Sometimes, I’ll put days of thought and hours of work into a post, thinking I’m addressing an important issue and get no links and only a handful of comments. Most people didn’t find take as much interest in the idea that I found so compelling. Other times, I’ll read some post (or encounter an idea) in an e-mail and, on a whim, whip off a piece.
Such was the case yesterday when I pondered an e-mail from a reader referencing Michelle Malkin’s on ABC “staging” news by hiring actors to engage in PDA to provoke a reaction from people in Alabama. And I wondered about the MSM’s disinterest in something we gay conservatives encounter frequently when we come out to our peers, an intolerant reaction from our fellow gays.
After whipping off the post, I went out to run some errands. I didn’t think anyone (beyond our regular readers) would be particularly interested in the piece. I mean, I didn’t even send an e-mail out to other bloggers, alerting them to the piece. But no sooner did I post it than Pajamas picked it up, then did some relatively high-traffic left-wing blog (of which I had theretofore been unaware). Before I knew it, we were inundated with comments, many of which I had to review in our spam filter.
Talk about hate speech.
It was amazing reading through those comments. It seemed half the people hadn’t even read the post, limiting themselves to responding to what the blogger linking us had said while the other half focused on my anecdote about the date. Hardly the point of the post, just an illustration of my idea.
And then when I read the comments to their post!! WOW! So much fun! Almost grateful for the misrepresentations and projection. And the repetition of empty soundbytes and stock phrases about our self-hatred! It provided a window into their worldview. This time it seems Ann Coulter got something right. These people weren’t interested in argument, but in “anathematiz[ing] their enemies.”
Most (but not all) of those commenting had absolutely no understanding of the modern conservative movement, seeing it instead through the narrow lens of the mainstream media and left-wing blogs.
Despite the meanness of many of the comments, this experience did provide much amusement. I could not help but smile as I read (and occasionally chimed in) the various comments, all too many confirming Coulter’s observation while showing their total misunderstanding of ideas and individuals they claim to abhor. (No wonder I woke in such a good mood even though I did not get as much sleep as I would have liked.)
And I wondered. . . . what does it say about these people that they so revile something they don’t even understand and repeatedly misrepresent? It is that they merely need find an outlet to express their bile? Kind of like someone lashing out at the first person he meets after being stuck in traffic for several hours?
I’m not sure what it is. But, it does give food for thought. I’ve asked it before and wonder yet again: Why do they hate so?
(This post ended up going in an entirely different direction than the one I intended when I started writing it. Funny, how I often struggle to find a good beginning for expresssing an idea and then that opening leads me to explore another idea altogether. Ah! How much fun blogging is.
In other words, there were a couple of issues I had intended to explore in this post, but didn’t get to. So, I decided to limit this post to the idea above on the hatred and misunderstanding of some of our ideological adversaries. I had intended to expand upon the point I made in comment 71, reflecting an insight EssEm offered in comment 69. I hope to do that in a subsequent post. And come to think of it, given that would deal with some broad-minded liberals, it would make a nice companion piece to this one.)
Great post. If only the Leftist would put 30% of their hate energy towards the Muslim jihadis, the jihadis might not be taking them for granted.
The anti-americanism of the left is the most disturbing thing to me in regards to the world situation.
These poeple really do hate us, they are completley closed off to appeals for unity and I fear they’re undermining our security
Guys,
1) Many of you oppose ENDA.
2) Many of you oppose civil unions and gay marriage equality
3) Many of you oppose HCPA
4) Many of you gladly support anti-Gay politicians like Kilgore in Virginia, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, and will support the Republican nominee regardless of how badly he is on LGBT issues.
5) Many of you have demeaned and degraded LGBT organizations while not organizing something of your own
6) Some of you guys have engaged in pretty bare-knuckle behavior in here with people you disagree (as I have at times)
When confronted with pretty damning activity by your party (and you – like me – generally are partisans) sometimes your strategy is to change the subject to ‘terrorism’ or something and then imply that people unpatriotic.
I expect more from people who should understand what its like to be Gay.
There are Gays that need HCPA, there are Gays that need ENDA, there are Gays that need PPIA, there are Gays that need civil union protections.
There is the justified opinion that the party for which you cheerlead is directly and deliberately engaging in rhetorical Gay bashing. You represent the Conservative Republican Gay movement. If you aren’t standing up against it, then people are going to assume you support the same things that they do. You’ve done a terrible job telling us how you are different then the newly anti-Gay Mitt Romney, or even Fred Thompson.
Your message comes of as a bit condesending as well. I sometimes get the impression that you guys are embarrassed of the Gay community and want to represent yourselves as ‘better’ to those that demean us.
The Gay mainstream (what some of you guys call the ‘Gay Left’) is not a monolithic movement. I’ve supported Republicans in the past (and would have certainly not voted for the Democratic nominee for Governor in Mississippi this year had I lived there). But if you’re not willing to call someone out when they do something wrong, then don’t be surprised when someone treats you like the monolithic ‘conservative’ that you give every impression you are.
Hmmm, got one here too. I guess your gay-ness is supposed to trump everything else then?
Dead on post.
So at the end of the day, I feel that some of you don’t support needed legislation, work against predominantly held beliefs, don’t respect those who did the very hard and brave work before you to give you the freedoms you enjoy today, and give comfort and support to those that, quite frankly, seem to be pretty hostile towards our community. I don’t mean this to come off as ugly, but I’d like you guys to think about what your message is. And it isn’t some liberal spin. If you want to be part of the community, then try to do a better job of defending your community. That doesn’t mean compromise your principles, but it does mean differentiating yourselves from those (like Kilgore, Couler, Malkin, etc.) that are not exactly buddies of our community. If your response is ‘I don’t care about those issues, I care about tax cuts, the war in Iraq etc.’, then it will be read by others as ‘I don’t care about issues in the LGBT community’. And that, my friends, is why some in the community get a bit ugly with you guys at times (e.g., the ‘I don’t sleep with Republicans sentiment). I’m not saying its right, but please understand that there is some reason behind it.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t you start pushing as a part of your agenda items that theoretically should have non-Anti-Gay Conservative – Gay Mainstream agreement? Like abuses of the LGBT community in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Jamaica, and Russia?
The issue, Tom, is not that they challenge us and question our beliefs, but they attack and vilify us.
Condescending? And where did you get the impression that we’re embarrassed by the gay community? Or that we think we’re better than them? Seems you’re projecting something onto us.
I’m not even addressing the gay community here, but more specific gay individuals who insult us. You can offer your own criticisms of the GOP, but in the post, I wondered at those who loathe us despite not understanding the basic tenets of conservatism, indeed, the word misunderstanding is in the very title of the post.
As to your list, if I had time, I could respond to each issue point by point, but regret that you do raise a valid issue in #6, some of my defenders do engage in what you call “bare-knuckle” behavior in the comments section. And their rhetoric, alas, just like those who have attacked my latest post, does little to advance their argument.
Someones gay-ness doesn’t trump everything else. But it should be at least a part of who you are.
#5. Projection? maybe. But I could equally charge some of you guys with project all kinds of things onto the Gay Left. Words like traitors, appeasers, 60’s throwbacks, etc.
Are you proud of the achievements of the LGBT community?
#5 And don’t you think it might be that the issue for many who attack and vilify you believe that you are giving comfort and support to those who attack and vilify them?
I feel that some of you don’t support needed legislation
No, it’s un-needed and intrusive legislation which we oppose
work against predominantly held beliefs
Like the belief that government regulation and socialism are the answer to all problems? Like the belief that people aren’t the cause of, or the solution to, most of their own problems? Yeah, I’ll work against those predominantly held beliefs.
don’t respect those who did the very hard and brave work before you to give you the freedoms you enjoy today
On the contrary, we fully support and respect the U.S. military, and defend soldiers against the lies of those like Scott Thomas Beauchamp
give comfort and support to those that, quite frankly, seem to be pretty hostile towards our community.
No, some are just are grown-up enough not to fall for the image of the conservative right boogeyman the left uses to keep gay people on the Democrat plantation. By actually talking to and listening to conservatives, and not isolating themselves in their own rainbow ghettoes, some gay people have realized that conservatives are not as scary as the left would have them believe.
