CONFIRMED: Gay Liberals On Outing Witchhunt
First of all, I can’t believe I’m breaking Foley-Free Friday. I promised myself I wouldn’t all day…. but this latest news can’t be ignored.
David Corn, liberal columnist for The Nation, outer of Valerie Plame, and holder of “The List” has an update. It is Gay Democrats who are using “The List“ in their three-year old game of harassment, outing and blackmail to rout out Gay Republican Congressional staffers. Here’s the latest from Corn.
Copies of The List (see below) have been sent by gay politicos to a variety of social conservative groups that look to the Republican Party to make their religious right dreams come true. The recipients include the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Alliance for Marriage, Concerned Women of America, the Eagle Forum, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Officials at most of these groups have had something to say about homosexuality and gay rights in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.
What’s the point? The senders–gay people of a non-Republican bent–seem to be hoping to set off a civil war within the GOP, to turn the anti-gay social cons against the GOP’s Velvet Mafia. These Washington gays have been seething for years about gay Republican staffers who serve a party that opposes gay rights and that welcomes the support of people who demonize or dehumanize gays and lesbians. “Maybe now the social conservatives will realize one reason why their agenda is stalled on Capitol Hill,” says a gay politico. Another says, “The inherent inconsistency of a coalition that shelters both gay loathing ‘Christian’ conservatives and conservative gays will soon suffer its final rupture.”
Will it? We shall see, as the Foley scandal continues to unfold, and The List continues to circulate.
I wonder what the Hypocrite Rights Campaign has to say about this? I wonder if they are helping to circulate The List? Yesterday, Corn confirmed with a source that an HRC official had a copy of The List.
In a very heated series of emails last night with yours truly, two officials from the HRC angrily denied any knowledge of The List. I responded that their issue was with David Corn who, as I put it, is the “professional journalist” in this equation. I promised that if he modified or retracted this statement that I would follow. I even offered to pull off the side of the road during my drive today and connect wireless to do so.
So far Corn has not changed his statement on HRC having The List, nor has the HRC called me yet.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you had read Corn’s initial posting carefully (as I did) you would have seen he chose his words closely. He never suggested that it was GOP folks who were compiling and using The List — he only said GOP folks were upset to learn of a possible gay network. Corn has clearly maintained throughout the past few days that it has been Gay Liberals engaged in compiling and using The List. (I know liberal readers here have a hard time with nuance.)
The only remaining questions now are: Who are they? And are any of our national gay organizations helping them with their Gay Outing Witchhunt?
**UPDATE** — This quick reply came to me from an official at the Human Rights Campaign: No one at HRC has this infamous “list” and furthermore, no one at HRC is aiding and abetting in sending out this “list”.
I guess that means the HRC thinks David Corn is lying or “misinformed.”
My response to the HRC is…..
At this point, I hope you understand that I trust David Corn’s source (he says it is a fellow reporter) more than I do your organization.
Why? Because I have closely watched your gay “rights” organization stand by in relative silence and permit this List to be compiled and used in order to drive people out of their jobs on Capitol Hill. In addition, the people compiling this list have on several occasions specifically said they were getting help from the HRC… and now David Corn specifically reports that an official at HRC has “The List.”
If these were gay DEMOCRATS on Capitol Hill being “listed” by James Dobson, you would have been pouring out of your offices on Rhode Island Ave. until the practice stopped.
Of most interest to me… this is the only time in the two year history of the GayPatriot blog that I have ever gotten any reply from the HRC on any topic.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
96 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If this doesn’t convince mainstream GLBT Americans who their real enemy is – i.e. the liberals and their willing allies in the media – nothing else will.
I bet you that even if “Speaker” Pelosi authored a gay concentration camp bill, these lower-case-losers would find a way to blame Bush for it.
This is a sad day for gay people of all political persuasions. History just repeated itself. We are now seeing the new Kristallnacht, circa 2006.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 6, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - October 6, 2006
The List. LOL. Turn it into a TV show! Maybe The List will make it into the next Scary Movie?
Is “The List” a list of gay people or closet cases? If it is closet cases, why should gay people care? It might be about time that they step up to the plate with some balls and integrity and dignity and pride.
Comment by jimmy — October 6, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - October 6, 2006
This won’t work, of course, because gay leftists have absolutely no understanding of social conservatives. The Eagle Forum will not go on some kind of witch-hunting rampage, particularly to destroy good conservatives.
The left lacks any ability to distinguish nuance of thought, and they have no understanding of what morals are. They intend a result that would never happen.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 6, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 3:47 pm - October 6, 2006
Bruce, you and I both know exactly who is behind “The List.”
That fat slob that reminds me of a pedophile every time I see his face and that other guy with a last name that sounds like a disease.
Comment by Robert — October 6, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - October 6, 2006
Of course this list has come up again simply because some people have blamed Democrats for the resignation of Kirk Fordham, when in reality, anyone who cared already knew the man was gay. He wasn’t even really in the closet. I don’t care what his political ideology is – that’s his business. But to stand around and act like you’ve been “outed” and are being removed because you’re gay when everyone involved in politics or who lives in DC or who honestly gives a damn has known this for quite some time already.
The fact is he resigned because he took the heat for the Republican leadership because he, like them, knew of Foley’s propensity for chatting up young male pages. While I don’t see it being his responsibility to do anything more than he did, which was warn his boss and leadership, I do think it was their job to investigate the allegations.
In any case, the only reason he resigned is because it was a purge of people who knew about Foley, not people who were/are gay.
While I will say plenty of gay liberals feel that gay conservatives, particularly those who work for Republicans (in many cases, very conservative and politically homphobic republicans) should be outed and removed from their jobs because they are “traitors,” not all liberals or non-conservative gay people feel that way. I don’t have to understand why gay people work or support a party that votes to make them unequal in the eyes of the law. It’s not my business. I don’t care if you’re in the closet or out. I can have my opinions about anyone I want, but I would never care enough to make it my mission to hurt another individual. Even when I might feel that their jobs or their beliefs hurt me. Not all gay liberals care about any damned list. And this one certainly thinks this is just a smokescreen on the part of most of the people who comment here to ignore the fact that Republicans are the ones behind any Foley scandal and want to just spin away in any way possible to pin some controversy (as lackluster as this one appears to be) on Democrats.
Comment by Britton — October 6, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - October 6, 2006
Anonymous there are reasons gay people do not advertise their sexuality-I have a friend who is out to most people, in the town we grew up in, he is out, but he hasn’t told his grandmother (lives about two hours away), mostly because he isn’t sure of her reaction. I think his fears may be a bit unfounded, but I don’t think that gives me the right to tell her.
And it is possible that some of the gays on that list may be out to friends, family, and even the congress members and staff they work for, but their families back hom may not know, or they just don’t want their sexuality to become part of the news story-or they don’t want “homosexual” to follow their name anytime it is referenced, which seems to happen a lot with celebrity.
So just because you think the reasons for wanting to stay in the closet are wrong, or you think fears or concerns may be unfounded, that doesn’t give you the right to pull the person completely out of the closet, especially when doing so is more an attempt to poke them in the eye, than to actually encourage their openness on their sexuality.
These people aren’t doing this for the “good” of the person they are outing, but because they actually seem to wish them harm-and that stinks.
Comment by just me — October 6, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 6, 2006
First, GP, while you have HRC on the horn, point out, as I did yesterday, that this isn’t the first time an outside source has shown that their staffers were supporting outing campaigns:
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.
Next up:
If you want your sexual orientation to be PRIVATE, then don’t discuss it with other people!! How hard is that? If you have discussed it with others, and they told someone else, why are you complaining?
