Gay Patriot Header Image

Human Rights Campaign Involved in Gay GOP Witchhunt

**UPDATE BELOW**

David Corn, who said he would never publish the names on “The List”, seems to be outing by dribbles now.  He has already named a name, proving he is a hypocrite. 

But in a stab to the heart of every gay and lesbian who gives a dime to the shameless money-grubbers, Corn drops this bombshell from a post earlier today:

I’ve received several requests for The List (see below), but I haven’t passed it on. And a few emails have come in with the same sort of query: is So-and-So who works for Senator So-and-So on the list? I haven’t answered such questions. But a reporter told me that The List is in other hands. He was told by an official at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby, that it had a copy. The HRC official refused to talk about it, though.

According to our critics here, the liberal party line is that it is Republicans outing gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill.  But as of now there have only been three entities claiming to actually have “The List.”

  • Liberal Gay Outing Activists Who Have Been Compiling The List For Years
  • Liberal columnist David Corn
  • Liberal gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign
  • I don’t see a Republican among them.  The only Republicans talking about the list are terrified GOP staffers, again according to Corn…

    A source sent me the following note:

    Your blog [about The List] caused quite a stir, David — a lobbyist…had a couple of terrified calls from gay GOP Hill staffers wondering if they were on the list you mentioned…and whether there was going to be a right-wing lynch mob coming for them.

    Well,I’ve been sent an updated version of The List. I’m not leading any lynch mob (obviously).

    You most certainly are, David.  You are stoking the fires of this witchhunt.  How dare you claim innocence?

    But the big story here folks is that the Gay McCarthyism is being stoked by none other than the largest GAY RIGHTS organization in America — the Human Rights Campaign.

    Somebody has some explaining to do.  I thought the HRC was supposed to PROTECT our rights?

    **UPDATE** – The Hypocrite Rights Campaign sheds crocodile tears over gays being demonized while at the same time holding in their cold hands the infamous “List” being used to rout out gay staffers that don’t tout the liberal party line.  Outrageous.  I’m not sure how Joe Solmonese sleeps at night.

    -Bruce (GayPatriot)

    Share

    70 Comments

    1. THe HRC only cares about those Gays who contribute money to the Democratic Party and the Abortion-Rights lobbies. To them, everyone-else is “self-loathing” and deserves what they get.

      Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 5, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - October 5, 2006

    2. Right wing lynch mob.

      Yeah, right.

      Sort of like the right wing lynch mob that went after Cheney when Kerry so helpfully pointed out that his daughter was a lesbian. I remember that happening, don’t you?

      Funny how it’s the liberals who are so hot to fan the fires.

      Or maybe it’s not funny at all.

      Comment by Synova — October 5, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - October 5, 2006

    3. Bruce, what makes you think the republicans don’t know who (many) of their gay staff members are? In fact we hear all the time that this is the case.

      The Rogers may out them. The Right might out them and scapegoat them to take the fall.

      Nor is there any informantion that HRC will use whatever info they have for reasons that are, frankly, unexplainable and antithetical to their political agenda.

      Comment by Also from Michigan — October 5, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - October 5, 2006

    4. At least by using the word McCarthyism in this context, you hereby admit that Senator McCarthy conducted witchunts. That’s something many neo-conservatives won’t do.

      And it’s a step in the right direction, lol.

      Comment by Chase — October 5, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - October 5, 2006

    5. Chase-

      I’m trying to use language you can relate to.

      Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - October 5, 2006

    6. […] Update: And yet another mini-bombshell: is the largest gay rights organization in America aiding and abetting gay McCarthyism? […]

      Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Foleymania! Thursday all-purpose thread; Update: **Three new pages accuse Foley** — October 5, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - October 5, 2006

    7. Like most lefties, Chase has to play word games. It’s all they have left.

      Comment by CT — October 5, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 5, 2006

    8. #6 – Bruce, do you have any reason whatsoever to assert HRC is “stoking McCarthyism?” Because there is none in your posts? Instead, they have acknowledged that they know there are gay staffers on capital hill. That’s hardly a shock. Conservatives here, perhaps yourself, already acknowledge that there are gay staffers on the hill that don’t talk publicly about their sexuality.