V the K
While I respect the military, I was talking about the Gay men and Lesbians who engaged in all kinds of protests and actions, often at grave personal risk and danger, so that you can enjoy the freedom to persue happiness at much lower cost than it would have been 20 or 30 years ago.
And I put it this way, Tom; HRC, liberal, and Democrat gays fully support, endorse, and channel tens of millions of dollars to FMA supporters and state constitutional amendment supporters, calling them and their positions “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
With that in mind, what should be obvious is that it’s not politicians’ positions that bother gay liberals and Democrats; it’s their party affiliation. And, since liberal Democrats and gays can’t confront their party’s own homophobia, because Democrats would stop liking them if they did, they displace that anger and frustration onto gay conservatives and Republicans, screaming that the very behavior they praise as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” among Dems is “antigay and homophobic” among Republicans.
In short, they hate us regardless of what we do. Why, then, should we — or the Republican Party, for that matter — care one whit about pleasing them?
I understand your opposition to ENDA perfectly and it’s still preposterous. Every other minority group has employment protection. There is no viable debate over whether or not the federal government has the ability to legislate employment protections anymore. It is settled case law. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act will not be repealed. It has the overwhelming support of the American people. It is the most celebrated legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. If for some reason the Supreme Court were to ever overturn it on constitutional grounds, the US Constitution would quickly be amended to add that authority for the federal government.
So arguing against employment protection for gays on constitutional grounds only unfairly shackles the hands of the gay community. Most of us are realistic enough to understand that the field is set and you’re either going to play or go home. The federalist question here is moot.
If you wanted to argue against federal employment protections by taking it to court and were somehow able to overturn them, you’d only succeed in having it specifically written into the US Constitution. For rest assured, that legislation would fly through the Congress and be ratified by the necessary 3/4ths of the states in a matter of months. It would take longer to figure out how to phrase it than it would to pass and ratify it.
That’s why the opposition to ENDA here is so nonsensical. You’re asking gays and lesbians to play with a stacked deck when everyone else gets an equal hand. It’s foolish and against your own best interest.
Until gay conservatives realize they are simply enabling a movement that makes it a point to hate us, they deserve every ounce of ridicule they receive.
[Since you see the conservative movement as one which makes it a point to hate gay people, you obviously have no clue about the ideas underpinning modern conservatism. Unwittingly certainly, you helped make the point of this post. Thanks for chiming in. –Dan]
They wouldn’t have it any other way, of course, as it enables them to sit and cry about what victims they all are.
[Where are tears? I’m hardly claiming to be a victim. Guess it’s another one of your projections. I’m just pointing out the animus of supposedly tolerant gay leftists and have even indicated in this post how much their narrow-mindedness amuses me. You might have seen that had you bothered to read the post. –Dan]
And where did you get the impression that we’re embarrassed by the gay community?
Hell, I’ll say it. The gay “community” is a grotesque embarassment. And no, I’ve NEVER seen one ounce of evidence that there is a “community”.
We’re all supposed to “celebrate diversity” under a glorious rainbow flag. Well I don’t see any celebration of diversity when folks actively hate others who don’t agree with them on everything and have ZERO interest in doing so. No tolerance there.
What is this gay bashing and homo-hating that Republicans are supposed to be guilty of? Republicans oppose gay marriage and they’re branded as homophobic. Bush has the SAME opinion on gay marriage as Hillary, Obama, Edwards etc., but HE’S the homophobe?
Liberals oppose gay marriage and they’re supposed to be our saviors who will move heaven and earth for us. The difference is that the liberals will come suck your c*ck for campaign cash, pat you on the head and tell you what a wonderful little faggot you are and then screw you over with anti-gay legislation. What’s so friggin’ great about that?
And frankly, I have no idea what the hell I’m supposed to be proud of. Am I supposed to be proud of the fact that fellow gays hate me worse than the supposedly homophobic Republicans do? Yeah. There’s a winner there. What the f*ck has Ian, Kevin, Chase, Gillie etc. done to warrant me being proud of them? Just what the hell am I supposed to be proud of?
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act will not be repealed.
As we’ve told you, it already has been. Sure the words are there, but they have no meaning.
This is rich:
You know, I keep seeing similar replies to Dan’s questions. We’re supposed to be upset, crying, victims etc.
Here’s the dirty little secret: He’s pointing out and marvelling at what hate-filled, intolerant Sons of Bitches gay liberals are. Can’t speak for Dan, but I myself couldn’t give a rat’s ass what worthless people like you think of me. I emphatically refuse to allow you to have that kind of control.
Hmmm. I just left a comment but it’s not appearing on the blog. Will try later.
Can you defend that position in a little more detail? The “it is cause I say it is” attitude isn’t very informative.
Can you defend that position in a little more detail?
That’s easy. As we were shown in Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court has flatly stated that discrimination on the basis of race and gender, which one would think is strictly forbidden by Title VII based on its language is permissible — as long as it’s discrimination against whites and males. Furthermore, state, local, and Federal government entities are allowed in the awarding of contracts to discriminate against companies owned by whites and males based on the race and gender of their owners, regardless of company performance.
And you inadvertently slipped up and revealed the true motivation behind these laws.
Every other minority group has employment protection.
Which means only minorities are guaranteed jobs; everyone else isn’t.
That makes obvious, Chase, that you want special treatment that the majority of people don’t get or have.
Chase, adding to NDT’s comment, as I have said before: I was denied a job with a major city’s fire department because I am a white male. I was discriminated against due to sex and race.
On another note, Title VII also says:
An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit.
And weren’t the liberals recently pissed off because SCOTUS ruled against a woman who waited 15 (some-odd) years to file a complaint? Shall I take that to mean that there are some parts of Title VII liberals like, or does that mean that liberals only apply Title VII to some and not others?
Long story short, I don’t see where Title VII has any relevance since we’ve long ago tossed it in the round file.
Tom in Houston,
Thank you for taking the time to lay out, in a complete and kinder way than I might have, EXACTLY what most of us, moderate to liberal, see as the problem with the Gay Patriots providing such intense support for a right-wing Republican agenda. Your comments are a joy to find here, and this blog would elevate itself considerably if it would invite you to occasionally post front-page with an opposing view. But enough of fantasy, I’d like to correct some of your proportions in your early comment above…
1. Most (not “many”) — most of the Gay Patriots opposed ENDA in one way or another and did so in a thread lower on the page. Their opposition is truly analogous to African-Americans opposing the Civil Rights Act (or perhaps gay bystanders cheering on the police at Stonewall) – which would be baffling unless you had read between the lines of enough of their comments to realize where this opposition to their own rights stems from – party loyalty.
[Analagous perhaps to African-Americans opposing the Civil Rights Act–which a good number did, including some libertarian-inclined scholars but to see us as bystanders cheering on the police gets us entirely wrong. And my opposition to ENDA entirely wrong. I oppose that legislation on libertarian groundsd. And on libertarian grounds, I support (very strongly in fact) those who rioted at Stonewall for they were rioting against police were preventing them from associating freely. It’s too bad you would rather mispresent my ideas than understand them. I oppose ENDA becuase it limits freedom. I support those who rallied at Stonewall for they were rallying for freedom. So, don’t see me as someone who opposes something merely because the gay movement backs it. See me as someone who takes stands based on certain principles. And one of them, chief among them indeed, is my love of freedom.]
2. Most (not many) of them oppose civil unions and marriage equality and they’ll try to confuse partisanship with principle to pretty up their opposition. The fact is, marriage equality is a progressive, even inevitable, change in our country and we are among regressives here, people who naturally gravitate to the hold/pull-back position in the face of human progress – even their own.