And:
If it is closet cases, why should gay people care? It might be about time that they step up to the plate with some balls and integrity and dignity and pride.
Let’s see how quickly the liberals arguing that change their tune when given some examples of that argument in action.
After all, if he didn’t want to be outed, he shouldn’t have set up that website. He should have kept it totally private — right Anonymous? After all, it was time for him to step up to the plate with some balls and integrity and dignity and pride — right jimmy?
What we will demonstrate here is that gay leftists are utter hypocrites when it comes to outing — as in, they can dish, but they can’t take.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 6, 2006
I don’t have to understand why gay people work or support a party that votes to make them unequal in the eyes of the law. It’s not my business. I don’t care if you’re in the closet or out. I can have my opinions about anyone I want, but I would never care enough to make it my mission to hurt another individual. Even when I might feel that their jobs or their beliefs hurt me.
But of course, you would never get in the way of someone who was trying to hurt another individual, right?
You remind me a lot of HRC, Britton: “I’m against outing, but I’m going to look the other way when people do it, including my own staff — because that way, it gets done without MY hands getting dirty”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - October 6, 2006
Another classical example of the democrat empire abusing and shunning those they espouse to protect. Truth hurts, but it hurts worse if you are stupid. There is nothing wrong with Gays, just rubbernecks who stall traffic while they gawk.
Comment by newc — October 6, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - October 6, 2006
Another classical example of the democrat empire abusing and shunning those they espouse to protect.
Pretty much; the general attitude of Democrats towards gays is that of Annie Wilkes towards Paul Sheldon.
The sole difference is that, in this case, most of the Paul Sheldons don’t WANT to escape. Indeed, they’ve started crafting elaborate excuses about not only why they shouldn’t escape, but why others should join them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - October 6, 2006
It’s such an irony-rich situation. Back when the Catholic church was struggling to identify pederast priests, we were told that “any inquiry into who might or might not be gay” was a “witchhunt.”
Now, the witchhunt is “honesty.”
What hypocrits.
Comment by anchoress — October 6, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 6, 2006
Bruce, thanks for posting on this topic.
It lays bare the evil nature inherent in the GayLeftBorg manned by John Avarosis and Mike Rogers –and a host of filler DemocratLeft blogs that help translate the immoral standards of the GayLeft and other Left activist groups like Code Pink, BAMN and the anti-WOT groups.
Immoral because forced outing of gay GOP staffers or community leaders –as well as the extra-sleazy speculation by the GayLeftBorg that folks like Chief Justice Roberts or Karl Rove are gay– only hurts our standing in the mainsteam. These guys are inflicting self-mutilating wounds in the interests of short term partisan gains for the Democrat Left. They are turning off voters who we need to support our public policy efforts.
Talk about the new litmus test for the GayLeftBorg: “If you dare oppose us on gay marriage, repeal of DADTDHDP or help conservative causes… we’ll burn you at the stake.”
“If you stray from the Democrat Plantation, we’ll shoot you first, drag you back onto the Plantation and then burn your sorry ass.”
It’s still not to early to go on the offensive and call these slimebuckets what they are: anti-gay, anti-progress sell outs. We need to carry that message to each conrner of the gayblogosphere and we need to marginalize the marginalizers.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 6, 2006 @ 4:45 pm - October 6, 2006
I don’t think anyone should be outed, but the fact remains that gay Republicans insist on being part of a political party that marginalizes them.
And I suppose that this and this qualify as “inclusion”.
Keep yelling how good it feels and how we should join you as your legs are broken, Mr. Sheldon. And keep in mind the fact that it is gay operatives from YOUR party that are the ones running around trying to do the outing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - October 6, 2006
[...] Related: Remember when the church was struggling to deal with pederast priests, and the left screamed “witch hunt!” and said no attempt should be made to identify gay priests? Suddenly a witch hunt is not a witch hunt, when it’s done by the left. Then it’s just “in service to honesty!”. Yeah…if you’re a politically expedient hypocrite. [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » “Shoot me first…” “Shoot me second…” - UPDATED — October 6, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - October 6, 2006
NDT – What would you say I should do? I don’t work in politics and honestly it has very little bearing on my life if someone is outed for being gay. I wouldn’t do it myself, but if someone else chooses to, how does that concern me? I feel no pity for people in the closet who try to hide the fact they are gay while still being going out and about in the gay scene. You can’t have it both ways. I won’t run around telling people you’re gay because honestly it’s just not my business, but I’m certainly not shedding a tear for you when people realize you’re gay. It kind of goes with the territory. But all in all, while I don’t pity the outed, I certainly don’t praise those who run around making it a mission to out closeted gays. I just don’t care enough either way. I just find it humorous that this list and this campaign to out has resulted in such few jaw dropping revelations…why? Because most people already knew these folks were gay…it’s kind of hard to out someone who is living in a glass closet.
Comment by Britton — October 6, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 6, 2006
Funny that a party that is SOOOOO concerned about the so-called “right to privacy” (which is not even mentioned verbatim in the Constitution) doesn’t believe that it applies to gay conservatives.
That’s your modern RAT party – Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites all.
The people who are trying to circulate “the list” are doing so at their own political peril. I know of several social conservatives who are doing an about-face and will vote in November, rather than sitting it out at home. They know what is at stake for their country – unlike the libtards out there who eat their own.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 6, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 6, 2006
And yes, there are people in “MY” party that choose to go after closeted republicans…just like there are those in your party that choose to marginalize gay people, strip them of rights and most likely if they had the option, hang them from a tree. There are bad apples in every group you can pull together. When it comes to homosexuality, I’d just opine that there are more bad apples in your orchard than in mine.
Comment by Britton — October 6, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - October 6, 2006
PH – it’s equally humorous that those who so vehemently contest a right to privacy (arguably implied in the Constitution) think that those closeted Republicans deserve it.
Comment by Britton — October 6, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - October 6, 2006
Anonymous said:
Ummm… So if anyone else knows anything about your sex life, you have no right to privacy? That’s not much of a sex life, now, is it? There are other ways of finding out, as I am sure you would realize if you gave the matter some thought (I’ll wait; take your time). To each his own, so to speak, but I thought involving at least one other person was the whole point.
Comment by Mitch — October 6, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - October 6, 2006
NDT – What would you say I should do? I don’t work in politics and honestly it has very little bearing on my life if someone is outed for being gay. I wouldn’t do it myself, but if someone else chooses to, how does that concern me?
Then you should have no problems or concern whatsoever with this.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - October 6, 2006
Private school – they are allowed to do what they want I suppose. I don’t have to find it tasteful to recognize it’s legality. So long as what they said was the truth and they can prove it. Otherwise I think that would be a case for slander.
Comment by Britton — October 6, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - October 6, 2006
This all seems pretty unhinged to me.
First, note, if you can calm down for a moment, that you yourself admit you have no evidence at all that HRC is involved in circulating The List (or for that matter that The List has even been circulated other than to liberal groups, none of whom have publicly used it yet). HRC’s only statement to that effect is that they don’t have it and aren’t circulating it – a claim you can’t refute.
You might also take a moment to ask just what it is you’re afraid will be done with The List? Oh, right – they’re (maybe) going to tell your boss that you really are who you really are. It seems obvious, though, that liberal groups neither will nor can do anything about the people on the list other than tell the truth about them. It’s your party, and your social groups that are going to conduct the “witchhunt” you refer to.
