Comments on: HRC’s Priorities: Bash Bush, Bypass Debate http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/ The Internet home for American gay conservatives. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:47:49 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: North Dallas Thirty http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17107 North Dallas Thirty Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:24:04 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17107 <i>For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen.</i> In December, right? I also notice you left the gay savior Howard Dean off your list. Too busy pumping him cash too? For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen.

In December, right?

I also notice you left the gay savior Howard Dean off your list. Too busy pumping him cash too?

]]> By: Steve http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17106 Steve Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:22:35 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17106 <em>Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren’t saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments. Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing — especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats. </em> For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen. In fact, I was criticizing John Kerry as early as 2003, including booing and hissing at him at a 2003 HRC candidate forum in DC shortly after his infamous claim that marriage (except his) is for procreation. So as it turns out, you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about when you call me a hypocrite. Bashing me isn't going to get you a gold-plated invitation to the White House or make your president stop sh*tting on you. Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren’t saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments.

Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing — especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats.

For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen. In fact, I was criticizing John Kerry as early as 2003, including booing and hissing at him at a 2003 HRC candidate forum in DC shortly after his infamous claim that marriage (except his) is for procreation. So as it turns out, you don’t know what the f*ck you’re talking about when you call me a hypocrite. Bashing me isn’t going to get you a gold-plated invitation to the White House or make your president stop sh*tting on you.

]]> By: Horace C. Kirkman http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17105 Horace C. Kirkman Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:21:55 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17105 Bush has given his speech but took it away from the Rose Garden, to lessen the impact and as a gesture towards the moderates. But in in his speech, he kept emphasizing that the vast majority of American voters were in favor ot the marriage amendment. Just yesterday Gary Langer of ABC released a new poll of voters that do not support what Bush was saying. GARY LANGER (ABC) June 5, 2006 —"An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush's core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it. Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution." I am not a math genius, but even I know that 42 percent in favor of the amendment is not a vast majority. And one other point. GP, you bash the HRC for bashing the President instead of trying to influence the outcome of the Senate vote on the marriage amendment. But Lou Chibbaro Jr., June 5th, reported the following: "The president’s speech also came on the same day opponents of the MPA, led by the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group, held a rally and news conference on the steps of the Capitol. Those attending the HRC event brought with them what they said were thousands of post cards from voters across the country expressing strong opposition to the amendment." The HRC was there...in DC...fighting passage of the marriage amendment. Where were you, GP? Bush has given his speech but took it away from the Rose Garden, to lessen the impact and as a gesture towards the moderates. But in in his speech, he kept emphasizing that the vast majority of American voters were in favor ot the marriage amendment. Just yesterday Gary Langer of ABC released a new poll of voters that do not support what Bush was saying. GARY LANGER (ABC) June 5, 2006 —”An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush’s core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it. Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution.” I am not a math genius, but even I know that 42 percent in favor of the amendment is not a vast majority. And one other point. GP, you bash the HRC for bashing the President instead of trying to influence the outcome of the Senate vote on the marriage amendment. But Lou Chibbaro Jr., June 5th, reported the following: “The president’s speech also came on the same day opponents of the MPA, led by the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group, held a rally and news conference on the steps of the Capitol. Those attending the HRC event brought with them what they said were thousands of post cards from voters across the country expressing strong opposition to the amendment.” The HRC was there…in DC…fighting passage of the marriage amendment. Where were you, GP?

]]> By: Ed of Tampa http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17104 Ed of Tampa Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:07:42 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17104 hank: #19 Exactly, marriage involves sex, civil unions do not involve sex. #20 Civil unions can be strengthened to provide the same benefits as a marriage and could bring into the fold those other relationships that DO NOT INVOLVE sex but warrant the benefit of a STRENGTHENED civil union equivalent to marriage. And yes hank, looking at some of these GAY & Hetero web sites, these days, MOST SEX is perverse. Need more proof?, just ask any ER Nurse to describe a few of their "emergencies". Marriage should be about family and procreation, all other relationships should be strengthened civil unions. I am anxious to see the votes on this issue... hank:
#19 Exactly, marriage involves sex, civil unions do not involve sex.

#20 Civil unions can be strengthened to provide the same benefits as a marriage and could bring into the fold those other relationships that DO NOT INVOLVE sex but warrant the benefit of a STRENGTHENED civil union equivalent to marriage.

And yes hank, looking at some of these GAY & Hetero web sites, these days, MOST SEX is perverse. Need more proof?, just ask any ER Nurse to describe a few of their “emergencies”.

Marriage should be about family and procreation, all other relationships should be strengthened civil unions.