3. Most (not many) do oppose HCPA – why? Same song as above, third verse.
4. Virtually ALL of them (not many) support anti-gay politicians and yes, there is NO doubt they will flock to the Republican nominee – whether by birth or by early choice in life, they are thoroughly Republican, no matter what that party stands for or what it stands against. And some will try to deceive with the false argument that Democratic politicians are all words and no action. One did that right after your comment, apparently forgetting for a moment the vote that stimulated much of this chat – the ENDA vote in the House – passed SOLELY because of the initiative of Democratic politicians (Barney Frank in particular) and passed with an 80-85% Democratic majority, with 80-85% of the Republicans in opposition. We’ve seen the same commenter try to use that false argument in the past here, ignoring the fact that (to my knowledge) EVERY piece of pro-gay legislation EVER PASSED in our nation’s history has been at the initiative of Democratic politicians – and I invite that commenter to post here a list of Dem-Rep votes on EVERY civil union and marriage equality legislation ever recorded (Local, State and Federal) in the U.S. In fact, I DARE that commenter to post those votes – they’re on the Internet, guy, and you like links.
5. Most (not many) DO demean LGBT organizations without organizing one of their own. After all, they think they’re a “movement” already, without realizing that a movement requires at least some mass.
[Sorry, no, when do any of us say we represent a movement?]
6. But, Tom, one proportion I agree with you on is this, that only “some…have engaged in pretty bare-knuckled behavior here” with the rest of us. You right, it’s only “some”. They can be vile, but they are limited in number. Others, especially Gay Patriot West (whose mostly soulful writings bring me here in the first place), V the K (on certain days), and even Gay Patriot himself (when he’s talking dogs or wilderness and not politics) are people I’d gladly share a table with. “Some” though, and this is unfortunate, bring out the worst in some of us – not you, Tom, or Chase, but mainly me and a few others, who sometimes believe the only way to counter some of the vileness is to throw it back at them, when we only catch the more decent gay patriots in our wake. I regret that this has been my own tactic recently, as I would be nourished more by thoughtful chat with the better spirits here, and just ignore the ones who prefer hand-to-hand combat. Perhaps your thoughtful and kind comment above will inspire me (and maybe a few others) to take that better course.
Again, Tom in Houston, thank you for laying out such a thorough (and gentle) case for the inexplicability of the Gay Patriot society point of view.
[I will have more to say about this comment, much more at a late date. If you think the GayPatriot point of view is explicable, then it’s clear that for all the time you have spent on this site, you have spent little time reading our posts, at least mine, when I go to great lengths to try to explain our point of view. You just don’t want to hear them or dismiss them out right. Sad. Disagreeing is one thing, but finding them inexplicable betrays your own narrow-mindedness. –Dan]
Kentucky Kid
“Can’t speak for Dan, but I myself couldn’t give a rat’s ass what worthless people like you think of me. I emphatically refuse to allow you to have that kind of control.”
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 10, 2007 @ 1:57 am – November 10, 2007
The perfect example of how republicans “debate”. Republican mantra, “Do as I say, not as I do”
” He’s pointing out and marvelling at what hate-filled, intolerant Sons of Bitches gay liberals are”
Yet more words of tolerance and “debate” prowess from “that gay conservative”
#14. If you feel that way, then don’t be pissed off when the Gay mainstream marginalizes you. You can’t be embarrassed of our community (which I’ll define as the Gay mainstream – you can call it the Gay left), work against our goals, freeload off the work that the Gay community has done in the past that benefits you, and cheerlead those that blatently seek to demonize us for their own political gain while at the same time demand that the Gay mainstream accept you as a part of the community. And I think its obvious some of you do care what we think.
What do you have to be proud of? I don’t know what you should be proud of. But I’ll tell you whom and what I’m proud of. I’m proud of HRC’s Worknet campaign to get companies to pay dp benefits and affirm non-discrimination; I’m proud of the work of liberals like Harvey Milk – who made the concept of an out public official seem possible; I’m proud of the ‘street queens’ in NYC and in SF that stood up against police repression; I’m proud of the Frank Kameny’s, the Craig Rodwell’s, the Signorile’s, the Barney Franks, the Leonard Malkovichs,
and the Larry Kramers of this world, who did the hard work to get me the freedom I enjoy today. I don’t agree with everything they did, but I recognize that without them, we’d probably all be subject to the same discrimination that we faced in the 50s and 60s. So I’m not embarrassed by them. I’m proud of them. And if you think today’s Gay mainstream is liberal; you should have seen some of THOSE guys.
#11. You’ll find lots of Gay people in Mississippi that didn’t vote for that idiot Democratic candidate for Governor (Graves) against Haley Barbour last week. You’ll find lots of Gay liberals that worked hard to raise money, campaign, and publically oppose (newly) anti-Gay Congressman William Jefferson. Lots of Gay liberals voted for Ryan for Governor in Illinois when the Democrats nominated an anti-Gay candidate. I live in Houston and I’m not giving any money to Nick Lampson (he voted against HCPA and ENDA). And while I disagree with some HRC members giving money to Harold Ford (an FMA supporter), I certainly don’t think you can argue that Sen. Corker is better.
What more proof is needed to to support the charge that silly leftists like KY engage in rank projection than when ky describes conservatives as being party loyalists for the Republicans.
KY again shows how clueless and unoriginal he is. Alll he is good at is whining about things but offers no nothing for the future.
#2 Tom in Houston writes:
Tom in Houston gets it right in the second paragraph when he notes that the Gay mainstream is not a monolithic movement. But in the first paragraph, Tom in Houston speaks of the “Gay community” with implies a monolithic structure.
I am always hearing about these “communities.” The Jewish community, the black community, the Mexican community, the gay community, etc. I have yet to find one that is united beyond having a few beefs, beliefs, or customs in common.
Gays are not monolithic in their thinking. I am not gay, but I fully accept gays who keep their lives private. However, when the culture of the village commons meets the radical culture of groups acting out, I become far less tolerant. I feel precisely the same about those saggy, baggy oldsters who want to wander Main Street naked. My personal physician is gay. And he is top rate. His partner is an excellent lawyer. We often socialize. We never discuss sex. It is not a barrier, it is incontrovertibly unnecessary and indecorous at the least.
#12 Chase declares:
This is not so. The problem here is the use of the term “minority” as it has been associated with the 14th amendment. In the 14th amendment sense, a minority has a civil rights grievance.
Gays are people with full civil rights. If any of those civil rights are being violated, gays have the same legal recourse as any person protected by the 14th amendment.
I understand the problems associated with marriage. It is not as if marriage and civil union are not being debated. As in many issues of this type you encounter extremes of opinion. (Andrew Sullivan v. the late Jerry Falwell.)
ENDA is predicated on the assumption that gays have a unique civil right and that a body of compulsory law should be enacted for their benefit alone. ENDA is aimed at expanding the Affirmative Action pie and using the power of the judiciary and executive enforcement to cause those identified by ENDA to be more equal than all others protected by the 14th amendment.
It is the Affirmative Action aspect of ENDA that is anathema to me and so many others.
To Tom in Houston: you bring up some good points. However, & I hate to point out the obvious, but here it goes: this is a CONSERVATIVE website. These people don’t like Hillary Clinton & actively support (surprise!) Republicans & conservatives. What the hell were you expecting? Gay Patriot West, TGC, V the K have spoken out against the truly Coo Coo for Cocopuffs people (ie. Fred Phelps) & don’t ALWAYS agree with Republicans on every issue. But they see the REAL danger (the Muslim extremists who want your head on a platter). There’s room in the gay community for views all across the political spectrum.
I repeat. The fact that millions of gays and lesbians lead happy, professionally satisfying lives proves that ENDA is not necessary. We ought to oppose any loss of freedom when it is unnecessary.
For the most part, people are the cause of, and the solution to, most of their own problems.
Vince
I think we all pretty much project here. Lets be real. Its an online chat forum. Its the nature of the beast.
What are your plans for the LGBT community? What are the problems? Is employment discrimination a problem? Equal pay and benefits for equal work? Parenthood rights based on merit, not sexual orientation? Safe schools? Equal access for Gay supportive viewpoints and organizations in public schools? Removal of DADT so that openly LGB servicemembers can enjoy the freedom of speech and association while in uniform that we ask them to potentially die to protect for others? Partner immigration equality? How about marriage/civil union laws? How bout the ‘he was hitting on me’ criminal defense?