As a side note: what’s wrong with witchhunts is that they identify “witches” – it’s that they persecute people who deserve not to be persecuted. There were no witches, and it wasn’t illegal to be a Communist in the McCarthy era; virtually none of the people blacklisted or investigated had actually broken the law. Bigots and demagogues used hysteria that they themselves whipped up to persecute innocent people for their own ends. Gay witchhunts are the same, and have always been conducted by the same people who conducted all the others: the religious and political right wing. If you’re facing a witchhunt because you’re gay, it’s not the liberals who created the hysteria or engaged in the persecution. Granted, it’s unusual that liberals actually point out potential victims of a witchhunt, but then it’s unusual that potential victims of a witchhunt actually participate in creating and perpetuating the oppression that makes it possible – as conservative gays do. But turning the witchhunt back on the hunters doesn’t, somehow, seem all that bad. If Roy Cohn and Joseph McCarthy had fallen to their own machine, it would have been a vicious irony – and a great day for America. When conservative gays get savaged by the hatred they have been carefully feeding for their own benefit, well, it’s hard to be too sympathetic.
But at any rate, if and when that does happen, you have only your fellow-traveling witchhunters to blame – and, in part, yourselves for egging them on while believing you could earn a suspended sentence for doing their dirty work for them.
Comment by Kevin T. Keith — October 6, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - October 6, 2006
Anon-
Wow… very touching and absurd.
Do you hold the same principle when it comes to abortion? Or in that case is the woman completely in charge?
hmmmmm.
Comment by GayPatriot — October 6, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - October 6, 2006
Okay, although never a proponent of outing, I used to take the “you reap what you sow” stance when it came to gay staffers working for anti-gay legislators (not necessarily ones opposed to gay marriage, but ones like Santorum who’ve made vile statements about gays and lesbians based on antiquated thought).
The hypocrisy, as I understand it, is that the us liberals would admonish people for, say, kicking a gay teen out of a school because he’s out in some way, shape, or form; but we’d do the exact same thing to gay staffers. Is that accurate?
I still have three questions:
1) What is being pro-actively done so that said gay staffers don’t have to hide themselves?
2) If LCR isn’t as cherished as it once was, what are some of you doing to change the GOP’s approach to LGBT persons?
3) What can a liberal such as me, who holds his beliefs dear but wants to work in tandem with gay conservatives, do to help with the above-asked questions?
Comment by James — October 6, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - October 6, 2006
Anonymous you are really jumping through hoops to justify your position.
The reality is that it isn’t really my business what other people do-and while I think you can deduce that the presence of a man at a gay bar more than likely makes him gay, there are straight men who have gone to gay bars-so you can’t say that alone means they are gay.
And frankly, it is up to the individual to decide how much of their private life they want to share with me. It isn’t your right to tell me for him, because you don’t think he deserves any privacy, or you don’t like his reasons for keeping that aspect of their life secret from me.
If you feel strongly that the closet is a bad place to be, even if it is half in and half out, then by all means make the case for why you think it is bad, but your opinion doesn’t mean you should be granted the ethical right to jerk everyone out of the closet, because you don’t like what they are doing.
And I do see a problem with this type of outing, because it isn’t even an outing for the “good” but an outing, because you want to harm the person you are outing, and that is just mean and indefensible.
Comment by just me — October 6, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 6, 2006
Why are Democrats showing such a sense of abandonment? I haven’t seen such seething revenge-focused hatred since I dumped my psycho girlfriend years ago in college. You know, the type that leaves burnt photos of your new girlfriend in bloody raw meat at your dormroom door, keys her car and leaves used feminine products taped to her door, stalks you everywhere you go on campus and declares in “If I can’t have you, nobody ever will!”
Blacks made this mistake and now get oreos thrown at them, called uncle toms, house negros, etc. The only discrimination I’ve really ever encountered with respect to blacks is from my liberal associates who will do anything to sabatoge a conservative black’s career. Talk about feeling spurned.
Latinos have been warned not to vote right. Their creepy pro-family, pro-religion stuff is enough to tolerate for reasoned progressives. Daring to be seen supporting conseratives will get them all thrown into concentration camps.
But gays? You have *got* to be kidding. Who thinks anyone can put up with “those” people? After all that the left has had to tolerate with queers, how dare they consider leaving. The left will burn San Francisco and Provincetown down with the gays in it before they’ll be permitted to consider alternate political views.
What a country we have where those that suffer from narcissistic disorder have their own political party.
Comment by redherkey — October 6, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 6, 2006
First, note, if you can calm down for a moment, that you yourself admit you have no evidence at all that HRC is involved in circulating The List (or for that matter that The List has even been circulated other than to liberal groups, none of whom have publicly used it yet).
Oops.
Copies of The List (see below) have been sent by gay politicos to a variety of social conservative groups that look to the Republican Party to make their religious right dreams come true. The recipients include the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Alliance for Marriage, Concerned Women of America, the Eagle Forum, and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Which was also repeated in GP’s post in the first place.
Starting out with a lie doesn’t help you much, Kevin.
Next up:
You might also take a moment to ask just what it is you’re afraid will be done with The List? Oh, right – they’re (maybe) going to tell your boss that you really are who you really are.
Just like this.
And as for your sanctimonious last paragraphs, Kevin, one must always remember for whom you and yours step and fetch — indeed, you even call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and shovel tens of millions of dollars to them.
While I suppose there’s something loosely admirable in your willingness to so compromise for partisan purposes your own beliefs that someone’s sexual orientation is their own business, it should be called what it is; slavish subservience to the Democratic Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - October 6, 2006
For this instance I’m counciling calm…..
To those who do live in the gay-friendly places, I would remind you that there are many degrees of being “closeted”…and many degrees of being “out”. It’s not a light-switch. And just because you consider yourself “out” doesn’t mean that you might object to a big billboard on your way to work with your picture and the caption “Known Faggot” in letters 4-ft tall. And while many of you may feel that you are “out”, I have no doubt that some of your friends or business acquaintances would label you as “closeted” if asked. And in a number of states you can still be fired, or thrown out of your apartment, or denied a mortgag or car loan if the other person “perceives” your gay…regardless of if your in the closet or out.
In my own case, I’ve decided years-ago that if asked I don’t lie about being gay…but it’s not my first or second personal quantifier. On the other hand, I don’t introduce myself and add “…by the way, I’m gay”. I’ll park in front of the gay bar, but I don’t have a pink triangle bumber-sticker. I work in a very traditional industry, but if they can’t figure-out that I’m “45 and single, maybe I’m gay”….there’s no reason to tell them as I’m NOT a sex-worker, I’m an Architect. On the other hand, I know that there are some jobs that I would loss if that billboard I just described existed. There certainly have been those that I suspect I have lost because of being “perceived” as gay….can I prove it, no. In this state I could sue if I could for we have civil-rights protections; but I can’t prove it.
“The List” is a danger to both the openly-out as well as the closeted. Out or closeted, do any of us…other than Uncle Sully…want the word/label “GAY” appended to everything we do and we are? I’d rather be judged for being “Me”, thank-you-very-much.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 6, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 6, 2006
Britton, show me exactly where any GOP member of Congress, state legislature, mayor etc. has ever advocated the lynching of gay people.
You know, like they do in … Iran???
That’s sharia law, you know. Something the RATS are trying to make compatible with our Constitution – the one that MAY imply a “right to privacy” in the Ninth Amendment, but doesn’t ENUMERATE it.
The sum of all the equations above = GOP retention of Congress. You read it here first.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 6, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - October 6, 2006
Ted, you epitomize the epigram that I have successfully coined as Peter’s Political Principle #21:
Republicans perceive you for WHO you are.
The demoncRATS perceive you for WHAT you are.
Enough said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 6, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - October 6, 2006
The hypocrisy, as I understand it, is that the us liberals would admonish people for, say, kicking a gay teen out of a school because he’s out in some way, shape, or form; but we’d do the exact same thing to gay staffers. Is that accurate?
