in some cases emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that make them unsuitable as parents. To say otherwise is neither truthful or smart.

    But you see, Matt, admitting that is outside of Timmeh’s capabilities.

    Ironically, doing so, as I pointed out, is the key to opening peoples’ minds and making the issue about something other than gays. Instead of getting into the “my research is better than yours” battle, which gays lose, it focuses on the issue at hand, which is kids who need homes.

    But again, for Timmeh and others, this isn’t about getting children homes; it’s about agitating and namecalling others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - March 29, 2006

  36. The reason Cameron’s research is still cited and quoted is because there are nuggets and kernels of truth in it; gay couples HAVE molested children, HAVE sought to adopt for that purpose, and DO have in some cases emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that make them unsuitable as parents. To say otherwise is neither truthful or smart.

    Ironically, doing so, as I pointed out, is the key to opening peoples’ minds and making the issue about something other than gays. Instead of getting into the “my research is better than yours” battle, which gays lose, it focuses on the issue at hand, which is kids who need homes.

    But again, for Timmeh and others, this isn’t about getting children homes; it’s about agitating and namecalling others.

    Yes. But…

    Wouldn’t it be nice if another Republican stood up and told this lady she was being jackass? Why can’t GayPatriot do that instead of indulging himself in his dumb LCR fixation?

    You do have to challenge the research, you can’t let it go, otherwise it becomes de facto “truth”. But you are right it should not be your primary line of attack.

    The second thing I immediately thought of after reading that politician’s stupid comments was: Yeah? And what about that straight couple a few weeks ago that adopted all those children to put them in cages like a zoo? Instead of warring about gays adopting they should be focusing on whether predators are adopting. Thats the line of attack that should be taken with this stuff. Then you can hit them afterwords with “and your data is fraudulent as well, and I can prove it.

    I do think you really have to get into the data, its very useful when debating issues on sites like “The Evangelical Outpost”. Especially when someone quotes Cameron. Because his work is so inherently and blatantly untruthful, you can use someone else’s use of the data as a moral issue, namely that they are supporting a lie.

    I’m sure that most of the time the people who actually quote the data never even considered whether it was true or not. It fit their pre-existing bias. The more honest ones get a bit red-faced when they realize just what a crook Cameron is.

    I believe also that Focus on the Family has begun removing his items from their position papers, etc. Thats something else that can be used in a debate. Because whenever anyone starts to look at the facts on this stuff, it all falls apart, and it can severely prejudice the case they are making.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 29, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - March 29, 2006

  37. while some gays were indeed molested as children and went on to molest children themselves

    There’s that victim crap again. Tell me, why add that clause about some gays being molested, since it doesn’t add to the point, except to absolve gays from their responsibility if they abuse children?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 29, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - March 29, 2006

  38. Because it is the truth, RWP.

    Furthermore, when you add on the last part:

    not all gays were, nor does everyone who was molested as a child turn out gay or molest children.

    In short, it points out that there is no real causal link between homosexuality and child molestation.

    That works both ways. You can’t say being molested as a child makes you gay, but you also can’t blame the fact that you molested a child on your being gay.

    And believe me, as much as I bitch about NAMBLA (and their HRC/International Whatever/ACLU allies) using being gay as an excuse for raping children, I really didn’t think anyone would ever accuse me of “absolving gays of responsibility”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - March 29, 2006

  39. Wouldn’t it be nice if another Republican stood up and told this lady she was being jackass?

    (shakes head) Gryph, you’ve already lost.

    This is what most people are going to see and remember:

    “I have strong convictions. I just feel kids in our foster have been through enough. They need the optimum family unit, and that is a mother and a father,” she said.

    And you’ve just called that “being a jackass”.

    Next up:

    The second thing I immediately thought of after reading that politician’s stupid comments was: Yeah? And what about that straight couple a few weeks ago that adopted all those children to put them in cages like a zoo?

    So is the message here that, because there are straight predators, we should allow gay ones too?

    The problem with doing that, Gryph, is that it reminds people that the system as it exists has already failed. There need to be MORE stringent controls on people adopting, not less, and that means that there needs to be a better job done of eliminating threats to children.

    In short, you’ve strengthened her hand on being more rigorous on the pool of adoptive parents. Don’t be surprised when the next things that come out are examples of gays molesting children and of gay-rights groups like HRC funding the ACLU and its defense of NAMBLA.

