First of all…I’m a really bad PajamasMedia blogger. (*hangs head*) I promised to do a “pre-Gay Debate” posting for the PJM gang as exclusive content. But then the podcast thing happened…. and there’s some work stuff going on right now – you, know the REAL the job that pays the mortgage.
Anyway, on the scribbled notes I wrote to use in my now outdated “pre-debate” piece… I predicted that there would be several questions NOT ASKED by the HRC/LOGO panel to the Democratic Presidential candidates.
At the top of the list of “Questions We Cannot Speak Of” was some iteration of the following: “How would you, as President, aggressively confront the specific and growing threat to the existence of gay community in America, Western Europe and throughout the world due to the targeting of gays by Islamic fundamentalists.” And just as I thought, the topic was completely ignored in the same way that questions about Bill Clinton sexually harassing women and John Edwards’ fake war on poverty were avoided.
In fact, we discussed the “Topic The American Gay Community Doesn’t Speak Of” thoroughly on our post-Gay Debate podcast with Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff. Kevin and I agreed: the lack of attention to the threat by Islamic fundamentalism by the Human Rights Campaign and other American gay groups is a human rights malpractice (my words).
Roger Simon, CEO of Pajamas Media also agrees… and beat me to the punch with this spot-on reflection of the “Topic The Gay Community Doesn’t Speak Of.”
So I would like to ask if anyone mentioned the huge elephant in the room and I don’t mean Republicans. I mean Islamic fascism and its outright assault on gays and women beyond anything that has ever been conceived in our culture. Did Melissa Etheridge and her fellow and gal panelists show any interest in that? Did the candidates?
Of course not, Melissa Etheridge was too busy fawning over Dennis Kucinich and expressing concern about some New Mexico version of “spotted owls” to be worried about her head being severed simply for being a lesbian.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I didn’t watch the debate, and only caught some of the news and blog posts surrounding the debate. From what I have seen there weren’t any questions involving international issues. Whether I am right or not about this, I still think that question should have been asked.
About two months ago, I received a form letter from HRC asking why I why I didn’t contribute anymore to them. I wrote a two page letter back specifying my reasons. One of them was that issue. If they didn’t touch on any international issues that would be one thing. They did speak out against the U.S. vote on an international gay rights issue. But they haven’t said little, if anything, regarding the fundamental Islamist threat to gay persons. Still waiting for the prompt reply I requested.
On a tangent related to the debate, I know the Republicans have caught some flack for not participating, but honestly, did they have anything to gain by going? I’ve read enough comments in this forum by Democrat party hacks to know they would never vote for a Republican, even if the Democrat alternative ran on a platform of 90% tax rates and involuntary live organ donation (a la The Meaning of Life).
“How would you, as President, aggressively confront the specific and growing threat to the existence of gay community in America, Western Europe and throughout the world due to the targeting of gays by Islamic fundamentalists.”
It all goes back to the saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Islamofascists are no friends of the current administration and since the Democrats are seeking the Presidency, they will turn a blind eye to the Islamofascists’s actions.
Pat – good for you! 🙂
So when are Ethridge, Rosie, Margaret Cho and other “enlightened” libtards going to the Middle East to protest Islamic fascism and its effects on gay people?
(Crickets chirping)
Yeah…I thought so.
Actually, Rosie should head to India and Pakistan. I understand that the people there worship her like a deity.
(My apologies to any bovines out there who have been offended, especially Bevo XIV at UT-Austin.)
Regards,
Peter H.
(My apologies to any bovines out there who have been offended, especially Bevo XIV at UT-Austin.)
GIG ‘EM both!
Absolutely right on target here! The silence of gay leaders on this issue drives me bonkers. I’m left scratching my head, wondering if gays are totally ignorant about what Islamic fascism means to them — imprisonment and hanging — or are they simply hoping it’s just a fad? Gays should be at the forefront of challenging what is the most homophobic trend of our generation. But they seem stuck in the bitching-about-Christians-and-Republicans groove of the last generation. Let’s aim some of that gay venom toward the people who want to make hate crimes mandatory for getting into heaven.
Living in the midst of the Castro ghetto, I often note how diatribes against right-wing Christians, Republicans and Bush & Co take place. As common as rain in January. I have never, not once, heard a diatribe against the Muslim thugs who topple walls on us. Not once. In fact, when I opine that Islam is a religion deeply hostile to gay people, my fellow queers act as if I had just crapped on the nice new carpet. Silence, looking away, throat-clearing…it is pathetic.
I agree myself with this. Same thing for the women’s movement with Afganistan and Iraq (first teach them how to spell, there’s no y in woman). On the right, I don’t hear enough about the Christians in Iraq, or about the plight of gays in Afganistan or Iraq or Iran. To me a Conservative thought is what you do in your bedroom is your own business. Then again, I find it funny that my policy of ‘don’t freak the mundanes’ is frowned on in the D/s community.
I just worry that we are too easily divided. It seems that elements of the left say ‘If it’s good for Bush, we can’t say anything” and the right “If it’s bad, we can’t say anything?”