Yup.
1) What is being pro-actively done so that said gay staffers don’t have to hide themselves?
That is a two level question.
On one level, nothing — outing is an individual choice, and the reasons each person chooses to make it or not make it are their own.
On a second level, simply demonstrating that being gay does not require you to be a Democrat. It’s rather hard to do, given the frank reality that the gay community will gladly, as we see in the example of this outing, do whatever they can to harm, harass, and humiliate you publicly if you deviate in the least from their line.
2) If LCR isn’t as cherished as it once was, what are some of you doing to change the GOP’s approach to LGBT persons?
Simply being who we are — Republicans and conservatives who happen to be gay.
Again, thanks to liberal bashing, Republicans are convinced that there really are no such things as gay Republicans. They will gladly point to examples like this outing campaign that make it clear that no REAL gays would be Republican.
3) What can a liberal such as me, who holds his beliefs dear but wants to work in tandem with gay conservatives, do to help with the above-asked questions?
Call us when you are a majority in your party, not when you’re a miniscule flyspeck of a minority.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - October 6, 2006
Britton in #6, then you are saying you don’t understand why Gays would ever be DEMOCRATS, right? Because it is DEMOCRATS who are doing this witchhunt thing and who pushed the gay=pedophile meme re: Foley and who oppose gay marriage as much as any Republican and gave us DOMA and DADTDP. Let’s see you admit it.
Comment by anon — October 6, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - October 6, 2006
Ted B writes “And in a number of states you can still be fired, or thrown out of your apartment…”
I must be pretty naive – I’m surprised such places exist and can’t believe you’d wanna stay there with such intolerant idiots.
I thought I’d comment from what may be a less than common perspective here. Having grown up in the arts, known people like Leonard Bernstein and the Tanglewood community as a youth, I never saw someone’s sexuality as an anomaly. Actually, that we had quite a few gays in that environment usually worked well for us few straight guys as the guy-girl ratio was quite in our favor!
Anyway, our family moved to a small town in a very rural community a few years back and I think some here would be surprised at the attitude about gays. After living in a top 50 metro and a smaller town, we found that communities under about 2,500 really are quite humble (avoid 5K-10K size towns tho as they’re the kinds you can live there 30 years and still “not be from here.” Too much false pride). People in this rural town and county pretty much know we all have our oddities, struggles and unique aspects and that aspect brings us together.
I guess you really have to be comfortable with who you’ve chosen to be, and recognize that people that have a problem with that really aren’t worth your time. You’d be surprised how many of us rednecks actually don’t give a damn about who people go to bed with, as long as people don’t mind our own habits and weird hobbies.
Comment by redherkey — October 6, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - October 6, 2006
NDT, it appears the predominant reason for remaining closeted at all is out of fear of people’s reaction to one’s being gay; my first questions was meant to ask what is being pro-actively done to move such an element of fear (fear of being ostracised by families, colleagues, society).
That’s quite a generalization…regarding your own party. Are Republicans really convinced none of them is gay? I’ve looked at http://www.gop.org, and there seems to be recruiting teams for various groups…except for LGBT persons who are conservatives. Maybe that sort of outreach would also help mend things between the community and the GOP.
Call us when you are a majority in your party, not when you’re a miniscule flyspeck of a minority.
Comment by James — October 6, 2006 @ 5:58 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 6, 2006
I have worked in many Conservative political organizations over many years. In all of them there were gays. What I found most interesting is that these gays weren’t interested in discussing their “gayness”. Most of them didn’t think it was a discussion that was necessary because to do so would put them in a special-interest group. What most of us were fighting was an over bloated federal government bulging more each day with another special-interest group demanding “extra rights”. To catagorize gays politically is dumb, but to catagorize gays by a just a few issues is stupid.
Yes, there are Conservatives that bash gays, but they are in the minority. Most Conservatives believe that the government should stay out of our pocket books and our private lives.
Comment by Ed Jenkins — October 6, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - October 6, 2006
Anon, it would be interesting to understand the LCR mindset. I hope to gain insight now that I have found this subculture of blogs.
Comment by Sydney Talon — October 6, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - October 6, 2006
I love this discussion –we have left-of-center Democrat operatives and apologists like Anonie-mouse, James and Britton telling gay conservatives what the GOP thinks of them, questioning why anyone other than a certifiable moron would want to support the GOP, and trying hard to convince everyone that the only “safe place” for gays is on the Democrat Plantation where DNC Chair HowieScreaminDean will fire you if your partner questions GenHowie, cut the gay outreach office, and reduce gay seats on the DNC to holding cells for bagmen and apologists who willingly sell out the gay community election after election.
Gosh, we’re not even inside the BeltWay and these 3 self-appointed experts on all things gay, GOP and conservative have it nailed down tight.
Right.
Clue for the clueless James, Anonie-mouse and Britton… in CT, MI, IL, OH, PA, WI, MN, KT, TN, FLA, MD, NH, VT, NY, MA and dozens of other states, gay conservatives are part of the GOP structure… are contributing members… and live beyond your narrow, partisan, inflexible, excluding definition of what it means to be gay in America.
For you, gay MUST equal liberal, left, radical, activist, anti-WOT, Democrat or atheist. If we don’t count the seminal moment in our lives as the same moment when you discovered VictimHood, then we can’t be gay. If we aren’t dysfunctional, paranoid, or incapable of controlling sexual urges… then we can’t be “gay” in your narrow little definition. And if we believe in God –as PatrickGryph is fond to prove nearly every time he comments here– then we CAN’T be gay because all gays are rightly atheists.
Instead of trying to offer your partisan reflections on why outing fellow gays is OK as long as it serves your Party’s interests, try learning something about gay conservatives in America and gays in the GOP.
You might start by reading this blog for a while, instead of trying to convince yourself that your narrow definitions are the one and only credible truth.
You demonstrate one thing clearly here –time and time again– you are some of the most intolerant, bigoted, biased short-sighted political operatives around. And I’ll be eternally glad you’re part of THEIR team, not ours.
But worst of all, you LOSE elections and thwart progress for our gay community time and time again… and then expect subservience from the community in your next failure at bat. Sorry, but the GayLeftBorg doesn’t control gay conservatives or gay moderates or gay progressives… you only control GayDemocrats who have sold out our community to the highest bidder on the Democrat Plantation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 6, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - October 6, 2006
[...] In the spirit of the times, because the moral arbiters of our time have decided that keeping your private life private is not mere personal discretion, but “immoral” behavior that demands outing, Roger L Simon has outted himself. He’s not really a Republican, but he’s voted for some of ‘em…and…he’s gay!. …although I cannot say I am really a Republican. I only voted for Republicans twice in my lifetime (once each for Bush and Schwarzenegger). Still… despite the fact that I have been married three times (to women) and have three children (of my own seed, as far as I know), I cannot cover up any longer. This dual life has become intolerable. I am gay! There. I’ve said it. Doesn’t that make you feel better, David? (Can we get back to serious issues now?) [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Outting myself…and whoever else wants outing! — October 6, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - October 6, 2006
Bizarre,
Gay liberals now saying that witchhunts aren’t all that bad and that gays should just shaddup about their sexuality (keep it private!).
And as for that dignity thing — well, we now know that’s a joke.
If L’affaire Foley has done one thing, it’s show that Democrats will rule according to “Animal Farm” rules.
Comment by Joe Baby — October 6, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - October 6, 2006
That was rather cold. I don’t recall being that cold myself. I was asking an honest question, as I’m committed to doing my part.
And I was telling you the honest truth, James.
Look at Anonymous, look at Sydney Talon, look at Britton, look at all the other liberals here.