      Comment by Also from Michigan — October 5, 2006 @ 8:34 pm - October 5, 2006

    9. Well now, as far as I am concerned the Human Rights Campaign sucks moose. I’m trans, and for years HRC has been lobbying AGAINST trans-inclusive rights legislation.

      Human? I thought I was. Rights? I thought I should have them, but HRC didn’t agree. So let’s face it – this latest hypocrisy doesn’t fill me with surprise.

      Comment by Dr. Ellen — October 5, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - October 5, 2006

    10. Man the holier than though leftists. They throw oreo cookies at black Republicans. Distribute black Senatorial Candidates picture in black face. Publically out a Vice Presidents daughter. Search and abuse a conservative radio host who’s a recovering RX drug abuser. Loudly protest, shout abuse at families of fallen shoulders funerals. Now they out Republican gays. Liberals? Progressives? Hardly. Hatemoungers. Stalinists. Disgraceful. There’s no way this country is turning to these people for leadership.

      Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 5, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 5, 2006

    11. I’m absolutely missing something here. Some random anonymous person at HRC says that he or she has “a copy (but T)he HRC official refused to talk about it…”

      And from that innocuous remark, you figure out that the HRC is ‘stoking’ this?

      Curious. I can’t remember the last decade I gave money to the HRC, but on the logical scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being ‘oh yeah,’ and 1 being really asinine, your logical is roughly minus 8.

      Oh, and the foam on your lapel? Better brush it off. Even Hastert isn’t defending Hastert as rabidly as you are.

      Comment by Famous Author Rob Byrnes — October 5, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - October 5, 2006

    12. LIke I wrote before, my take is: leave the people alone who respect others; out the ones who actively work to hurt other gays and lesbians through government.

      But on the other hand: Too bad being gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered wasn’t still so stigmatized in this country (and a topic used by many conservatives as one of hatred to keep their base). I still think it be great if all us could be identified by some obvious physical marking – then people couldn’t hide and would have to face all this irrantional fear and hatred head on, no matter what your political affiliation.

      9: Where’s your proof for those statements? Feel free to provide information to refute the information provides on transgender topics on its website:
      http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Transgender_Issues1

      Comment by Kevin — October 5, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - October 5, 2006

    13. Rob, they don’t need proof to know it is true. If they hear someone utter the words they want to hear, then they know it has to be true. That’s how it works.

      Just because somebody, anybody, said it, then it is true. It doesn’t matter who particularly said it. For all we know, the person who made this claim could be totally unreliable. That is immaterial. And of course, despite having no knowledge of who made the original claim to begin with, they issue no caveats. That’s cause blogs don’t deal in caveats.

      They want to believe it, so they do. Understood?

      Comment by Chase — October 5, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - October 5, 2006

    14. Heh. Rob Byrnes.. one of the Outing Disciples himself. Welcome.

      I thought I felt a cold wind coming through…..

      Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 5, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - October 5, 2006

    15. I love Bruce’s vivid imagination. Someone at the HRC says, “Yeah, we’ve seen the list.” This becomes proof that they are part of a gay GOP witchunt.

      Hey, I used to be on a gay political mailing list. No who else was on it? Mark Foley, no kiddin’. I guess I am part of his outing, because my name was on the mailing list.

      There is no witch hunt, Brucey. There is just your furious effort to distract from the rreal issue: the Republican leadership’s protection of an ephebophile.

      Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - October 5, 2006

    16. […] UPDATE: More blackmailing and coersion going on. […]

      Pingback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Foley Setup? - Part X - Legalities — October 5, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - October 5, 2006

    17. There may not be a witch hunt but there is sure a Corn hunt going on. What a tool he is.

      Comment by Sue — October 5, 2006 @ 10:29 pm - October 5, 2006

    18. I guess it is time to drag out my pink triangle and start wearing it everyday.

      I have read that the Democratic GAY SS Police intend to start enforcing the Laws of Gaydom. The New Book of Gaydom (the Democratic GAY bible/koran) clearly states that all Gay Men and Lesbians must join and support the Democratic Party. They MUST support Abortion and they MUST support the Great Socialist Doctrines of wealth redistribution.

      I have seen the light now and want to acknowledge my sins and renounce my membership in the evil Republican Party as the Great Prophets of GAY Enlightenment David Corn and Mike Roger have willed. I only have one question, on which side do I wear my Star of David? I have mine on my left side and the Pink Triangle on the Right but is that what the New Book of Gaydom says?