    If you’re prepared to fully denounce that fact, it’s OK. But most gay-rights activists can no more say that HRC is wrong or the ACLU is wrong than they can conceive naturally. This is where you usually lose nine-tenths of your help.

    And that brings us to this:

    Because his work is so inherently and blatantly untruthful, you can use someone else’s use of the data as a moral issue, namely that they are supporting a lie.

    What’s the lie?

    That gays have molested children?

    That gays have sought out children to molest?

    That gays have blamed the fact that they molested children on the fact that they were gay?

    That some gay couples have problems that make them patently unfit to be parents?

    Again, Gryph, you’re playing right into their hands. You can point out, as I did, that the extrapolations made based on those occurrences are, at best, conjecture. You can point out, as I did, that the causal relationships are very weak to nonexistent.

    But do not ever, I repeat EVER, try to play that “you’re lying” game.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - March 29, 2006

  40. Well said, NDXXX.

    Why the GayLeft continues to shoot all of us in the foot over adoption is a great disservice to us, to our long term interests of finding political accommodation on public policy issues with the majority of Americans and, most importantly, a disservice to the kids. I guess it’s the bigotry that drives them, not the positive impact gay adoptions can have on our society.

    For me, it’s like watching Mass Gov Romney defending a violent, inflamed attack from the GayLeft when he decided that Catholic charities shouldn’t be forced into placing special needs kids with one or more gay parents. The GayLeft leadership in Mass and DC went after him like he had just questioned the origin of being gay –which, of course, is high blasphemy. It didn’t matter that there were hundreds of other Mass adoption groups for gay parents to work through… no, it was that rabid anti-Catholic, anti-religion bigotry that seems to run through the GayLeft almost as pronounced as their blind allegiance to the Democrat Party.

    After you pointed out that this newest attack on a minor GOP legislator by the GayLeft –which Patrick seems determined to hoist, foist, and fume about– would rather agitate and name call rather than keep focus on the interests of the kids, the interests of all gay parents who want to adopt… and then he goes on to say “Yes, but…” and starts the name calling (jackass) and asks for GP to protest this minor legislator’s comments –comments which were addressed to a Vanderbilt student seeking public policy insights and likely not intended for general distribution.

    And the hidden agenda here?

    For the GayLeft to smear all GOPers by pointing to silly and hurtful comments by a minor state legislator –newsflash GayLeft: Rep Maggart of Tennessee’s State House of Representatives doesn’t represent Republicans. She isn’t a leader of any recognized national Republican group and she doesn’t speak for Republicans.

    I’d like to offer a word of caution and reflection to those GayLefties like Tim and Patrick and Ian… leave the issue of gay adoption alone. For those of us in the community that are impacted by your fervent, irrational, partisan bigotries and hatred, you do greater harm than all the Maggarts and Dobsons and Robertsons out there.

    Like Fred Phelps giving Christianity a bad name, you do us a great disservice with your partisan foments… and I write that as the proud father of two sons brought into our family by adoption.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 30, 2006 @ 9:28 am - March 30, 2006

  41. 35: ND30, according to the post you cited, you and your argument played no role in the Texas adoption battle. I can see why you’d want to take credit for the outcome, though. In Virginia — which vies with Texas for the most anti-Gay state in the union — Equality Virginia can prove that its opposition research against Paul Cameron (which you can do online in about five minutes) contributed substantially to the defeat of Del. Dick Black’s anti-adoption bill. The line of argument I’m advocating isn’t mine alone, nor is it EV’s alone — but it has a proven track record. Now why, ND30, should adoption advocates abandon a line of argument that has been proven successful, in favor of your argument, which you admit has never been made outside of your own blog?

    34: It’s a legit question Tim, you seemed more interested in playing games than engaged in serious discussion about public policy.

    I’ve yet to hear ND30, V, MM, or rwp claim on this blog that any statement from a GOP official or appointee against Gay and Lesbian people goes too far and must be opposed. If I seem to be playing games, it’s because I would like to know where — if anywhere — they would draw the line.