As previously demonstrated, they have no sense of irony whatsoever. Anonymous is throwing a hissy fit over a booth at the Texas Republican Convention…but apparently, as I pointed out, his booth at the Democratic Party convention was money spent in support of homophobes who want to strip gays of rights and claim the Democratic Party platform denies marriage to gays. Heck, Sydney Talon claimed last night that I was closeted, based apparently on his theory that all gay conservatives are.
They don’t want dialogue. They just want to bash gay Republicans and conservatives, and they’re willing to support anything with which to do it, including outing and harassment.
I have no reason to doubt your motivations, James. But the simple fact of the matter is that you’re a miniscule minority in a group of people in which the overwhleming majority have not a qualm about namecalling, harassing, or hurting another gay person just because their politics are different.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - October 6, 2006
I find it interesting that the “new” liberal wing is anti-semetic, and intolerant of others because of their sexual orientaion, if it is mixed with nonliberal causes. Their total disdain for Red States, because we just aren’t bright enough to understand the Blue States is made all the more beautiful when the carry signs stating “Fuck Middle America”.
Now, today, I read that Columbia University liberals were shouting “nigger” at a black member of the Minute Men invited to speak at the University.
Comment by mRed — October 6, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - October 6, 2006
NDT, it appears the predominant reason for remaining closeted at all is out of fear of people’s reaction to one’s being gay; my first questions was meant to ask what is being pro-actively done to move such an element of fear (fear of being ostracised by families, colleagues, society).
Nothing.
You can’t fix fear, James; that’s a very individual thing.
If anything of the sort IS being done, it’s simply the example of gay conservatives like myself, who daily demonstrate that being gay is no impediment to living, who deal with our families, and the like.
It’s not a matter of removing pitfalls; people will always see them, even if they aren’t there. It’s a matter of making obvious that even if there are pitfalls, they aren’t lethal.
That’s quite a generalization…regarding your own party. Are Republicans really convinced none of them is gay? I’ve looked at http://www.gop.org, and there seems to be recruiting teams for various groups…except for LGBT persons who are conservatives. Maybe that sort of outreach would also help mend things between the community and the GOP.
What they’re not convinced of is their motivations.
After all, in an ironic twist, why would anyone want to be gay and Republican, and put up with the kind of abuse heaped on them by gay leftists?
Really, James, the secret to acceptance of gays is divorcing being gay from all the other unpopular things from which liberals have tried to tie it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - October 6, 2006
I posted as Ed Jenkins and mRed. Sorry for any confusion. Nothing underhanded here, nothing to look at, just move along.
Comment by Ed Jenkins — October 6, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 6, 2006
You’re only an oppressed group if you’re a Democrat…
As the Senate race in Maryland shows, you’re only really black if you’re a Democrat. As the case of Kathleen Willie shows, you’re only a rape victim worth supporting if the perpetrator is a Republican. And now, being Gay and…
Trackback by The Cool Blue Blog — October 6, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - October 6, 2006
The real problem is that the Repubs are not holding to the things that got the non-religious factions on board. They are spending money like old-school Dems from the 60s and 70s. They aren’t supporting limited government, they aren’t protecting our borders, they are reducing entitlements, …..
In fact I can think of damn little “conservative” actions they are taking. The war on some drugs and the war on terror are destroying our rights, and the Republicans seem to be cheering everyone on. Not to mention campaign finance reform. (Bush signed it into law….)
If the Libertarian party weren’t so insane, I might have a choice. But as usual I will be voting for the lesser of two evils again.
Comment by Zendo Deb — October 6, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - October 6, 2006
That is they ARE NOT reducing entitlements. And I’m not sure the Repubs will be the lesser of 2 evils in all cases this time around…. K. Harris? I don’t think so.
Comment by Zendo Deb — October 6, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - October 6, 2006
This is all so very, very funny.
Comment by jimmy — October 6, 2006 @ 7:31 pm - October 6, 2006
Stop pretending “The List” is hidden and only being circulated to a select few. It has been openly published for a long time on the “Blogactive” web site (in the left column):
http://www.blogactive.com/2005/03/i-have-seen-enemy.html
Comment by Wu Li — October 6, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - October 6, 2006
Anonymous-when I said right I wasn’t talking legal right, but moral right-in this instance I wasn’t very clear.
But my main point is that whatever you think of somebody who is in the closet to whatever degree, it isn’t your place to decide that their reasons for being fully or partially closeted aren’t good enough, and doing it for them.
Also, to make it clear I am not gay-not sure if I screwed a pronoun up in my post or if I misread your post, but I didn’t want you mislead if you thought otherwise.
Comment by just me — October 6, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - October 6, 2006
Now, today, I read that Columbia University liberals were shouting “nigger” at a black member of the Minute Men invited to speak at the University.
Oh, it’s even better than that.
But that’s the same attitude we’re seeing here from these liberal supporters of outing; if you are a minority, you will do as we say, or we will attack and harm you. Period.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - October 6, 2006
Wu Li, there are two ways to look at that.
One, since Rogers himself asked for The List….well, I’ll let you infer that.
Two, Corn said it had NOT been published.
The only explanation I can figure out is that Rogers is a moron and Corn is a liar.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - October 6, 2006
Or BOTH NDT…you fogot both
Comment by anony san — October 6, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - October 6, 2006
Dare I say it is a “good book” thing? No, how about it is a “dirty politics” thing and should not be tolerated.
To call a person on their public record and that record is incompatible with their private life, is not negative campaigning. To lie about, to insinuate or to purposely intimitate a politician with personal information is negative campaigning.
Example, calling Laura Bush a murderer or insinuate she was drunk when she had a tragic accident is a most reprehensible form of negative campaigning, but, Hey, it sure sells copy for the moral gaurdians of politics, the media.
Comment by Ed Jenkins — October 6, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - October 6, 2006
Does Page Six have a moral right to expose Guiliani’s affair with Donna Hannover? What about Jack Ryan’s swinging lifestyle? Is Perez Hilton just as bad as Mike Rogers, discussing private matters about people? At what point does a person acquire a “moral right” to discuss the affairs of another person?
In general these types of things don’t interest me, and I am not sure who Perez Hilton is, so I can’t speak to whether she is better or worse than Rogers. I do think what he does is mean and isn’t justifiable.
I do think there is a difference though between an affair and being gay. Being gay is sexual orientation, while having an affair is breaking the trust of somebody you have made a commitment to, so in one sense I am not sure they are the same thing and comparable. I am not sure that politicans affairs are absolutely newsworthy, but at least they do imply something about character, and their willingness to keep promises to those they supposedly love, so there is some justification in revealing those.
But I can’t think of anything in and of itself that implies a lack of character or trustworthiness alone in being gay in and of itself so I am not sure why somebody’s sexual orientation is something to be of newsworthiness, and I think the motivations behind the outing is the immoral action here. Outing somebody because your intention is to bring them harm, because they disagree with you politically just flat out stinks.
But honestly don’t care much about who is sleeping with who, and doing what with who, the National Enquierer isn’t exactly my cup of tea-may be why I don’t know who Perez Hilton is.
Comment by just me — October 6, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 6, 2006
The only way a gay Republican could get on this list is to do or say something that revealed that he is a homosexual
Such ironclad faith in the honesty of the left seems unfounded to me. Rathergate, fake/staged Lebanon reporting, etc makes it hard to trust them on anything.
Comment by Purple Avenger — October 6, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - October 6, 2006
#48
Whos is unconvinced of what?