These might not be your issues, but for some of us, they aren’t hypotheticals, they are real world issues that affect us directly.
What American LGBT issues affect you? And how would you solve them? Whats your plan?
You know, a person doesn’t have to agree with a libertarian or conservative mindset in order to understand it or admit that both ways of thinking about the world are *rational*.
I’m not homosexual, just female, and I figure that the results of identity politics that I have to deal with are a pale reflection of what homosexuals have to deal with. So I extrapolate, you know? For the female sin of making the statement (as softly as I knew how) that “I’ve never considered myself a feminist, but…” I got accused of “spitting on my sisters” who had made my life so much better. I didn’t get a chance to say that I appreciated what early feminists accomplished before I was accused of not having my *own* opinions at all, but being told what to think by men.
I know you’re trying, Tom, but that’s what I’m reminded of. It was silly to think that in order to *not* spit on my sisters that I had to identify with feminists today, that I had to publicly identify as part of that group and support them and pretend that (particularly the lady I was talking to) were not demanding continued hate for the “enemy” who I didn’t encounter in my life (historically? yeah, things were really bad, but getting a fire lit about how sexist US culture is today requires a whole lot of irrationality – my “sisters” did an awesome job) and ignore political mindsets and policies that I found abhorrent. (I don’t find aborting babies the least bit feminist, nor socialism, nor anti-gun policy the least feminist.)
What I know about “liberals” is that more than half of the people who voted for Kerry *must have* voted for various defense of marriage measures because some of those who voted for Bush most certainly *are* social liberals and did not vote for them. So why are Democrats portrayed as “for” same sex marriage and Republicans against? Because they say the right, empty, words? The cold numbers tell a different story. One where Democrats really aren’t your friends.
I know that, on the internet forums I visit, when it comes to name calling it’s supposed “liberals” calling conservatives “gay” as an insult. (“Fat” and “trailer trash” are just as common… and I thought that liberals were supposed to like and support poor people? What was all that “why do they vote against their interests” stuff after the last election?)
It doesn’t surprise me at all that gay conservatives and libertarians have looked at the actual policies of the two major political parties, looked at the numbers, and decided that they can deal with the Republican party better than the Democrat one.
Black conservatives and libertarians face the same criticisms when they make similar choices.
It’s identity politics, and it’s essentially, really and truly fundamentally, racist, sexist, etc., to have a political mindset that says that “women” must have these political attitudes, and “blacks” or minorities must have these political attitudes, and that “homosexuals” must have certain political attitudes.
Comments #2 to ? – Guys – Notice how Tom changes the subject. The subject of the thread is GPW facing “Misunderstanding and Loathing from the Netroots”. Tom changes the subject to his fellow commentors at GayPatriot, alleging many falsehoods.
At one point, Tom actually has the nerve to say:
Never mind the facts that:
1) Most commentors here are about ideas, or what is right and wrong – Not about being Republican.
2) Tom is the one changing the subject.
Next, Tom actually has the nerve to say:
Thereby implying – falsely – that:
1) Those things are ALL somehow inherently good and protective; and
2) Most commentors here oppose all of them;
3) Making most commentors here NOT good or right.
False, false and false.
Tom, I challenge you to back that up with (a) your definition of “cheerleading” – it can be short – followed by, (b) a recent example of any of the main blog contributors – GP, GPW, Nick, John (AGJ) or Vera – doing it for the Republican party.
I took a quick look back through Oct 21, and the only cheerleading I can find on GayPatriot main posts is for specific ideas, people or situations. Such as: for the troops… for recent economic growth… etc. Which you should know, Tom, if you read the blog with open eyes and mind.
You mean, like over Mark Foley? Oops, that was the Democrats gay-bashing. Hmm. Over Larry Craig? Oops, Democrats again. There’s the FMA/MPA… but that isn’t gay-bashing; it’s people being skeptical of gay marriage and needing persuasion on it.
But this blog *does* stand up against it, Tom. I remember many posts against the FMA/MPA, and other instances of political gay-bashing. There you go again!
Tom, please state what is anti-gay about either of those men – Other than their disagreement with gay marriage. (I mean, is their disagreement with gay marriage all you’ve got?)
Embarassed by Left gays who are so dumb, they can’t even bring themselves to support their country in wartime, or to ban children from the Folsom Street Fair? OK, you finally got me, Tom. Guilty as charged.
Tom, why aren’t you embarrassed by those things?
And, there you go again. Pretty much from start to finish, Tom, your comment was one big example of the mis-representations that form the subject of GPW’s post. Thank you for providing us such a clear, illustrative example.
I have a response for Tom in mod. (Filter got me) Moving along…
Jimbo, thanks for getting it. (You wouldn’t happen to be the one from Blackfive, would you?)
V, I haven’t said this in awhile: Thank you for getting it.
“Every other minority has it.”
Who defines a minority? At work I’m outnumbered easily 15 to one men to women. Heck for the first time in 10 years I’ve a male supervisor in my division. Why don’t I need the government to step in to protect me? Should the government step in to keep an equal number of restrooms despite the balance in the office? (I call it ‘Equal Plumbing for Equal Work.’)
And as to Dan bashing. I’ve met him. Sure it was just lunch, but self hatng isn’t any where near how he comes off in person. Confident, funny, educated, well spoken, all those come to mind. “If I wasn’t straight, and he wasn’t out in the PRC” also came to mind.
As for ENDA, didn’t your momma tell you wrongs don’t make a right?
Oh, forgot to mention. I don’t even hold his being an apple lvoer against him
When I read Tom’s comments, it’s clear that to him, there is no issue that trumps his grievances. It is unfathomable to him that there are those to whom national security, growth-oriented tax strategies, and protection of individual rights are more important than gay rights. That is a typical pattern I’ve seen. Left-liberals base their politics on “what can government do for me and my fellow interest group.” Conservatives base their policies on, “What will be the best for strengthening our national interests.”
V, to put it another way, it seems to be unfathomable to him that national security, low taxes, etc. are gay issues. Or that to look out for the benefit of America as a whole, *is* to be pro-gay.
And it seems unfathomable to him that you can be pro-gay – say, against sodomy laws, against DADT, and in favor of civil unions or perhaps even gay marriage – and still see how the other, not-so-intelligent “gay rights” measures Tom supports injure both gays and the country.
You know, instead of demanding that more conservative gays demand change from the Republicans, why don’t people like Tom demand that their Democrats support market-oriented health care reform, lower taxes, entitlement reform, and strong national defense? Why don’t they hold Democrats accountable for traitors like Dick Durbin, crooks like William Jefferson, and traitorous crooks like John Murtha?
Also, will anyone on the left criticize Hilldog for pulling a Jeff Gannon? No, no more than they criticize her for laundering illicit campaign donations, designating an impeached felon as her campaign co-chair or stiffing a waitress on a tip. (Stupid peasant! Doesn’t she realize how much Her Highness is promising to do for her?)
At the end of the day, I think people have made a calculation that they have a better chance of making the Republican party gay-friendly than they do of making the Democrat party pro-American and anti-socialist.
Such people are probably right.
Personally, my favorite statement has been this:
And some will try to deceive with the false argument that Democratic politicians are all words and no action.
So KYKid denies that Democrats like Harold Ford support the FMA.
So KYKid denies that John Kerry supports state constitutional amendments.
So KYKid denies that he and Democrat gay organizations like HRC voted for and contributed millions of dollars to these politicians.
And as far as ENDA and HCPA goes, again, why should we support a law that legalizes discrimination against straight people and preferential treatment for gays?
Gays like KY blab about “equality” — but when asked to compete equally in the job market, they can’t handle it, and start screaming about how they need guaranteed jobs.
You know, instead of demanding that more conservative gays demand change from the Republicans, why don’t people like Tom demand that their Democrats support market-oriented health care reform, lower taxes, entitlement reform, and strong national defense?
Because if they did, their Democrat “friends” would turn on them and start calling them “Uncle Toms”, “oreos”, and “traitors”, just like they do with all minority members who stray from the Democrat plantation.