    And frankly, I’m not sure you should be taken seriously. I have yet to see a real, sustained defense of Gay rights and individual liberty coming from this set, save for Gryph and Ian. V and rpf have voiced their support of sodomy laws, which immediately disqualifies them from any positive role in the debate: If you’re in favor of throwing people in jail for what they do in their own homes, there’s not much left for you to be against. GP and GPW have also failed to address the swell of anti-Gay rhetoric in the GOP, devoting their energies to knee-jerk attacks on Log Cabin and Andrew Sullivan. (Regarding the latter, I detect what Bloom would call an “anxiety of influence.”)

    Because Log Cabin and Andrew Sullivan have dared to mount a truly conservative defense of GLBT liberty, often against the Republican leadership, they deserve to be taken seriously: They’re engaging the issues involved in being openly Gay and openly Republican. The writers at Indegayforum.org deserve respect for the same reasons. This site doesn’t. Instead, it subscribes to a mystical view of patriotism, nationalism and conservatism without considering what these things might entail. It is so neurotically attached to the idea of GOP solidarity, that it fails to ask how the GOP’s penchant for concocting laws against Gay and Lesbian people might complicate that relationship. Critical thinking is in mighty short supply around here.

    I had high hopes for this site. But no longer.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - March 30, 2006

  42. Because Log Cabin and Andrew Sullivan have dared to mount a truly conservative defense of GLBT liberty,

    I love these insights into the Bizarro World Timmeh! Inhabits. So far, I’ve learned that in his world, conservatives control public high schools with a vise-like grip, time and probability have no meaning (because a remote chance of losing civil liberties in the future is exactly the same as losing civil liberties in the present), and apparently, LCR and Andrianna Sullington are “conservatives.”

    Now, does this mean that in his world, conservatives support massive tax increases, judicial oligarchy, and recreational drug use, or does Andrianna Sullington not advocate those policies in Bizarro World?

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - March 30, 2006

  43. Because it is the truth, RWP.

    It may be, but it’s no more true of gay child molesters than straight child molesters, though that’s the implication. It’s there to give child molesters a pass, an excuse. They were molested. Therefore, they’re not responsible for their actions.

    And that’s 100% bogus.

    I don’t care if they were locked in a 4×4 closet all through their childhoods, groped, or poked with glass dildos. It makes no difference whether they were molested or not. They are wholly responsible for their actions.

    Until the “gay lobby” takes a hard line on child molesters, they will always be suspect.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 30, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - March 30, 2006

  44. Until the “gay lobby” takes a hard line on child molesters, they will always be suspect.

    I gotta tell ya, one of my disillusioning experiences happened in college when the topic of NAMBLA came up on a message board. Maybe a quarter of the people who responded were openly pro-NAMBLA. But I was more shocked that the majority opinion seemed to be that NAMBLA should not be judged, because judging the morality of someone else’s lifestyle was wrong. I found that attitude appalling.

    And even among those who were opposed to NAMBLA, it was mainly because “they make us look bad,” not because of moral outrage over what NAMBLA advocates.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - March 30, 2006

  45. Tim, thanks for making your best effort to answer a fair question. I can appreciate why you’d rather avoid answering –when you posit that “Critical thinking is in mighty short supply around here”, you sort of tip your hand to the base disgust you hold for others’ opinions.

    It’s a shame you haven’t learned yet, in all your life experiences and in your education, that baiting, swerving, and playing little debate games with the opinions of others is the sign of an intellectually bankrupt person.

    I’m not sure when or how you got appointed the expert on what constitutes gay-ness, gay-dom, or even patriotism and conservative values for that matter. Your opinions, by and large, Tim aren’t conservative. Maybe in the band of people you hang with your opinons pass for conservative, but I have to tell you I know and have known the leaders of America’s conservative moment and you sure as Hell aren’t conservative.

    I like it that you –and Patrick and other GayLefties– think that a lowly state rep in the Tennessee General Assembly represents GOP opinion on anything. Did you and Patrick to fail to notice in the rush to inflame that she’s in the MINORITY in the lower chamber? Minority –it means the legislation ain’t going anywhere, Tim. And in Tennessee, Maggart represents about 59,000 people… and she barely won election.

    See, this is the problem: rather than to be truthful, you promote Maggart as some kind of lighting rod for the GayLeft to curl back their lips and sneer in a collective fashion. The GOP hate us! The GOP hate gays! Stay on the Democrat Plantation!