      I am saddened though because the gold Star of David and the Pink Triangle clash with my Calvin Klein black T-shirts and low rise jeans. I guess fashion does not matter in the New Book of Gaydom.

      Comment by Brit — October 5, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - October 5, 2006

    19. Yes Brit… Free Thought and Independence of Choice are not welcome in the Gay Reich.

      Resistance is futile.

      Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 10:45 pm - October 5, 2006

    20. when extremists in your party go on national television and assert claims that a person’s sexual orientation is responsible for immoral and inappropriate conduct,

      Does Bob Beckel count as an extremist in the republican party? Because he plainly said on FoxNews that because everyone knew Foley was gay, they should have investigated his emails to the boy in LA.

      Comment by Sue — October 5, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - October 5, 2006

    21. LOL…This is more fun than a Free Association demonstration at a conference of psychoanalysts. How in the world do you get from the HRC possessing this “list” to their being part of a witch hunt, to an attack on your right to belong to the GOP?

      The only possible route is through your own imagination.

      Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - October 5, 2006

    22. And from that innocuous remark, you figure out that the HRC is ’stoking’ this?

      Rob, you may not be familiar with the fact, but both Mike Rogers and John Aravosis have openly admitted that staffers at HRC (and LCR) help with their outing campaigns.

      I quote:

      Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.

      Now, while your attempt to spin for HRC is admirable, the simple fact is this; they are involved in the outing campaign, they have been and are feeding information to the primary drivers of it, and they are being blatantly hypocritical in public by claiming they don’t support it.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - October 5, 2006

    23. OK, so what’s going to happen to these people on “The List”?

      Post your theories.

      Comment by Chase — October 5, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - October 5, 2006

    24. I don’t think the press release from the HRC supports what you claim. I don’t think much of HRC, but you are twisting this also.

      Comment by Eva Young — October 5, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - October 5, 2006

    25. #23 “OK, so what’s going to happen to these people on “The List”?”

      Their god given right to sell out their fellow gays while working for allies of Santorum and Dobson will be in jeopardy.

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 5, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - October 5, 2006

    26. Look at the quote I just provided, Chase:

      “When Tolman was contacted by Rogers and threatened with being outed, he said he asked Rogers if the activist was trying to blackmail him after he said Rogers claimed he would print 1,500 copies of the “Coverboy Confidential” article and pass them out on the Hill should Tolman publicly deny he is gay.

      Blackmail is the first step.

      If that doesn’t work, they start the harassing and threatening phone calls and activities — to your employer, to your coworkers, even to your friends.

      And it only gets better; I’ve catalogued what they do, suitably linked and referenced.

      That’s what HRC and you support.

      Aren’t you proud?

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 11:52 pm - October 5, 2006

    27. Their god given right to sell out their fellow gays while working for allies of Santorum and Dobson will be in jeopardy.

      LOL…..of course, what we must realize is that “selling out” your fellow gays means being a Republican.

      Since puppets like Sydney Talon have yet to voice opposition to gays who work for Dem politicians who support stripping gays of rights, it can’t be anything of that nature.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 12:03 am - October 6, 2006

    28. I invite Mr. Thirty to elaborate further on what I have and have not said about people he may or may not name. Perhaps he can do it on his blog where he praises the Speaker for his inconsistent tales of how he handled the ‘overly friendly emails’ while attacking others who did the same with the same information (in those times where the Speaker’s story is that he handled the emails, that is).

      If he is in the mood for requests, I’d personally like to hear more on the virtues and integrity of the closeted life and the simple joys of hoodwinking fundementalists while living the lie.

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 6, 2006 @ 12:21 am - October 6, 2006

    29. I have a question.

      As the law stands today, could a member of Congress fire a staff member soley on the basis of their sexual orientation?

      Comment by Chase — October 6, 2006 @ 12:39 am - October 6, 2006

    30. I think, Sydney, that anyone who reads my blog will quickly realize that your description of what I have said bears roughly the same resemblance to reality as iron does to Jello.