And to the second part, people believe politically what they believe politically. I acknowledge that many of us on the left have done very little, if anything at all, to make gay conservatives feel welcome with in the community. I’m not sure that’s a good excuse to renounce or hide one’s political beliefs. I find the abuse heaped on gay conservatives very similar to the b.s. I’ve endured because I’m still R.C. It’s still the faith with which I identify. I stick to my guns on it.
Please refresh my memory with regards to the unpopular things liberals have tried to tie being gay.
Comment by James — October 6, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - October 6, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - October 6, 2006
Bravo
Comment by Bildo — October 6, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - October 6, 2006
“But honestly don’t care much about who is sleeping with who, and doing what with who, the National Enquierer isn’t exactly my cup of tea-may be why I don’t know who Perez Hilton is.”
Bravo
Comment by Bildo — October 6, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - October 6, 2006
[...] Bruce from Gay Patriot is reporting that gay Democrats are sending out a list of gay Republican congressional staffers to a variety of conservative organizations that fund the Republican party. Bruce believes they’re doing it to route out and blackmail their fellow gays for belonging to party they perceive as hostile to homosexuals. He also quotes Nation writer David Korn, who’s in possession of this list: Copies of The List (see below) have been sent by gay politicos to a variety of social conservative groups that look to the Republican Party to make their religious right dreams come true. The recipients include the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Alliance for Marriage, Concerned Women of America, the Eagle Forum, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Officials at most of these groups have had something to say about homosexuality and gay rights in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal. [...]
Pingback by The Urban Grind » Blog Archive » — October 6, 2006 @ 11:06 pm - October 6, 2006
So who are the “out” Democrats, other than Barney Frank, who would not have been out if he had not been caught with a male prostitute?
Comment by Frank IBC — October 7, 2006 @ 2:25 am - October 7, 2006
Can you name me ONE not-so-gay-after-all Republican who has been falsely outed? Can you name me one who has even bothered to sue? You would think that if Mike Rogers was outing people erroneously, that he would be broke by now from all the successful lawsuits against him. Where are they? Where are all these wronged Republican heterosexuals who have been falsely called homos? NAME ONE!!! I dare you!
Anonymous, you obviously don’t understand libel and slander laws in this country.
In short, not only must it be proved that something said about someone is false — but also that the individual who said it KNEW that it was false and published it anyway out of malicious intent.
For an example of how toothless the laws are in this respect, Democrat shills Mary Mapes and Dan Rather published documents smearing Bush that they knew to be unverified, Mapes with obvious malicious intent — and they still could not be sued, because they technically didn’t know the documents were forged, only that they couldn’t verify them.
In short, Rogers can smear all day, but claim his “sources” lied to him when he’s cornered.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 2:29 am - October 7, 2006
Why bother giving advice on coming out ON YOUR OWN? For that matter, why have a National Coming Out Day to encourage people to come out ON THEIR OWN?
Let’s just out everybody. DiCaprio isn’t fooling anybody.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 7, 2006 @ 3:03 am - October 7, 2006
Better yet, if a friend comes to you for advice on coming out, just tell them that you’ll notify Anonymous. After all, it’s his God given right to out people. It’s not their decision, but the decision of miserable, arrogant queens who want everybody else to be just as miserable as they are.
All articles on gay teen sites about coming out should just be replaced with his/her/it’s email address.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 7, 2006 @ 5:09 am - October 7, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names. His IP address remains the same.]
Comment by Anonymous — October 7, 2006 @ 10:00 am - October 7, 2006
Their total disdain for Red States, because we just aren’t bright enough to understand the Blue States is made all the more beautiful when the carry signs stating “Fuck Middle America”
At least their pathology is consistent (projectionism, nihlism, etc.).
I’m actually curious what it’s going to take to resolve their unregulated behavior as it’s obvious external criticism and disdain won’t do it. In a sense, they’re not much different in intellectual process than the militant Islamists – there’s a serious mental disconnect and they’re unable to synthasize self-critical concepts and adjust behavior. When someone never, ever asks “Is it possible my viewpoint is wrong,” they’re incapable of self-guided change.
When the left is outing, lying, attacking, assaulting opponents, preventing the political speech of opponents, fabricating accusations, stealing elections through undocumented illegal voters and conducting countless “brownshirt” actions, how do you respond? Redstate America’s been turning the other cheek, but it ain’t working too well.
Comment by redherkey — October 7, 2006 @ 10:51 am - October 7, 2006
I’m far more closeted about being a Republican amongst gays than I am about being gay amongst straights.
*That* is pretty sad.
Comment by Anonymous — October 7, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - October 7, 2006
IMHO, outing gay GOP staffers whether by emailed Lists or via faces on billboards is parallel to (but slightly milder than) forcing jews to wear the star-of-david on their outerwear/coat … it is an open invitation-to-discriminate against the targetted individual.
In targetting their employers and their supporters, the outers are doing the equivalent of putting a sign in front of a shop saying “Jew-owned-store” … allowed free speech but reprehensible. (Similar to mentioning Mary Cheney’s lesbianism in a debate in the hope of weakening GOP support in 2004). Imagine if gay owners of a deli/subway were GOP donors and were picketed/postered as gay-GOP-supporter-don’t-eat-here … free speech but reprehensible.
It is absolutely within the free-speech rights of the outers to reveal the private lives of the gay-GOP-staffers, but it is ethically apalling to do so. The outers real target is not the gay-GOP-staffers but their bosses next election … they are doing the jew-owned-store free-speech-thing virtually-via-email in front of GOP offices in the (possibly correct) belief that anti-gay-biased christian-groups will reduce fund-giving campaign-volunteer-hours support for the GOP senators/congresspeople. The outers say they are exposing hypocracy by the gay-GOP-staffers … but if no gay people worked with/for/around GOP senators/reps then how would those closed christian minds ever get to open up to recognize gays as different-but-not-evil.
Of the various ways to influence national policy, there are few ways an individual can do so … throwing around vast sums of campaign-cash(pseudo-bribery), paid lobbyers (pseudo-bribery), hosting fundraisers (pseudo-bribery), campaign-volunteering hoping to get into a policy-advising capacity or applying to work for the office of a congressperson.
There is almost nothing any particular gay person could ever do individually to advance equality or non-discrimation by joining the huge chorus of publicly-loud gays on the Democrat side, but a huge potential moderating influence by working on the Republican side, especially once the congressperson over years slowly realizes that the staffer (and after years, now trusted advisor / friend) is gay-but-not-evil. If a few more gay people worked their way up the ranks of GOP staffers, I suspect that their quiet influence would counterbalance the Robertson/Dobson side of the party.
Why would any gay person ever _want_ to work for the GOP … maybe because they passionately believe in capitalism over socialism, individualism over groupism, free-thought over group-think, individual-rights over group-rights+entitlements, libertarianism and mini-govt over maximizing govt size and intrusiveness, defeating gay-murdering-islamofascism over coddling it.
* Because in the GOP, individuals are valued, and one person, properly placed, can make a huge difference in national policy.
* Because ~ 50% of the electorate is Republican-voting (if only for the lesser-evil capitalist militarist free-trader theocrat GOP over the greater-evil initiative-killing-socialist, pacifist, isolationist, groupist, racist Dems) and not talking to or engaging that ~ 50% of the electorate is policy-suicidal.
* Because if every GOP senator/rep knew one gay person (or a few) well, that would be infinitely better than if every GOP senator/rep knew zero gay people (especially if only because of voluntary self-segregation on the part of gays from GOP senators/reps).
* Because just as with environmentalism (get as many as possible GOPers out to _see_ key areas of damage and key areas to be preserved and you will probably succeed in getting those areas preserved, like getting the potential drilling area in ANWR reduced down to a few acres max), every gay GOP staffer reduces the odds of gay-harming legislation appreciably.