EssEm – E-mail me, if you feel inclined – my handle, at hotmail.com.
Good question. I wish it had been asked of the Democratic Presidential candidates. But I also think it would be a good question to ask of the Republican Presidential candidates.
Why is no one complaining about that? You know, fair and balanced.
Theo Van Gogh couldn’t be reached for comment.
I still say, Jay Nordlinger said it best at NRO,
The idea that such a question would put the Dems on the spot is laughable. It would be a much harder one for Repubs to deal with since their Dear Leader himself has turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against gay people by Islamist regimes that he has close ties to and significance influence over – Iraq for example.
The idea that such a question would put the Dems on the spot is laughable.
And they’re doing and saying WHAT, exactly, about it? C’mon! Libs are the ones who supposedly give a damn about gays. They run around blowing smoke on a regular basis. What’s their position?
Philosophically, I don’t see why it even matters if homosexuality is a choice or not.
#16:
Narrowly considered i.e. in the sense that in an ideal free society, it shouldn’t matter which gender a person is attracted to and falls in love with, I agree with you. However, the science is pretty much settled that for most people, sexual orientation is hard-wired. To ignore that and continue to spout unscientific “beliefs” as facts denigrates science itself. That’s why I have a problem with what Richardson said especially since the interviewer gave him every opportunity to correct himself and he didn’t. It suggests to me that Richardson is more of a gut-feel kind of guy and not very analytical and after eight years of Bush, I want a President who emphasizes analysis over his or her gut feelings.
Furthermore, we don’t live in an ideal free society and the unsubstantiated belief that sexual orientation is a choice makes it easier for the homohaters and groups like Exodus to sell their snake oil and curb our rights.
#6 – TGC, care to place a wager later this year on the Big Game in the Bryan/College Station miniplex? I would say come November, A&M will be on suicide watch.
Regards,
Peter H.
Frankly, this is the more the form of questioning that I would have enjoyed hearing. I tried to enter my version either here or anothr blog. Why not, with all the appreciation of expanded franchise that our homo-world has realized, could a candidate not repond that ‘no less than the freedoms of all American but “common defense” of and “domestic tranquility” of all who share antipathy toward a way of life without forums’.
Perhaps Etheridge feared that some of their tokenism would be exposed and, let’s face it, it was co-patronizing.
Speaking of what might be called “perversions” of decent discussions of homosexuality and radical politics …. is that Yasser Arafat, having died of complications from AIDS, likely, perhaps wittingly, donated HIV-infected blood to survivors of the 9/11 attacks.
Unfortunately, there is no magic wand that will turn the Islamic world into an oasis of sexual freedom overnight. The more democratic states like Egypt and Indonesia are just as bad as the totalitarian ones. America could establish democracies in every Muslim state and the people there would still vote to implement the death penalty for homosexuality. The best we can do at this time is to lead by example and export our culture. Now, some might say “regime change” is the route to achieve this. I’d remind them that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If we stuff our values down their throats (no pun intended, i swear!), they’re more likely to be hostile to change than if we waged a subtle media campaign aimed at promoting western values. In short, we can change them, but we must do so in a way that lets them think they came to the conclusion themselves. It is a long term project.
This was a Presidential forum on MARRIAGE. Hell, at least the questions asked where gay related. There was ONE softball transgender question thrown at Edwards, that’s it.
Chase, I notice you’ve managed to belittle America’s efforts to help Afghanistan and Iraq defeat monstrous terrorists – actual agents of evil in the world – as “stuffing our values down their throat”. Congratulations.
Also, sorry but Egypt isn’t democratic. It’s a one-party police state, kind of like Chavez’ Venezuela. Having said that: There are degrees of evil, and Egypt, for all its faults, still is not as bad on gays as Iran is.
Now, what I came to say – The “missing question at the gay debate” – I was chatting with a friend about it. He pointed out, the war with Islamo-fascism (or I-f’s war on us and civilization – however you want to put it) is not a specifically gay issue, so why expect the question? True. But Iran hanging gay teenagers, is a gay issue. And Iran is a nuclear proliferator that has announced its intention to start a war in the Middle East. So, both because Iran is a general issue and because Iran is a gay issue, Presidential candidates of both parties should be asked about it.
P.S. Roger L. Simon, who supports both gay marriage and the WOT, explains how they’re linked, here.
Among his well-stated conclusions:
ILoveCapitalism, everything I wrote there was a hypothetical. When I wrote of regime change and “stuffing our values down their throat,” I was referencing hypothetical action against Iran.
I also did not say Egypt was a democracy. I wrote “the more democratic states like Egypt and Indonesia” Of course Egypt isn’t a democracy, but it is more democratic than countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, which are both totalitarian monarchies.
And I do think human rights abuses by the government of Iran, Nigeria and others would have been an appropriate question at the Logo candidate forum.
The debate question we’ll never hear:
“Senator Clinton, if you become President how do you propose to keep Bill from playing slap’n’tickle with the staff?”
Regards,
Peter H.