      And of whom I am speaking, you ask? Why, the people that gays like yourself call pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

      And if I were to be asked, as I often have been, about the virtues of being closeted, I would say that there are very few, in my opinion. However, what I find to be virtuous, not everyone else does, and vice versa.

      Simply put, choosing to stay in the closet is an allowable choice and must be respected.

      Since Sydney Talon seems so bent on outing people who are “hoodwinking fundamentalists”, though, he should clap and applaud at this.

      Since our board leftists here seem to think that anyone who chooses to stay closeted, but privately is gay on the side, should be outed, I’m sure they’ll join the applause as well.

      Or maybe they’ll just demonstrate their hypocrisy.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 12:52 am - October 6, 2006

    31. As the law stands today, could a member of Congress fire a staff member soley on the basis of their sexual orientation?

      Congress is generally not bound to follow the labor laws that it imposes on others.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 6, 2006

    32. # 29 “As the law stands today, could a member of Congress fire a staff member soley on the basis of their sexual orientation?”

      Yes, but Congress in general is exempt from all labor laws. Both the House and the Senate oversee their own employment rules internally. This is referred to as ‘Congressional Exemption’, meaning Congress exempts itself from most labor laws. They do generally follow rules internally that match Federal law in this area, which make no provision for sexual orientation. For instance, the House oulaws employment bias based on “race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including marital or parental status), disability, or age.”

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 6, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 6, 2006

    33. #4
      At least by using the word McCarthyism in this context, you hereby admit that Senator McCarthy conducted witchunts.

      Don’t forget that McCarthy was proven right by the Venona Project.

      #12
      I still think it be great if all us could be identified by some obvious physical marking –

      (In case you didn’t realize Brit was talking to you) Great idea! We could all get pink triangle tattoos. The Jews, or Neocons as you call them, could have a tattoo of the Star of David, Republicans could have a scarlet “R” or something to that effect.

      Great idea, ASS! Sieg Heil, Baby!!!

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 6, 2006 @ 1:37 am - October 6, 2006

    34. # 30 “Sydney Talon seems ” …. to get a lot of things attributed to him.

      Mr. Thirty, it is most entertaining to be an out North Dallas resident disocursing on honesty with a closeted San Franciscan with the misleading moniker. I’ve made no statement in favor of outing the closeted, but merely implied the closet is the morally inferior choice due to its inherent dishonesty. As a veteran, it is a choice I made in the past out of my desire to serve my country. That calling is the sole one I can see partially absolving that immoral behavior, and I freely admit disdain for those who choose the closet for financial gain or advancement within the political fold that would strip gays of everything.

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 6, 2006 @ 1:42 am - October 6, 2006

    35. [Comment edited due to language violations.]

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 6, 2006 @ 2:00 am - October 6, 2006

    36. [Comment deleted due to language violation.]

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 6, 2006 @ 2:05 am - October 6, 2006

    37. And also notice how Mr. Talon apparently thinks I’m closeted.

      That’s news to everyone around me; they all know I’m gay, and have for years.

      Especially when I lived in Dallas.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 3:08 am - October 6, 2006

    38. #34
      Translated: Freedom is irrelevant. Self determination is irrelevant. You must comply.

      Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 6, 2006 @ 6:00 am - October 6, 2006

    39. Don’t forget that McCarthy was proven right by the Venona Project.

      Ann Coulter is Lord. All glory to Ann Coulter.

      The Venona Project did indeed produce names of Soviet spies — in the 1940s, before McCarthy’s ascendancy and famous “list” speech and hearings. His list was of mainly innocent people whose civil rights he trampled. By that time, the Soviets knew of the project and no reliable information was gleaned after the late ’40s. Of course, I assume Ann has managed disregard such messy facts, not being part of the reality-based community.

       

      [Comment edited due to language violations.]

      Comment by JonathanG — October 6, 2006 @ 7:25 am - October 6, 2006

    40. It is about time that the gay community realizes that HRC isn’t working ‘for’ them nor should they be allowed to continue serving as ‘the’ mouthpiece for the gay community.

      Comment by Alan Chambers — October 6, 2006 @ 9:58 am - October 6, 2006

    41. ….Outrageous. I’m not sure how Joe Solmonese sleeps at night. ….

      Simple…upside-down, hanging from his perch, with heavy drapes drawn over the windows so no light of day shall enter while he’s helpless.

      Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 6, 2006 @ 11:54 am - October 6, 2006

    42. I think Jonathan G is basically right about Tail-Gunner Joe, but there are still die-hard leftists that defend the honor of Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, etc. etc. And, if Tail-Gunner Joe were right, then every Communist on the lists needed to be purged since it would be intolerable for members of an international conspiracy supported by a deadly enemy of the United States to work in the State Department.

      In contrast, presuming that some of the guys on this list, if it indeed exists, are gay, they aren’t a threat to the political order, the government, or the Republican Party as such. They haven’t betrayed any duty of loyalty to anyone, even though some crazy gay and religious right activists like to think that is the case. They are just people doing their jobs, serving their Congressmen and ultimately, the nation, in the way that they think best. I fail to see why their names should be disclosed when they haven’t done anything unethical or illegal, and when the disclose itself could cause them serious personal harm -all because of the hatred of spiteful individuals.

      Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 6, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - October 6, 2006

    43. The Hypocrats…

      so… are you as sick of this sniping as I am? Are you as ready for true leadership as I am? Are you overwhelmed by the wall of noise spewing forth from the new and old media? Are you tempted to just chill out and listen to some ocean waves across t…

      Trackback by WiseDove - By Randy Thomas — October 6, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - October 6, 2006

    44. Kevin (12) –

      The Human Rights Campaign talks a good line of “rights”, but they are about as honest as the Democratic Party on them: which is to say, we gotta stay on their plantation else they will attack us as heretics instead of defending us as GLBT.

      To quote from the Washington Blade Online:

      But the move marks a dramatic departure from a position affirmed just last year by Winnie Stachelberg, HRC’s political director, who told the Blade in August 2003, “Now is not the time to add gender identity to ENDA.

      The past few years HRC has been talking a good deal about transgender inclusion. Maybe they are even starting to believe it. But for quite a few years before that, they were counter-productive for us. Phyllis Frye, a longtime transgender activist, spoke of these problems.

      In November of 1996, the next large transgender community meeting with HRC took place. There was a dramatic attempt to insure that the transgender delegates truly represented the geographic, racial, and sexual diversity of the transgendered. Eleven people from the Atlantic to the Pacific attended, including people of color, MTFs and FTMs, cross-dressers and postsurgical transsexuals. […] The thrust of the meeting was to reposition old stances. HRC was not going to put us into ENDA. We on the other hand, were going to settle for nothing less. The upshot of the meeting was that this group decided to meet with other groups in the D.C. area, including the NGLTF [note 26]. As a result of that display of diversity, the NGLTF and other national LG groups (not HRC) began to amend their mission statements and bylaws to include transgenders and bisexuals if they had not already done so.

      Perhaps they are starting to talk the talk; but for a decade and more, they refused to walk the walk.

      Comment by Dr. Ellen — October 6, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - October 6, 2006

    45. Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Ban Upheld in California…

      Acknowledging that courts interpret law, not write it, the Court of Appeal in California voted 2-1 yesterday to uphold the state’s ban on homosexual “marriage.”
      Presiding Justice William McGuiness wrote (emphasis added):
      We conclu…

      Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — October 6, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - October 6, 2006

    46. #37

      As I said to Mr. Matt, I apologize for the closet insult if you are in fact out. It was my misunderstanding.

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 6, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - October 6, 2006

    47. “If you are in fact out”?

      Your non-apology apology shall be answered with a non-acceptance acceptance.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 2:36 am - October 7, 2006

    48. ..hmmm, outing gay people in 2006 or promoting discriminatory legislation. Which is worse? Your priorities are really whacked.

      I hope no one outs any gay republicans, regardless of how vile they are toward their own humanity. I also could not imagine any gay organization outing them maliciously. If they do, they deserve all of our scorn.

      But I also hope you appreciate that courting the religious right is unconscionable.