I am anxious to see the votes on this issue…

]]> By: MichaelATL http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17103 MichaelATL Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:35:29 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17103 Did I miss something? I didn't think the president had a vote on the marriage amendment. It would seem to me that what he thinks one way or another is not as important as what we need at least 34 members of the Senate to believe. Bush made his case as to why they should stand with him. HRC chose not to make a case as to why they should stand with us. Neither the President's position nor HRC's ineffective strategy should come as any big surprise. Did I miss something? I didn’t think the president had a vote on the marriage amendment. It would seem to me that what he thinks one way or another is not as important as what we need at least 34 members of the Senate to believe. Bush made his case as to why they should stand with him. HRC chose not to make a case as to why they should stand with us. Neither the President’s position nor HRC’s ineffective strategy should come as any big surprise.

]]> By: rightwingprof http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17102 rightwingprof Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:43:22 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17102 First, "homophobia," then "gas chambers." What drugs are these leftists on? First, “homophobia,” then “gas chambers.” What drugs are these leftists on?

]]> By: North Dallas Thirty http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17101 North Dallas Thirty Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:03:19 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17101 <i>While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain.</i> Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren't saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments. Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing -- especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats. While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain.

Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren’t saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments.

Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing — especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats.

]]> By: HDBiker http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17100 HDBiker Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:45:21 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17100 chambers chambers

]]> By: HDBiker http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17099 HDBiker Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:20:40 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17099 Nothing to see here. Move along, nothing to see. Pay no attention to the gas chanbers and ovens, they are only rhetorical. Nothing to see here. Move along, nothing to see. Pay no attention to the gas chanbers and ovens, they are only rhetorical.

]]> By: Steve http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17098 Steve Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:48:25 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17098 This entire thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with SOME gay Republicans. While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain. The central issue here is not HRC, which I'm no fan of myself. The central issue--obviously to anyone but diehard GOP ideologues--is a President's disgusting willingness to use gays and lesbians as a wedge issue. This entire thread is a perfect example of what’s wrong with SOME gay Republicans. While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain. The central issue here is not HRC, which I’m no fan of myself. The central issue–obviously to anyone but diehard GOP ideologues–is a President’s disgusting willingness to use gays and lesbians as a wedge issue.

]]> By: James http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17097 James Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:25:14 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17097 I'm not sure Ed understands all of the argument about marriage. Different people have different view points. The fact is that the federal government recognizes only marriage, and not civil unions. There are many rights (more than a thousand) married heterosexual couples receive with the issuance of a marriage license. Gay couples can get some of those rights through expensive legal paperwork (living wills, powers of attorney), but still are not afforded all of the rights married heterosexual couples have. The matter becomes even more complicated when gay and lesbian couples decide to have children, whether they be biological or adopted children. If married couples divorce, an entire section of law can be applied to help with division of property, and custody fo children. In many areas of the U.S., if a gay couple goes through the equivalent of divorce, or at least in GA, one must go to probate court. Because there is no legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships in many parts of the country, things can get messy. Basically, the entire system favors heterosexual couples who make a lifetime committment through marriage. I’m not sure Ed understands all of the argument about marriage. Different people have different view points. The fact is that the federal government recognizes only marriage, and not civil unions.

There are many rights (more than a thousand) married heterosexual couples receive with the issuance of a marriage license. Gay couples can get some of those rights through expensive legal paperwork (living wills, powers of attorney), but still are not afforded all of the rights married heterosexual couples have. The matter becomes even more complicated when gay and lesbian couples decide to have children, whether they be biological or adopted children.

If married couples divorce, an entire section of law can be applied to help with division of property, and custody fo children. In many areas of the U.S., if a gay couple goes through the equivalent of divorce, or at least in GA, one must go to probate court. Because there is no legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships in many parts of the country, things can get messy.

Basically, the entire system favors heterosexual couples who make a lifetime committment through marriage.

]]> By: hank http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17096 hank Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:48:51 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17096 Sorry Ed if I misunderstood your post. But the word "perverse" (twice!), kinda threw me. And marriage does involve sex, no matter how "perverse" you may think it is. Sorry Ed if I misunderstood your post. But the word “perverse” (twice!), kinda threw me.
And marriage does involve sex, no matter how “perverse” you may think it is.

]]> By: Ed in Tampa http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17095 Ed in Tampa Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:45:12 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17095 Dear Ian & Hank: I am not in the closet, I am a Democrat & I was born in 1956, not 50. Thanks for your true concern though. I just think we are opening a pandora on marriage & good lord, the institution is suffering enough without making it more of a mockery. I do like the idea of civil unions. What is wrong with that idea? This could allow family members or just plain friends regardless of gender to reap a few of the benefits of "living together" or "partnerships" that we are seeking. Why does it have to be about "SEX"? Dear Ian & Hank:
I am not in the closet, I am a Democrat & I was born in 1956, not 50. Thanks for your true concern though. I just think we are opening a pandora on marriage & good lord, the institution is suffering enough without making it more of a mockery.