Really, the vitriol that gay leftists like KY throw at us isn’t their fault; they’re just trying to gain acceptance from their Democrat masters by showing their zeal against heresy. If they actually had things in their life to be proud of other than their party affiliation and their compliance to party ideology, they wouldn’t need to do that.
#20:
No doubt a noble aspiration, KYKid, but a rather difficult one to adhere to in the face of venom like this:
And yes, I know you all have greatly missed me but I’ve been rather busy lately.
Actually,, Welcome back Ian. Hope it’s been busy in a good way.
Wow. Lots of comments here. I don’t know where to start.
First, just because you don’t need ENDA doesn’t mean that others don’t. It kinda seems to me a bit selfish. ‘I’ve got mine, screw everyone else’. ‘Who cares about the rest of y’all, I’ve got my tax cut’. Yea, I’m projecting, but I don’t think I’m really off the mark
Secondly, you may attack Phelps, but do you attack those that propogate the Westboro doctrine without the stick porn and foul language. Not every Republican expouses the Westboro docrine, but many do. For those of you that don’t know the Westboro Doctrine, it is as follows:
a) America is a Christian nation
b) As a result, Christian moral views should have precedence over all others.
c) America will be punished by God if it endorses Gay rights
d) Petetions and actions by Gay people are to be automatically dismissed, not on their merits, but simply because a Gay person is campaigning for it.
I see quite a bit of this in the Republican party.
Again, you have every right to work against Gay equality. But don’t expect the mainstream Gay community to react favorably to your actions.
[My issue is not gay equality, but freedom. And that means freedom for gay people, freedom to go to the Folson Street Fair and do whatever it is people do there (as long as your don’t allow kids), freedom to dress in drag and go out for a few drinks at the bar of your choosing, freedom to live with the partner of your choice, freedom to set the employment standards for your business, etc. –Dan]
Fred Phelps is a Democrat, dude.
37. I don’t support lower taxes. And even if I did, it doesn’t excuse anti-Gay behavior by many GOP politicians.
See my earlier posting where I discussed the support by Gay Louisianans for William Jefferson’s appointment. And former Congressman Harold Ford.
All,
It goes all the way back to my post at #2. I feel that some of you guys don’t care about problems in the LGBT community, work against our goals, are embarrased by the Gay community, endorse and cheerlead those that demean us, attack unconstructively Gay rights organizations without offering anything else in return, and then try and change the subject to something else besides Gay rights in order to justify your positions. And you are surprised that Gay people get upset with you when you do this?
Thanks for the ht KYkid. Not expected in here, but appreciated
Fred Phelps joined the Democratic party. So what? Do you think that he really has any support there?
However, Pat Robertson, who in my opinion pretty much endorses the Westboro doctrine (see above) is celebrated by the GOP and its leaders.
I think the figure in the Democrat Party that most corresponds to Pat Robertson is Howard Dean. Both ran presidential bids designed to appeal to hardcore, fringe elements of their respective parties, but failed to win in the primaries and their candidacies went nowhere.
The difference is, Pat Robertson went on to host a cable show with an Air-America sized audience.
Howard Dean went on to become the leader of his party.
Which party is being led around by its fringe element?
#39:
Thanks, yes it has. I would echo your impressions of Dan and although it’s unfortunate that his date considered politics to be a deal-breaker, it’s better to find that out early on. I would also say that we all probably have many things that would give us pause in pursuing a relationship. For example, for me, smoking would be an absolute no-no. As an atheist, I would also have difficulty with an evangelical or devout Muslim. And to be honest, when it comes to politics, it would be difficult for me to even consider the type who would think and write something like this.
Not too mention, Pat Robertson just endorsed the most gay-friendly of all the GOP candidates. Which is evidence in favor of the perception that the GOP is much more likely to become gay-friendly than the Democrat party is to become pro-American and Anti-Socialist.
Way off. What could be more selfish than demanding the erosion of freedom for job security? It’s not about a “need” for ENDA. No intelligent, mature, responsible person needs it.
The only people I can think of who need ENDA is the trial lawyers that the liberals in Congress have been working extra hard to repay this year.
By the way,
I used to work for a major airline with same sex benefits. It was the employees who pushed for and got it. Neither HRC or any other of Tom’s gay icons had a damn thing to do with it. It should also be noted that it wasn’t the federal government who bestowed it upon us either.
Further, we didn’t need ENDA because if they fired all their gay employees, there would barely be anybody left to work.
Endless strings are difficult for me to follow. I can’t tell who is “winning.” I must admit, however, that — although I’m a Republican and a fan of GayPatriotWest — Tom’s comment #2 brings up points that I, too, have thought many times while reading this blog. He’s not alone in these observations.
Don’t get me wrong, GayPatriot.com is a beautiful thing. It’s smart and, truly, one of the best political resources on the web, but … yeah, I would like to see the anti-gay conservative politicans candidly “taken to the woodshed.” And I’d like to see pro-gay conservative politicans receive an occasional hearty pat on the back for their courage on gay issues, not just on terrorism.
I read this blog because I’m interested in the observations of other gay conservatives. I’m looking for commentary on both conservative AND gay issues, but especially on how the two intermingle. I hate it when either side treats the other with contempt. I’m looking for productive thoughts, ideas, inspirations, “bridge building” … not really interested in the name calling or the sentence diagraming back and forth.
PS: I’m a single dude as well, so I totally enjoyed the anecdotal dating stories. Let have more of ’em! 😉
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. I oppose ENDA – and similar laws for other groups – because the loss of Constitutional freedoms involved does does actual harm to gays and lesbians. And to other groups, and to America. OK? Get it now?
Indeed you are.
YES. Making your belief to the contrary, another wrong answer on your part.
Yet another wrong answer on your part. I was working for gay marriage in the mid 90s, possibly – perhaps – a decade or more before you or osme of your friends thought it was cool, Tom. My, aren’t you full of outright falsehoods today?
P.S. Please also see my reply to you at #30, which was delayed by the filter.
(i.e. YES I reject and attack that doctrine)
I have been a conservative Republican and quite active in the party since the late 1950’s.
The evangelical Christians came to the party as the place to express themselves after Roe v. Wade. The Democrats threw them out. They discovered and the Republican Party discovered that their numbers and ability to deliver the vote was valuable.
Pat Robertson has done a great deal to further his beliefs. He is welcome in the tent. But, there are many Christian conservatives who want to load the Republican Party down with their brand of Christian agenda which would so marginalize the Republican Party that it would become a mere shadow.
Look at our candidates for the nomination and tell me which ones are carrying Pat Robertson’s water. Naturally, any on of them would be pleased to have his support, but none of them thinks he can get the nomination by adopting Robertson’s agenda and priorities.
I am a Christian and the New Testament teaches us a great deal about how to concern ourselves with the “evils” of the Old Testament. I care not so much about whether a gay is a sinner as I do about accepting a gay as one of God’s children who is my brother and deserves my love and respect.
For those who say they will not vote for a candidate who supports gays or will not vow to end abortion, I simply say, “Thanks for the information.” There is nothing you can say that will change a basic tenet in a deep seated belief system.
Tom in Houston, you make a huge leap when you tar the GOP because it does not shun Pat Robertson. There are many people who can not find a home in the Democrat Party because they believe in a Christian God. Many stay out of the Republican Party because it is not doctrinaire enough for them. But a lot of Christians come to the Republicans because its members have a belief system about personal responsibility, accountability and individual determination that is mirrored in their theology.
Every time I have been interviewed by a left winger to find out why I am conservative, I end up hearing about what they do not believe in and and how myopic conservatives are. I don’t really get interviewed, I just get treated to a frenetic recitation of why the liberals don’t want to be forced to define their value system and give up the sanctity of moral relativism.
For the life of me, I can not understand the left’s fear and quaking over Christians on the far right of Christianity. It borders on paranoia. We know what the radical Imams are planning for the infidel. When is the last time far right Christians went on a rampage? And by the by, do you think Janet Reno would ever have dealt with a mosque the way she took on the Branch Dravidians?
When the Republicans start tossing around ideas of social engineering based on the thoughts of Pat Robertson, I will cede you the point.