      Comment by jkb — October 7, 2006 @ 10:29 am - October 7, 2006

    49. Interesting to see that the HRC pisses off conservative gays as much as it does liberal gays. The first comment on this thread, about them only supporting the Democratic party, is plainly false. HRC has endorsed and continues to endorse Republican candidates. I remember a few years back, here in Oregon, they endorsed Gordon Smith for senator, even though, as far as I could tell, his Democratic opponent had a better stance on the gay rights issue — go figure (more recently, Smith hopped on the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment bandwagon, like a good loyal Republican was supposed to). I got fundraising spam from them once and wrote back that I wouldn’t give them any of my money unless they stopped supporting the party that’s actively trying to roll back gay rights, and got back a form letter about getting a place at the table, working from the inside trying to change the Republican party blah blah blah. Joe Solomonese and his friends must have a fabulous social life with all their galas and such, but I don’t see HRC really making much of a positive difference.

      Comment by John T — October 7, 2006 @ 11:32 am - October 7, 2006

    50. #47 “Your non-apology apology shall be answered with a non-acceptance acceptance.”

      Hooray, our mutual social obligations have received lip service!

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 7, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 7, 2006

    51. #47 “Your non-apology apology shall be answered with a non-acceptance acceptance.”

      Thank you.

      Comment by Sydney Talon — October 7, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - October 7, 2006

    52. Bruce,
      Just so you know, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force just released this statement:

      Statement from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

      National Gay and Lesbian Task Force calls upon Democrats, Republicans and straight allies to stand up for gay Americans

      “The GOP has only one response when it’s in trouble –– ‘blame the gays.’”—
      Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman

      It’s really a shame that you and other gay conservatives insist on demonizing us gay lefties. The GOP and it’s family values acolytes are going to do whatever they can to demonize homos in general and the party fags in particular. And it will be organizations like NGLTF and HRC that are going to shout the strongest and the loudest (me included) to protect your sorry asses.

      Comment by tonto_cal — October 7, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - October 7, 2006

    53. And I can’t imagine what level of cognitive dissonance it requires to be a gay member of the Republican Party, you know the party of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum?

      After Senator Santorum made the statement likening homosexuality to incest, bigamy and polygamy (on the hallowed floor of the Senate no less) any self respecting gay staffer would and should have quit his employ in disgust; but no, not Robert Traynham.

      Comment by tonto_cal — October 7, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - October 7, 2006

    54. and you ‘go’ Sydney Talon

      (nick on msn and yahoo messengers if anyone wants to blab)

      Comment by tonto_cal — October 7, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - October 7, 2006

    55. And I can’t imagine what level of cognitive dissonance it requires to be a gay member of the Republican Party, you know the party of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum?

      That would be much more convincing if we didn’t know you were out there calling these sort of things “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

      And as for cognitive dissonance, you might explain why you and other so-called pro-gay-marriage folks give tens of millions of dollars and endorsements to the aforementioned individuals.

      Personally, given that opposition to gay marriage, supporting constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights, and pandering to the religious right usually qualify one as “antigay”, I wouldn’t think that you, HRC, and NGLTF would be such obedient servants and cash cows for these individuals.

      But that would be making the mistake that gay leftists such as yourself are motivated by gay rights, not by helpless enslavement to the Democratic Party.

      Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 8, 2006 @ 3:27 am - October 8, 2006

    56. What an amazing site-gays eagerly participating in their own destruction with their hateful support of the abusive anti-gay Republican Party.

      A gay republican is as oxymoronic as a jewish nazi.

      Comment by Michael — October 8, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - October 8, 2006

    57. 55: A gay Democrat IS a Nazi.

      Comment by Attmay — October 8, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - October 8, 2006

    58. I say more power to anyone who OUTS the hypocritical gay Republicans in Congress or on congressional staffs.
      These self-loathing gay Republican scum are stabbing their gay brothers and sisters in the back with their slavish adherence to this political party of hate. This kind of gay Republican scum is no different than the jewish collaborators who helped the Nazis round up fellow Jews so that the collaborator scould curry whatever favor that they thought they might gain.

      Comment by Michael — October 8, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - October 8, 2006

    59. You Democrat monsters are the ones who put the party over people. Once again, Gay (and, for that matter, “Straight”) Democrats are NAZIS.

      Comment by Attmay — October 8, 2006 @ 3:11 pm - October 8, 2006

    60. You people are too much! This has gotten beyond a spirited debate. Most of you have so overstepped the bounds of civilized discourse into the realm of antagonism and hatred that you should be ashamed of yourselves.

      Please let us recall that there is a system in place to address many of the concerns you are addressing. It is commonly referred to as due process. You may also recall a document called “The Constitution”.