* Because since medicine is within a few short years of discovering which gene/uterine-chem/stress-patterns lead to kids being born-gay, maybe a few gays have woken up to the fact that unlimited selective abortion will probably lead to a gay-fetal-holocaust.
* Because gay people are all-too-well-aware that there are kooks out there who will target gay people violently and the GOP believes in the second amendment and the right to a vigorous self-defence (vs the Dem/liberal/UK policy of total disarmament and no right to shoot a burglar in your home or a mugger).
Comment by alaric — October 7, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - October 7, 2006
Anonymous (#40):
You’re bent out of shape over the Texas Republican Party excluding Log Cabin. You imply that it is anti-gay bias. Really? Any of the other Republican sub-groups that the Texas GOP welcomes into its building join LCR in failing and refusing to endorse George W. Bush for President? Didn’t think so.
Bravo to the Texas GOP for excluding those craven LCR SOBs. There’s no more “R” in Log Cabin. They’re just another liberal advocacy group that doesn’t support many Republican candidates. Good riddance. The only use us Gay Republican small government conservatives have for Log Cabin is something to put on our pancakes.
Comment by Name? What's in a name? — October 7, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - October 7, 2006
But that is exactly what Just Me is alleging!! He wrote: “”These people aren’t doing this for the `good’ of the person they are outing, but because they actually seem to wish them harm”. That is a textbook accusation of malice aforethought. So what Just Me is talking about is libel.
Ian, please reread my statement.
In short, not only must it be proved that something said about someone is false — but also that the individual who said it KNEW that it was false and published it anyway out of malicious intent.
There is a reason that that “KNEW” is capitalized.
For example, in the reason I gave of CBS, even though they knew the documents hadn’t been verified, they claimed they didn’t know they had been forged.
Or, to use another example, say I run a pharmaceutical company, and you decide to accuse me of lacing my pharmaceuticals with rat poison based on an anonymous source. When I sue you, you can claim that your source lied to you; even though you might have acted with malicious intent and not verified your source, it cannot be shown that you knew the source was lying.
However, if you ran an analysis, found no rat poison, and decided to accuse me anyway, that WOULD be grounds for libel and slander — because you knew something that you accused me of was false.
So in short, Rogers can make any fool accusation he wants based on his “sources”; when he is sued, he merely claims that his sources lied to him.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - October 7, 2006
Hmmm…I think those gay leftie outers are on to something. The closet is oppressive. It denies the GLBTQQ community the solidarity and freedom they so deserve.
So, I am going to post a list of gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the college where I work, so that they can finally be free, and they can serve as mentors for our young people who are exploring their sexual identity and wondering if they’re possibly GLBTQQ.
LET FREEDOM RING!
Comment by kentuckyliz — October 8, 2006 @ 11:31 am - October 8, 2006
Well, my gender identity is pretty much ‘out’ so far as even diffuse social circles are concerned. Never had a bit of trouble. But when the local LGBT groups found out I occasionally voted Republican – hoo boy! There was hell to pay.
In short, coming out as “not a monolithic Left Liberal Democrat” was a lot more painful than coming out as trans; and it was the Left Liberals that made it that way.
So, gentlebeings – if this is your shining example of compassion, I hope you will not mind if I turn down a second serving.
Comment by Dr. Ellen — October 8, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - October 8, 2006
Compassion is a luxury seldom afforded to conservatives, libertarians, and other non-leftists by the left. Just remain steadfast in your convictions, and that will help.
Comment by Attmay — October 8, 2006 @ 11:27 pm - October 8, 2006
What an enormous cloud of smoke looking for a mirror. This is all a petty distraction from the real issue: The Republican leadership protected a man who identifies as gay and appears to have sexually harassed teenage pages.
The disclosure to ABC news, it’s been repeatedly announced, was by a Republican operative.
I am laughing, remembering how people here respond when a story unfavorable to their position is sourced to a liberal writer or publication. It is immediately dismissed. So here you are citing David Corn, a Nation columnist and author of a book very critical of George Bush.
But it serves you now to cite him, even though you would almost certainly disdain his usual positions and immediately dismiss them because of their liberal filter. I once cited a Media Matters factual report here and it was unilaterally dismissed — not on the basis of its content but on the basis of its origin.
What goes unconsidered here is the definition of privacy. It is a bit of a stretch for some of us to see how you go to work in politics and expect to hold onto your “privacy.” It reminds me of Andrew Sullivan’s claim that his privacy was violated after he placed advertisements for unprotected sex on public websites. Hello? If you go into PUBLIC LIFE, your life becomes subject to extraordinary scrutiny.
And further: What is more disturbing to you — the outing of a gay staffer working to advance an agenda that, say, criminalizes sodomy, or the refusal to let a gay man run for Senator while protecting his documented harassment of teenage pages? There is no sense that the latter is nearly as offensive to you as the former.
This “List” is nothing. You accuse the media constantly of fanning the flames of controversy but here you are buying completely into Corn’s brouhaha.
The notion that you can undertake a political career, a partisan one, and maintain “privacy” (what you really mean is “secrecy”) is ludicrous. Yes, it’s icky that such a list might exist but, then, we have something worse than people who tell the painful truth. We have the Karl Roves — remember Ann Richards? — who fabricate rumors of homosexuality in order incite bigoted voters.
What you are complaining about is sad but it is also nothing compared to the real issue here and the GOP’s own history of incing homphobia amid the electorate while preserving for its upper echelon the free indulgence of sodomy.
It’s beyond hypocrisy. It’s TRUE elitism.
Comment by JonathanG — October 9, 2006 @ 12:15 am - October 9, 2006
The disclosure to ABC news, it’s been repeatedly announced, was by a Republican operative.
Actually, no.
Brian Ross’s words were as follows:
“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.
Note the numerous caveats there – “to the extent that I know”, “any of the people who helped us”.
Technically, that statement would be true if one Republican verified when somebody worked in a particular place.
In short, name sources — and explain why Pelosi refuses to testify under oath as to when and how she found out about the messages. If she is not guilty, according to hers and your logic, she has nothing to hide.
And this here, really, sums up the whole problem:
Yes, it’s icky that such a list might exist but, then, we have something worse than people who tell the painful truth. We have the Karl Roves — remember Ann Richards? — who fabricate rumors of homosexuality in order incite bigoted voters.
So what?
You and your fellow Democrats, in your attempts to rationalize outing, have said there’s nothing wrong with spreading whispers, innuendo, and outright public proof of a person’s sexual orientation.
Then you whine and cry because people like Richards get outed.
Rove is doing nothing more than returning fire at you; if you want to play the outing game, he’ll out your folks.
You’re both wrong in doing it. But I don’t particularly care.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 2:05 am - October 9, 2006
Wow, Jonathan! It really does sometimes pay to read to the end of the comments section – finally a closely reasoned piece that understands the real issue!
I am just blown away at the philosophical masochism of those who defend Republicans instinctively. They recoil from and excoriate “lib-rools” AS IF the latter’s imperfections and expediencies are the equivalent of the disdain and hostility we face from primitives who like to dress up their supremacist emotions in an ideological garb self-described as “conservatism.”
Comment by Antaeus — October 9, 2006 @ 2:37 am - October 9, 2006
They recoil from and excoriate “lib-rools” AS IF the latter’s imperfections and expediencies are the equivalent of the disdain and hostility we face from primitives who like to dress up their supremacist emotions in an ideological garb self-described as “conservatism.”
Ah yes — “imperfections” and “expediencies”.
So in other words, supporting constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights and pandering to those same “primitives” is quite OK with you liberals.