Look at the Democrat agenda. Abandon Iraq, raise taxes, lessen the gap between the rich and poor, set up national health care, unionize more government employees so they can strike against the tax payer, talk and bargain and lessen the military, bring the standard of living more in line with the rest of the world, spread citizenship to those who can find their way here, postpone dealing with social security and medicare, punish big oil and the free market pension plans and Wal-Mart, and modify the climate through taxation and regulation.
Do you mind if we conservatives ask for a few details on these ideas without being called racist and fringe group homophobes?
And do you mind if we ask how your group will handle the power vacuum when we bug out of Iraq? (At least Kucinich has the stones to say “Not my concern.”) Is there a target for what is an acceptable gap between rich and poor? And on and on. But the answer always seem to the same and involves Pat Robertson and the Westboro doctrine or some other masterpiece of demogoguery.
The left once had solid ideas that challenged the status quo. Now the left is the status quo. It is stuck on social engineering and state socialism.
The democrats know the value of everything and the cost of nothing. That is because as long as the tax payer can still bleed, there is life for the saprophytic organism that the Democrat Party has become. (See: England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Neatherlands, etc.)
Who knows? It’s up to Democrats to say. But I will say this:
1) John Kerry took great pains, in 2004, to emphasize that his position on gay issues was the same as President Bush. “The exact… same… position”, I believe his words were, in one of the debates.
Do you believe Bush supports the “Westboro doctrine”, Tom? If yes, then you must logically conclude that Kerry does also.
2) There is a photo out there of Al Gore, visiting the Phelpses at home. I will try to post the link separately. (Filter keeps rejecting it.)
Mike in Sedona:
With respect, you apparently missed the blog’s coverage of Larry Craig earlier this summer. And more.
It’s a free country, so try skipping comments (or commentors) that don’t interest you.
Hopefully the filter will take this link for the Phelps-Gore photos – not one, but two: http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/07/america-deranged-funeral-update.html
#34: “When I read Tom’s comments, it’s clear that to him, there is no issue that trumps his grievances…Left-liberals base their politics on ‘what can government do for me and my fellow interest group.'”
Well said, V the K. I would just add that people like Tom are also completely deluded concerning exactly what it is that they “want from government” (or if they know, they are just dishonest about it). Their (il)logic starts with “straight people hate me and want me dead, especially the Republican ones and the ones from the South,” and ends with “once that piece of paper gets through Congress and President Hillary signs it, there will be no more homophobia or discrimination.” Whooooopeeeeeee!
Tom doesn’t believe that it’s the government’s job to provide a REMEDY FOR DISCRIMINATION (which is all that ENDA is). He believes it is the government’s job to END BIGOTRY ALTOGETHER. Whether he admits it or not, what Tom (and like-minded liberals) indignantly label “equality,” is nothing more than a really sad delusion that acceptance, validation and celebration of gays can be legislated.
That’s why in California, all of the city governments are lining up to file “friend of the court briefs” in a pending California Supreme Court case seeking to overturn the state’s “gay marriage ban.” Presently, domestic partners that register with the state are treated exactly the same as “spouses” under state law, with rights to community property, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, the filing of joint state tax returns, etc. But that’s not enough. Calling the legal arrangement “civil unions” hurts the FEELINGS of gays like Tom because without the moniker “marriage,” they are concerned that it is possible that someone, somewhere doesn’t think they are REALLY AWESOME. It makes them very sad because for them, it is not about RIGHTS. It’s about validation (and ideally, a slap in the face to traditional religious groups by the government if they’re lucky).
Go ahead and deny it, Tom, but the fact is, your comments read like the tells of a bad poker player. The EMOTIONS upon which all of your arguments are based can hardly be concealed:
-The conservative message “comes off as a bit condescending…”
-Conservative gays are “embarrassed by the gay community” and represent themselves as “better” to “those that demean us.”
-It kinda seems to me a bit selfish. ‘I’ve got mine, screw everyone else’. ‘Who cares about the rest of y’all,…”
-Pat Robertson, in your opinion, “pretty much endorses the Westboro doctrine” and is “celebrated by the GOP and its leaders.”
AND MY FAVORITE:
“Someones gay-ness doesn’t trump everything else. But it should be at least a part of who you are.” [Translation: the fact that you suck co*k doesn’t trump everything–but if that doesn’t make you march in the streets for ENDA, you’re a soulless, mean person and should be ridiculed and driven out of the Gay Community in shame.]
Again….FEELINGS, FEELINGS, FEELINGS. The sum total of your argument for all of this legislation is that it is “needed” and your evidence of need is as follows: “just because you don’t need ENDA doesn’t mean that others don’t.” Who are you talking about, Tom. You? Me? Are thousands and thousands of gays losing their jobs every day because of invidious discrimination? Are you even aware of the fact that 20 states and 140 cities already have laws protecting gays in the workplace? (with more on the way…)
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals refuse to analyze anything beyond their own victimhood and hurt feelings. They spend half their time screaming about the evil Bush imperialist empire, the corrupt, formerly Republican-controlled Congress and the newly-minted Alito-Roberts-kangaroo court taking all of their “rights” away. And they spend the other half of their time picketing the White House demanding that they be allowed to relinquish all control over their own destiny to the same government. It’s so obtuse. It’s so illogical. Bush=evil, mass-murdering psychopath, SO let’s give his and all future administrations the power to pick and choose favorites among We The People based on irrelevant characteristics like skin color, religious affiliation, height, double-jointedness, etc. What a fantastic idea! It’s no problem because with ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation, gays=good, straights=not so good. Cool! And then maybe next year (based on prior precedent!) government can decide, Muslims=good, Christians=baaaaaaad. Wow! This is fun!
Uh oh…what if someday, our government decided, Aryans=good, Jews=bad?
Nah. That’s just plain ol’ crazy talk. That could never happen…
A few rebuttal points here, there are so many that I’ll just have to choose a few to discuss here.
1) Bush is not equal to Fred Phelps. But Bush and many GOP candidates does give comfort and support to those who support the Westboro doctrine. I don’t want Pat Robertson style ‘christians’ holding veto power over judicial appointments. Pat is welcome in the GOP tent. Are Gays that are out? How many openly Gay appointees are in the 5,000+ Executive appointee system (I know of three)? Did the GOP pass over a certain Conservative GOP California Congressman for a leadership role simply because it was rumored that he is gay?
2) To those that argue that somehow it entails more freedom for Gays and Lesbians to be subject to discrimination while religious groups are protected from discrimination is somehow baffling to me. Please expand.
3) Congratulations to the gentleman who got his airline to offer dp benefits. Don’t you think that if it weren’t for the Gay mainstream organizations that made the initial demands for these benefits (long before they were offered by any airline), that it might have been somewhat more difficult to convince your company to do so?
4) Congratulations to the gentleman who adverts that he has been a strong proponent of Gay marriage. So which GOP Presidential Candidate is going to help make that happen? Is your Congressman or Senator?
5) To those who can’t ever think of anyone who could possibly need ENDA, we’re not even speaking the same language. Most Gay people I know exactly why the law is needed. And it has nothing to do with trial lawyers. It comes from experience. Maybe if my background wasn’t Alabama and Texas I wouldn’t know why the law was needed. But there it is.
6) My comments regarding the perception of selfishness by those that oppose ENDA, HCPA, gay marriage, PPIA, repeal of DADT unfortunately have not been substantially mitigated by the arguments in here. It goes back to my point way back at the beginning of this thread that if you don’t care about issues of interest to the LGBT community, then don’t be surprised when you aren’t considered part of the community. Again, you guys have got to sell this a bit better in the community if you want to be treated with respect. What you guys are saying now just isn’t cutting it. And again, its not to be ugly, but to help you understand why people in the mainstream Gay community reacts poorly to your opinions. Reacting with bitterness isn’t going to help those who complain about the Gay mainstream marginalizing you.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/10/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often.
This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
Sean,
Imply that I’m a wimpy queen (feelings, feelings, feelings) that has my panties in a wad over nothing if you wish (that’s your point right?). Again, I unfortunately expect that here. But don’t get your panties in wad if attitudes like that lead to the ‘I don’t sleep with Republican’ attitude of some in the Gay mainstream.