      The biggest issue confronting the American public is the hatred instilled by each of the parties toward the other and its beliefs. The individuals involved in these matters may or may not have done anything wrong. Ultimately it is a matter for the judicial system to sort out.

      Having a lively discourse on the subject is healthy and may lead to insights which may otherwise be overlooked. But referring to each other as Nazi’s not only undermines the potential benefits of discussion but is downright cruel. I will not go on to describe the horrors and incredible crimes committed in the name of the Third Reich, but your callous use of such terminology to refer to a fellow American who holds different views is precisely the kinds of behavior the characterized the Nazi regime. You are out of line.

      It is unfortunate that many of our leaders have taken to the same tactics. It needs to be understood that Americans should not be governed by fear nor should those doing the governing threaten the American populus with outrageous suppositions and accusations against those with differing ideas.

      I ask that each of you reading this step up to what is TRULY the higher moral ground and engage in discourse which advances mutual respect as well as the point you argue.

      Sincerely,
      Royal Oak, Michigan

      Comment by Royal Oak, Michigan — October 8, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - October 8, 2006

    61. You are right that the Nazis are responsible for some of the most horrific crimes known to humanity.

      But “michael” has stated point blank that he supports selling out gays who don’t kowtow to the “Democratic” Party line and has the nerve to compare them to Kapos in Nazi Germany and call the GOP the “political party of hate”. This is rank hypocrisy. He’s not pro-gay, just anti-Republican.

      Comment by Attmay — October 8, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - October 8, 2006

    62. Attmay, you are a contemptible gay because what you support leads to the denial of basic human rights for gays & lesbians. One can only assume that your economic interests are such that you find succor in the Republican bossom because you care more about your economic position than you care about human dignity.

      There is no excuse for being a gay Republican save selfish personal economic gain.

      Comment by Michael — October 8, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - October 8, 2006

    63. —Free trade leads to denial of basic human rights for gays and lesbians?
      —Personal responsibility leads to denial of basic human rights for gays and lesbians?
      —Defense against anti-gay Islamist theocracies leads to denial of basic human rights for gays and lesbians?
      —Individual rights leads to denial of basic human rights for gays and lesbians?

      These are the things I support. These are some of the most pro-gay principles of all.

      Democrats support:

      —Group rights over individual rights
      —Surrender to Islamist terrorists
      —Racist government policies such as “Affirmative Action” which treats minorities as children who need the government’s help to get jobs
      —Wealth redistribution
      —Restraint of trade
      —Censorship of political speech under such euphemisms “Campaign Finance Reform” and “Net Neutrality”

      The Democrat Party is a hate group. No other group except the Communists, Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Mafia, has done as much harm to the USA.

      Comment by Attmay — October 8, 2006 @ 10:12 pm - October 8, 2006

    64. Well Attmay you have unfortunately demonstrated once again your ignorance. Ironically the democratic ideals espoused by both the Republicans and Democrats alike have given you the right to embrace your ignorance and allow you to demonstrate that ignorance in a free and open forum.

      Sincerely,
      Royal Oak, Michigan

      Comment by Royal Oak, Michigan — October 8, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - October 8, 2006

    65. You have a lot of nerve calling me ignorant after your maudlin plea for “civility”.

      As for the Democrats’ devotion to the principles of the USA: a Billie Holiday song said: “Southern trees bear strange fruit”, and this fruit was cultivated by Democrats for nearly a century after Reconstruction. It was, of course, a metaphor for lynching.

      And the fact that congressional Democrats not-so-subtly implied they’d try to yank ABC’s broadcast license if “The Path to 9/11” wasn’t edited the way they like it (i.e. blame Bush, exonerate Clinton) makes me question the party’s committment to the principles of free trade (and don’t even try to bring up the “Ronald Reagan Eats Babies” mini-series, that was a grassroots effort by individuals not connected to the government. No GOP congressman threatened CBS’s license over it)

      “I hate the Republicans and everything that they stand for”
      —Howard Dean, DNC chairman

      This is just the tip of the iceberg.