I do like the idea of civil unions. What is wrong with that idea? This could allow family members or just plain friends regardless of gender to reap a few of the benefits of “living together” or “partnerships” that we are seeking.

Why does it have to be about “SEX”?

]]> By: The Thunder Run http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17094 The Thunder Run Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:44:38 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17094 <strong>Web Reconnaissance for 06/05/2006...</strong> A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.... Web Reconnaissance for 06/05/2006…

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

]]> By: James http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17093 James Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:55:00 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17093 <blockquote>Help the Republican Party in our effort to defend this sacred institution and send a message to Congress that Catholics strongly support marriage as one man and one woman. Take a stand by signing our petition today: www.catholicsformarriage.com.</blockquote> Are you freaking kidding me? No offense to Republicans, but, Martin Gillespie should really take a look at the platforms of both parties, the actions of both parties, and the concerns, and then compare each party's ideology to Christ's teachings.

Help the Republican Party in our effort to defend this sacred institution and send a message to Congress that Catholics strongly support marriage as one man and one woman. Take a stand by signing our petition today: http://www.catholicsformarriage.com.

Are you freaking kidding me? No offense to Republicans, but, Martin Gillespie should really take a look at the platforms of both parties, the actions of both parties, and the concerns, and then compare each party’s ideology to Christ’s teachings.

]]> By: hank http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17092 hank Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:01:03 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17092 You're right Ian. It's the flip side of what NDT endlessly drones on about. "The "lib gays" care more about hating Bush , than they care about their own welfare". Simple minded. As for poor Ed above. Well, 1950 called and it wants its' closet queen back. You’re right Ian. It’s the flip side of what NDT endlessly drones on about. “The “lib gays” care more about hating Bush , than they care about their own welfare”.
Simple minded.

As for poor Ed above. Well, 1950 called and it wants its’ closet queen back.

]]> By: ian S http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17091 ian S Mon, 05 Jun 2006 05:29:53 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17091 #13: "yikes" or as Mr Ed might say "kinda sick isn’t it… ewww". The amazing thing is that all the gaycons who post here will almost certainly say nothing about or to this wacko. After all, he's bound to be a Republican and that's all that really matters. #13: “yikes”

or as Mr Ed might say “kinda sick isn’t it… ewww”. The amazing thing is that all the gaycons who post here will almost certainly say nothing about or to this wacko. After all, he’s bound to be a Republican and that’s all that really matters.

]]> By: hank http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17090 hank Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:38:15 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17090 yikes yikes

]]> By: Ed of Tampa http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17089 Ed of Tampa Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:12:20 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17089 What is wrong with keeping marriage between one man & one woman? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that males & females were made for each other and any other type of sexual encouter is purely for the fun of it & most of it is perverse! Yes, perverse! I think the strength of marriage vows should be more legally binding. Afterall, what good is committing to someone for life if you don't mean it from the beginning. I enlisted in the HRC after I got out of the military. Once I saw what they were really like it didn't take me long to cease my membership. What a bunch of queer people. Under current law, gays are not denied a right to marry, find yourself someone of the opposite gender, fall in love and get married! I know we are not up to that challenge, kinda sick isn't it... ewww. Then I guess you understand a little about how hetero's feel about it the other way. What is wrong with keeping marriage between one man & one woman? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that males & females were made for each other and any other type of sexual encouter is purely for the fun of it & most of it is perverse! Yes, perverse!

I think the strength of marriage vows should be more legally binding. Afterall, what good is committing to someone for life if you don’t mean it from the beginning.

I enlisted in the HRC after I got out of the military. Once I saw what they were really like it didn’t take me long to cease my membership. What a bunch of queer people.

Under current law, gays are not denied a right to marry, find yourself someone of the opposite gender, fall in love and get married! I know we are not up to that challenge, kinda sick isn’t it… ewww. Then I guess you understand a little about how hetero’s feel about it the other way.

]]> By: hank http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/06/02/hrcs-priorities-bash-bush-bypass-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-17088 hank Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:57:35 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=683#comment-17088 "First, amendments can be repealed. Voters may submit for amendments to be passed that would repeal the MPA, as they did for the Eighteenth Amendment." An absurd argument. How long did it take? Look at what happened to the Country while it lasted. “First, amendments can be repealed. Voters may submit for amendments to be passed that would repeal the MPA, as they did for the Eighteenth Amendment.”

An absurd argument. How long did it take? Look at what happened to the Country while it lasted.

]]>