And, by the way, the more you and your fellow leftists spew your disdain for others by calling them “primitives” and “supremacists”, the more you will continue to lose.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 3:23 am - October 9, 2006
Rove is doing nothing more than returning fire at you; if you want to play the outing game, he’ll out your folks
Rove spread the same rumor about a quite heteosexual candidate in Alabama and you know it. He also spread a rumor that McCain had fathered a mixed-race child. So, please, Rove isn’t outing: He’s lying.
And puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. If your argument is that the Rovians are simply responding in kind when they out someone or spread unfounded rumors that someone is gay, then you should apply your own rationalization to Dems.
By the way, when did the Democrats use homosexuality to discredit a candidate?
Comment by JonathanG — October 9, 2006 @ 11:45 am - October 9, 2006
he disclosure to ABC news, it’s been repeatedly announced, was by a Republican operative.
Actually, no.
Brian Ross’s words were as follows:
“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.
Note the numerous caveats there – “to the extent that I know”, “any of the people who helped us”.
Yes, NDT, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Isn’t parsing fun?
Why should Nancy Pelosi accommodate an effort to pin this on her, when even a lot of Republicans admit that it’s other Republicans spilling the beans? You just want to bury the hideous indifference of the Republian leadership under a question of political timing.
And yet here you are saying that Rove’s political game playing is appropriate because the Dems set the rules (a hilarious assertion, since your party controls the entire government). Well, for the last six years Karl Rove has set the rules and queer bashing has been a big part of that.
So you’re surprised that the homophobia your party inspired amid the electorate has now come back to bash you?
Oh no! That couldn’t be it. It’s Nancy Pelosi.
Orwell couldn’t have even dreamed this crap up.
Comment by jonathang — October 9, 2006 @ 11:57 am - October 9, 2006
Is it me or does it seem horribly hypocritical for a gay group to use homophobia as a weapon against their supposed adversaries?
I mean I may be confused but aren’t they counting on the homophobia of the right to either keep them out of the polls or to caused them to votes against gays and politicains who hire gays?
Comment by cbgaloot — October 9, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - October 9, 2006
Rove spread the same rumor about a quite heteosexual candidate in Alabama and you know it. He also spread a rumor that McCain had fathered a mixed-race child. So, please, Rove isn’t outing: He’s lying.
Nope. He’s merely doing what Mike Rogers is doing — and you don’t like it.
By the way, when did the Democrats use homosexuality to discredit a candidate?
What do you think Mike Rogers is doing?
What do you think John Kerry and John Edwards were doing in their remarks about Mary Cheney?
And yet here you are saying that Rove’s political game playing is appropriate because the Dems set the rules (a hilarious assertion, since your party controls the entire government).
Actually, this is what I said:
Rove is doing nothing more than returning fire at you; if you want to play the outing game, he’ll out your folks.
You’re both wrong in doing it. But I don’t particularly care.
And hence the difference between us, JonathanG; I oppose outing and spreading rumors in all cases, you support it when Democrats do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - October 9, 2006
One of my favorite quotes is “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
Democrats shouldn’t have thrown stones over the Foley thing. I agree he is a prevert and should be gone and that the Republicans that knew should pay.
What I find amusing is finally, after years of frustration, the Gay Movement’s dirty little secret is becoming widespread public knowledge. The dirty little secret? The close link between the mainstream Gay Movement and pedophiles.
Comment by Amanda — October 9, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - October 9, 2006
“Rove spread the same rumor about a quite heteosexual candidate in Alabama and you know it. He also spread a rumor that McCain had fathered a mixed-race child. So, please, Rove isn’t outing: He’s lying.
Nope. He’s merely doing what Mike Rogers is doing — and you don’t like it.
Check the timing, bud. Another example of how you’ll say anything, true or not, to rationalize a simple fact: The Republican leadership protected an ephebophile for years. That this abuse of power becomes a metaphor for the ethical rot that has overtaken the Republican leadership is not surprising.
Still waiting for an example of Democrats’ protecting such a person. And it ain’t Studds — he was censured and re-elected by his own constituency.
I repeat: If you want to keep your sexual orientation secret — and that’s what you’re talking about, not “privacy” — do not go into public life. Do not go into politics.
Comment by jonathang — October 9, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - October 9, 2006
Amanda and NorthDallas: soulmates?
“Gay”"Patriot” – you invite some real lovelies on here!
I redub you Plano33 and HomoFascist.
Comment by Gomer — October 9, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - October 9, 2006
Comment by alaric — October 7, 2006 @ 2:22 pm – October 7, 2006
applause!!
Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - October 9, 2006
The dirty little secret? The close link between the mainstream Gay Movement and pedophiles.
There are pedophiles of both persuasions – homosexuals and heterosexuals. Just as in all of life – good guys and bad guys everywhere, they don’t wear hats that distinguish them.
Ooooooooooh Rogers is on BOR, asking the right to stand with him insisting that gays come out of the closet. This should be interesting.
Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 9, 2006
Still waiting for an example of Democrats’ protecting such a person. And it ain’t Studds — he was censured and re-elected by his own constituency.
LOL….with Democratic campaign fund dollars and the full support of the Democratic Party.
Note the difference: Republicans demand resignation and cut off dollars, Democrats “censure”, but continue to send dollars and support.
And as for “protecting”, notice the hypocrisy; if this was such an open secret among the pages and on Capitol Hill, it stretches the bounds of credibility to assume the Democrats didn’t know about it. Furthermore, since Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats had the emails and instant messages months ago, why didn’t they act?
The answer is simple; what Foley did, although immoral and wrong, was also something done under his private email address and instant message identity, neither of which fall under the House leadership’s control, with former pages, who also aren’t under the House’s control, and in DC, where the age of consent is sixteen, which all these former pages were over.
Now, since when have Democrats demanded that personal emails and instant message records be tapped and read so that people making sexual advances and having sexual contacts with those over the age of consent can be identified?
Democrats have repeatedly fought ALL portions of that, arguing that age-of-consent laws are “imposing religious dogma”, whining about “privacy”, and going to enormous lengths to protect teenage sex, even demanding that parents be stripped of their right to know that their minor daughter is going to have an abortion because it would let them know that she’s having sex.
For Republicans, this provides ammunition that sex with and sexual advances towards those under the age of 18 should be criminalized. Have you finally come around, or will you now demonstrate your hypocrisy as well by arguing in favor of teenage sex?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - October 10, 2006
Its not the gay thing…its the hypocrisy thing! If somebody is gay and wants to be a rethug that is fine, but when he participates in defaming and marginalizing gays then he should remember he is in a political world and he works with karl rove and thus has no room to complain about tactics.
Comment by madmatt — October 11, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - October 11, 2006
The gays are not the only ones who are “stuck on the Dem plantation”. Look at the african-americans. Any AA who actually believes conservative values “isn’t really black.”
Riiiiiight. Like Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, etc. White as the day is long.
One thing that I haven’t seen pointed out in the comments is that the “given limitation” of working as a conservative Republican staffer is that your sexual orientation (if discovered) can get your boss fired. So Republicans naturally aren’t going to want obvious gays working for them. It goes with the territory.
Another thing is that this election has shown that corruption and sex are MAJOR issues with Republican voters. I expect a quiet purge of gay staffers probably through attrition.
Thanks a lot to all of you “one issue Gay Marriage” zealots.
Comment by Adam — November 9, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - November 9, 2006
[...] And you know damn well – we all do – that if Condi were to run for president, the first thing the dems would do is play the gay card…”well, she’s not married…she has no kids…we’re just saying…and you know, there’s nothing wrong with being gay…unless you’re the wrong sort of gay. [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Boxer — January 12, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - January 12, 2007