    Guess what: the truth is her opinion really doesn’t matter to the conduct of Tennessee policy. And even if she were a Senator, it’s doubtful that she could convince a majority of GOPers or Dems to go along with her on this issue. So, rather than project that the voice of the GOP is anti-gay, as you continually do without abandon, the truth is that it is unlkiely anything close to her opinion will hold sway when policy decision time rolls around.

    It was the same with the savaging of Mitt Romney this past month over his refusal to “stand up to those homophobic Catholics” and jerk their license to handle adoptions in Mass.

    It’s phony, Tim.

    It’s phony and meant to do nothing more than toss fresh red meat to salivating GayLeft.

    And you wonder why no one bites at your bait? Incredible.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 30, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - March 30, 2006

  46. It was the same with the savaging of Mitt Romney this past month over his refusal to “stand up to those homophobic Catholics”

    Did you see Ellen Goodman’s column? She actually believes that the government should force relgions not to discriminate.

    Liberals love to talk about the First Amendment, but have no use for it unless it pushes their own agenda. They’re only too happy to violate it at will if it doesn’t — see any university campus.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 30, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - March 30, 2006

  47. ND30, according to the post you cited, you and your argument played no role in the Texas adoption battle.

    (shrug) Think what you want, Tim; several Texas state legislators would strongly disagree with that statement, for reasons you shall shortly see.

    I’ve yet to hear ND30, V, MM, or rwp claim on this blog that any statement from a GOP official or appointee against Gay and Lesbian people goes too far and must be opposed.

    What an interesting fib that is. Remember this post you claimed you read, which you haughtily said “proved” I did nothing about the Texas adoption battle?

    Thank Senator Nelson and Representative Hupp for putting the welfare of Texas children above antigay discrimination. Hupp, especially…..for her to buck Talton on this is a major step forward. I think she may have finally realized that Talton and his ilk are wingnuts who care nothing for anything other than their own prejudices.

    I think that was a rather nice condemnation, myself.

    I’ve also said even more and in other places — the last of which nicely disproves your theory that I had “nothing to do” with these battles.

    But of course, Timmeh, you’re not interested in that, because it doesn’t conform to your hatemongering ideals. You see, in your world, all that matters is hating Bush and the Bush administration; that’s why you, like Ian Andrew Sullivan, can blast Bush for opposing gay marriage while calling Democrats who oppose gay marriage“pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    In short, Tim, you can namecall all you want. As I’ve blogged before, and as Matt posted above, the reason you namecall has nothing to do with my stances, but everything to do with the fact that I don’t conform to your ideal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - March 30, 2006

  48. NDT says:
    In short, Tim, you can namecall all you want. As I’ve blogged before, and as Matt posted above, the reason you namecall has nothing to do with my stances, but everything to do with the fact that I don’t conform to your ideal

    You seem to be implyiing that neither you nor matt neither namecall nor group all individuals who aren’t rightwingers like you into one mindless amalgam.

    You don’t even bother calling out any of the Republicans who are PROACTIVELY ANTI-GAY. You’d rather slam the so-called “GayLeft”.

    When’s the last time someone posted anything about DeLay and his recent speech?

    Or is that ok for the sole reason that you couldn’t call it unexpected?

    Face it, there are far far FAR more virulent and numerous anti-gay people OUT THERE who deserve your hatred and your vitriol instead of other gay people who question your own politics.

    You don’t seem to get so incensed about those, though.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 31, 2006 @ 2:59 am - March 31, 2006

  49. You seem to be implyiing that neither you nor matt neither namecall nor group all individuals who aren’t rightwingers like you into one mindless amalgam.

    Feel free to demonstrate that you have a mind.

    You don’t even bother calling out any of the Republicans who are PROACTIVELY ANTI-GAY.

    So much for THAT theory.

    Face it, there are far far FAR more virulent and numerous anti-gay people OUT THERE who deserve your hatred and your vitriol instead of other gay people who question your own politics.

    Actually, the biggest danger to the gay community is people like yourself who call homophobic politicians who support legally stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Opposition to Tom DeLay comes naturally. But people like you who point to Tom DeLay while kissing the toes of Democrats and giving them money so that they can support amendments to strip you of rights deserve every ounce of what you’re currently getting.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 31, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - March 31, 2006

  50. Well said, NDXXX.

    GoB, take the time to read and comprehend his comments; if you can open up the baggage you carry around, you might learn something and grow a bit… and I don’t mean horizonally.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 31, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - March 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.