      I’m not even going to mention the Gore-inch who tried to steal the election. And I’ll refrain from bringing up Ben “Cliff” Barnes’ attempt to smear George W. Bush’s National Guard service with the cooperation of seeBS News. Or Hillary Clinton’s dimestore Marxist blather “It Takes a Village” (one of Larry Elder’s books compared a segment of her writing to some of Marx’s “Das Kapital”). And I don’t think I need to mention the anti-semitism prevalent at DailyKos and “Democratic” Underground. Nor the ramblings of insane Jew-hater and race-baiter Cynthia McKinney.

      And I won’t say that John Kerry’s position on gay marriage was the same as George W. Bush’s.

      There’s nothing “Democratic” about the modern Democrats. The Republicans may not be doing much to earn re-election, but the alternative is far, far worse.

      I apologize for comparing Democrats to Nazis. The real Nazis are the ones who pervert the name of Islam to kill innocent civilians. The Democrats are more like Neville Chamberlain, the deluded British PM who met with Hitler and declared “Peace in Our Time.” Look where that got them. We won’t have peace in our time with those who hide behind Islam to justify mass murder and totalitarianism. They won’t be reasoned with. And they oppose gay existence, never mind gay marriage.

      We are Gay Republicans because we want to fight anti-gay policies from the right and from the left. In fighting (and winning) the war, we want another Churchill, not another Chamberlain. We don’t think our tax money should pay for social programs that cause more problems than they solve (the “Great Society” wasn’t so great after all). We don’t believe government can be all things to all people.

      Anyone who claims Gay Republicans are “stabbing our gay brothers and sisters in the back” while justifying the stabbing of our Republican “brothers and sisters” in the back for running off the Democrat Plantation (with apologies to NDT) is a hypocrite. If Rogers and Avarosis want their 30 pieces of silver from the Religious Right, then I’ll be damned if I’m going to hold my tongue while they do exactly what “michael” accuses gay Republicans of doing.

      And anyone who accuses one of “ignorance” while pleading for “civility” is another hypocrite.

      When I came out of the closet, it was my own personal decision. No one had the right to make that decision for me, and no one has the right to make that decision for anyone else.

      Comment by Attmay — October 9, 2006 @ 2:14 am - October 9, 2006

    66. It’s amazing in the party of the big tent that it’s a damned shame that gay republicans have to be closeted.

      No one seems to have noticed that gay democrats are not screaming in horror and fear.

      That’s because most of them are not closeted.

      As for ones rights to keep private matters private, don’t you think the Republican party tossed all of that out the window when they forced a stitting President to testify (and lie) under oath about his own private sexual behaviour?

      The word hypocrite it’s spelled REPUBLICAN these days

      Comment by brilliant — October 9, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 9, 2006

    67. No one forced Clinton to lie about his behavior. Clinton chose to lie under oath (that is the key phrase), thinking it was the easy way out. Is he still trying to find the meaning of “is”? A lie is a conscious choice by an individual. Anything you believe Republicans did to him does not make it okay.

      Democrats gave up any sense of shame and human decency to defend this lecherous political Pinocchio. I still recall the claims that “it isn’t really sex”, and it being OK to lie about sex. He committed perjury, and he later lost his license to practice law in his home state. So the misnamed “brilliant” (another lower-caser) has no credibility in this matter, nor does anyone who defended Clinton’s activities.

      Comment by Attmay — October 9, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - October 9, 2006

    68. […] No doubt. They draw the line at whispering about lists of closeted gay Republicans. […]

      Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Human Rights Campaign fires staffer over StopSexPredators site — October 25, 2006 @ 2:56 pm - October 25, 2006

    69. A gay man or lesbian should be able to affiliate themselves with any political party they so desire. If someone wants to remain closeted that is also his or her choice…so what. I can not stand either Rep. or Dem., but that is my choice…I am out to friends, but not so open that everyone that I associate with knows. Life is complex, and is a different experience for each person.

      Comment by Gregory — October 28, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - October 28, 2006

    70. I don’t have a problem with gay republicans. I don’t have a problem with closeted gay men either.

      My problem is when closeted, gay Republicans are so self loathing that they will actively work against their friends and their own long-term interests in the name of “fitting in” and protecting their career.

      Who the heck sleeps with these guys anyway? Oh wait, other closeted, self-loathing gay guys.

      Comment by Joe_in_Mpls — November 13, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - November 13, 2006

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.