I’m glad that 20 states ban discrimination against LGBT persons. Are you one of the few in here that actually support non-discrimination laws that cover Gays and Lesbians?
You apparently live in California. I’m from Alabama. I seriously doubt you know of the problems the community faces there. A Supreme Court that throws out cases, not on the merits, but because the litigant is Gay. An Attorney Generals office that has pretty much sat on its hands and prevented collection of critical crime data while an epidemic of lynchings (I can substantiate) have enveloped Alabama’s tiny Gay community. In California (where I worked and lived) no one cares if one is Gay. In Alabama, its much more of a problem. We look to the courts and the Federal Government. Because, God knows that Republicans like Bob Riley, Troy King, and Jeff Sessions are part of the problem and are unlikely to do anything to provide the equal protection under the law. Republican suburban Houston is like the SF Castro compared to Alabama and Mississippi.
When someone starts saying that there is no need for Gay rights, you may be talking to someone that actually has a need for those laws.
I’m not asking for equality in society (which will take generations), but I expect equality in public policy. Period.
Hey there Ian! Indeed, welcome back. And perhaps if we somehow post simultaneously, they’ll give up their claims here that we’re one and the same (though I would miss the comparison). Ian, I understand the point you were making about the anti-moderate and anti-liberal venom here and appreciated your contrasting quotes, but in all fairness, I believe that comes from just a couple of the guys here – the most offensive of whom has, remarkably, just described himself as a former flight attendant, and frankly I could understand if that one just hated the whole world by now.
And hey there, North Dallas Thirty! In #39 above, you do something that you do often – you cherry-pick among the bits and pieces of what you wish was an anti-gay bias in the Democratic Party and then start talking about “gay Democrats” and “the Democratic plantation”. (psst to TOM IN HOUSTON: now, that’s projection!!) Yet, North Dallas Thirty, when you are challenged to “post the Dem-Rep votes” on pro-gay legislation in U.S. history, you always flee to other topics. Though you present yourself as a linkster extraordinaire, you will never have the courage to link to (or face) that record. It’s on the Internet, you know, and it lays waste to your regular wild claims here that the two parties are equally anti-gay.
Also, North Dallas Thirty, I have a question for you. In both your comments #s 39 and 40 above, you characterize me personally to the others who are reading here as someone who cannot “compete in the job market”, someone who “needs a guaranteed job”, and as someone who has “nothing in life to be proud of”. While I know all that felt good when you wrote it, I have to ask what, on earth, were you thinking of? Were you thinking of my 31-year record with the 100+ size class firm that I own and operate, my corporate and personal tax records, my P&L, my real estate deeds, my speaker’s bio, just assuming from my handle here? Or were you just “projecting”…but backward?
KY Kid
But at least NDT is progressing. In this entire thread, I haven’t heard his greatest hit song “Clinton signed DOMA” (11 years ago) or his follow up “Clinton failed to get openly Gay servicemembers in the military 14 years ago” (although he only caved as a result of some Democratic but almost universal Republican opposition).
He did, however, play that old standard, “someone who works at HRC gave money to Harold Ford”, (who was almost as bad on Gay rights as they person Ford was running against)
#61: Hi Tom,
I just re-read my comment and wanted to apologize to you. I obviously can get pretty fired up about these issues, but it wasn’t right for me to direct my comment at you so aggressively. Thanks for your respectful response. I am anxious to reply and address the points you raised and will try to do so later tonight (right now I have to head to the theater). Cheers, and again, I’m sorry.
Sean
Y’know, if you don’t like the laws in Alabama, you’re free to move to California or Massachusetts.
It”s the gay left that;’s trying to force San Fransicko values on the whole country, not the religious right. A lot of places don’t want Main Street to become Folsom Street.
Not only did Clinton sign DOMA, Tom, he bragged about the fact in political advertisements.
And as far as DADT goes, he didn’t have to sign or put that in place; he could have stood up for gays, like he claimed he was going to do.
But then again, why should Democrats follow through, when people like you and KYKid will give them money and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even when they endorse and support state and Federal constitutional amendments, fire gay employees for complaining about homophobia (Howard Dean), or go rewriting the party platform to please Pat Robertson live on The 700 Club?
And what’s funny about this whole discussion is that Tom, KYKid, and the other liberals here haven’t said word one about two biggest problems that a) cause the most likelihood of death and injury to gays and b) are the most likely to interfere with their careers.
They’re called HIV/AIDS and substance abuse.
HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death and disability (inability to work) among gay men.
Alcohol and drug abuse is estimated to affect 20-30% of gays — two to three times higher than the population average — which is well-known to have devastating effects on both your health and your ability to hold a job.
But, unfortunately, they can’t be blamed on anyone else.
If these gay liberals were so interested in protecting the health of gays and their jobs, you would think they would be spending the money on these issues, rather than lobbying for pointless laws that do nothing to prevent harm to gays and only trample the idea of equality before the law by guaranteeing jobs to minorities regardless of performance and basing the prosecution of and punishment for crimes on characteristics of the victims.
But doing so would require them to confront the values and actions of the “community” that they blindly support, and would make them wholly unpopular.
NDT,
Some people can’t just pick up and leave. I was lucky. I was able to get a scholarship and put myself in a position that I could leave a very high end job when I started getting the ‘hey faggot treatment’ at my Fortune 500 company in Houston. Others aren’t so lucky. And they shouldn’t have to move. No one should have to lose their children to a credibly accused child beater because the Republican Alabama Chief Justice argues that ‘Alabama law allows for the execution of Gay people’. Or have a jury use the ‘but he was hitting on me defense’ to give a murderer a lesser conviction because the ‘gay panic’ defense is allowed and successful in Alabama (as happened to Professor Spegner). Or watch the Republican Alabama Atty Generals office move heaven and earth to convict persons of a hate crime because they damaged property (remember the churches burned down by those students from Birmingham Southern College a few years back) but do just about nothing about a rather nasty spate of violence against Gay and Lesbian persons (eighty year man beat to death with the club end of a hammer by a 26 year old; 56 year old man left in a coma after being beat over the head with a two by four by 20 year old; 20 year old man murdered in a ‘robbery’ where he was stabbed 60+ times; man beat to death then burned on a pyre of tires while his murderers screamed Bible passages at them, the judge who allowed a man to go start attending church in lieu of prison but then went ballistic when he found out that the church the man chose was the MCC, and unfortunately other cases have happened recently in Alabama).
I’ll address this to the larger audience. The streets of West Hollywood, Virginia Highlands, Oak Lawn, Hillcrest, and South of Market are full of people like me that have left places like Alabama or Kentucky or West Virginia, or rural Texas (not Plano) that still have friends back home. We still go home ourselves. When you ‘come out as a conservative’ that opposes these vital pieces of legislation, it is completely forseeable that the reaction would be negative.
Sean,
No need to apologize. I’ve been called much worse in here. My larger point was that if you treat people poorly, don’t be surprised if they react back poorly.
NDT..#69 was for V the K
So, the left-liberal definition of “treat people poorly” is “disagree with them on political issues?”
No..just not care about their problems. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.
Of course the streets are full of you, Tom.
And oddly enough, you can’t get jobs here either, and you still get assaulted, as the case of Satendar Singh and the (ironic) recent mugging of Police Commissioner David Campos most recently demonstrate — despite these laws that you claim will prevent both.
Meanwhile, back in Alabama, in regard to the cases you cited:
1) In the Speigner case, the choice before the jury was between first-degree (premeditated) murder, felony murder (non-premeditated killing that takes place during committing another crime), and manslaughter (accidental killing). The “gay panic” defense was used to try to make it manslaughter; the jury explicitly rejected manslaughter as an option and instead convicted the perpetrator of felony murder, which carries a lighter sentence than premeditated murder.
2) In the Billy Jack Gaither case, both of his assailants were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole.
3) In the Scotty Joe Weaver case, all three of his assailants were convicted; one received life without parole, one received two consecutive life sentences, and one was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Ironically, these were the result of plea bargains; had they not taken them, they would have been sentenced to death.
And you, of course, call this “doing nothing”.
What those demonstrate is that the wheels of justice turn quite nicely and smoothly for those who assault and murder gay people without any need of a hate crimes law. Meanwhile, the Campos and Singh cases demonstrate is that hate crimes laws do nothing to stop hate crimes.
Tom said:
I love the argument structure there. In fact, let’s try out a few variations. How about this one?
Of course, my version happens to be true. It can be shown from some pretty recent Democrat speeches and comments. But let’s not change the subject. Let’s focus on Tom’s version. Tom, what evidence can you give that Bush “gives comfort and support” to those who support the Westboro doctrine as such? (I.e., not just that he lowers their taxes in general, protects them from terrorists in general, has a position they like on gay marriage in general, etc.)
I don’t know. Did Howard Dean practice anti-gay discrimination as DNC Chairman? Such alleged individual cases are pretty minor aspects of the picture, either way.
Another ‘Tom in Houston’ mis-representation. This is what I really said:
Tom, is the second what you would like clarification on? I can certainly provide it. Let’s clear it up, before I go to the effort. Because if, instead, you want clarification on your version – i.e., on something I didn’t say, but that you merely imagined or wished I had said… well Tom, you’ll have to be the one to provide it. Let me know.
I asked you (in effect) first, Tom. In 2004, Kerry made clear that he has “the exact… same… position” as President Bush on gay issues. So, if Bush “gives comfort and support to those who support the Westboro doctrine”, then, does not Kerry also? Or to put it in your terms: Which Democratic Presidential candidate is actually (once elected) going make DADT repeal or gay marriage happen? (Please don’t say ‘Clinton’.)
Maybe if my background wasn’t California, I wouldn’t know why laws like ENDA – whether for gays, or for other special interest groups / categories – destroy freedom, are unnecessary and mainly just empower the world’s shakedown artists and people with serious personality disorders. But there it is.
On the contrary. As you yourself said, Tom: you’ve been projecting.
As I said earlier, another ‘Tom of Houston’ mis-representation. Because some here (not all) don’t see ENDA the way he does, we must “not care about issues of interest to the LGBT community”; an untruth impermeable to facts, because it clearly makes Tom feel good to believe and repeat. Hence providing a nice illustration of GPW’s topic – the topic of this thread – “Misunderstanding & Loathing from the Netroots”.
P.S. Just to clarify. The relevance (to this discussion) of my “Democrats are not equal to al Qaeda terrorists…” riposte to Tom will be more clear, if I word it a little differently:
I’ve said it before and will say it again: Islamo-fascism is a gay issue. The War on Terror is a gay issue. The fact that President Bush and our troops have prevented another 9-11, thus far and thank God, is a gay issue. Gay rights begin with the right to keep one’s life, or to NOT be executed like an Iranian teenager. That Left gays can’t bring themselves to recognize their country’s basic gay-supportiveness and goodness, and support their country in time of war, is rather more than “embarrassing”.
The thing is, when mainstream America wants to see what the full realization of the liberal-left/gay agenda looks like… they need only look at San Francisco; a city that is aggressively anti-military and that permits (via the Folsom Street Fair) people to literally have sex in the street in the presence of children. Personally, I don’t blame people rejecting that vision. I guess that makes me “sex negative,” in the lingo of the SF values crowd.
And, yeah, if Tom is going to tar all of conservatism with the Westboro brush, he has no right to complain if people say the FSF is generally representative of gay values.
Exactly. If it’s legit for Tom to try to tar all of conservatism with the Westboro brush – even though Phelps is, in fact, at least somewhat of a Left anti-war Democrat – then Tom has no business making the slightest complaint if:
– some people tar all of Gay Left or “mainstream gay” activity with the FSF brush; or
– some people tar all of left-liberalism with the anti-gay Islamist brush.
The only flaw I see in conservativism is that we have convinced ourselves that everyone has the capacity to be as intelligent, responsible and self-reliant as we are; unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the case. 😉
A few notes:
#55
It’s the values that you mentioned above personal responsibility, accountability and individual determination. They can’t stand the fact that people are judgemental or critical. Further, liberals despise any kind of belief that there is a higher power than themselves.
Unless, of course, that higher power is Allah. Then they’ll fall head over heals to show how they’re more tolerant than you are. Long story short, liberals don’t want anybody thinking or knowing that what they’re doing is wrong.
#58
You were spot on. There was no need to apologize.
#59
Nope.
Mine is Mississippi, Texas and Florida. There’s no excuse for the erosion of freedom for job security. There it is.
if you don’t care about issues of interest to the LGBT community, then don’t be surprised when you aren’t considered part of the community.
What LGBT community? You mean the snobby queens at the front bar in JR’s who look down their martini glasses at everyone who walks in the door?
But reacting with bitterness is going to help gay liberals?
#63 Redefines “that giant sucking sound”.
That takes effort. Why bother when you can lounge around on your lazy ass and demand everything be given to you?
So – Self-reliance and responsibility for the human elite, not the great unwashed who are presumed to be much too stupid? I don’t see a lot of integrity in that, Brian. In fact: I daresay it’s the thinking that got America into its current mess, over the last 80 years.
It certainly isn’t what Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, etc. believed.
Hi Tom,
Regarding your points concerning hate crimes legislation (#61 & #69)…
Actually, I have very deep Southern roots. My mother’s family is from Meridian, Mississippi and I lived in Jackson for a number of years while attending college (I was the fifth generation in my family to attend the school and the Chemistry Chair is in my great uncle’s name). I have also spent considerable time in Alabama (primarily Mobile, Birmingham and Smith Lake) and Louisiana. I don’t dispute that gays have been brutalized and murdered in the South. Gays have also been murdered in California, where I currently live. In fact, I’d bet that many straight people were murdered in these locales as well. The giant, gaping hole in your argument (the same one that liberals fail to even address) is that hate crimes legislation will do NOTHING to stop these crimes. Teenage degenerates with the propensity to beat others with hammers and burn their bodies all while screaming Bible verses are not going to change their ways because a legislature passes a law (even if that law mandates a stiffer sentence upon conviction).
Accordingly, these laws do nothing to resolve or prevent crime, and instead create a dangerous precedent by which our governments are given free rein to value one group of people over others based solely upon the color of their skin, who they sleep with, etc. These measures appeal to gay liberals not because they make gay people (and other minorities) safer–but because it makes them FEEL better about themselves and assures them that their government values them as people. I find such quests for government “approval” of gays to be repugnant and dangerous–it literally turns a core principle upon which this country was founded on its head. Our constitution was designed for government to seek OUR APPROVAL, not the other way around.
So, Tom, I still haven’t heard a viable argument in support of this “vital” type of “needed” legislation–the fact that gays have been murdered and abused both in the South and everywhere else is simply no justification for these laws.
The other argument you seem to be making is that hate crimes legislation is needed because law enforcement (particularly, the Alabama Attorney General) “has pretty much sat on its hands and prevented collection of critical crime data” related to an epidemic of gay lynchings (#61). (You also state that the Attorney General has done “just about nothing about a rather nasty spate of violence against Gay and Lesbian persons.”) First of all, if law enforcement is so indifferent to these crimes, why are you able to provide so many details of the various assailants in comment # 69? Is it possible that in spite of being slack-jawed, inbred homophobes, the Alabama police actually did their job and caught the psychopaths? Hmmmmmmmmmmm………
-Billy Jack Gaither: Steven Mullins and Charles Butler are currently serving life terms in prison without the possibility of parole for Gaither’s murder. In fact, Mullins would be on death row had it not been for the victim’s family intervening because Gaither opposed the death penalty.
-Scotty Joe Weaver: Christopher Gaines is serving a life sentence without parole for Weaver’s murder; Robert Porter is serving 2 consecutive life sentences; Gaines’s girlfriend, Nichole Kelsay is serving a 20 year sentence.
-Sammie Speigner: Raymond Carlisle is currently serving a 21-year sentence for Speigner’s murder. [To clarify, you stated that Speigner’s murderer “successfully” used the “gay panic defense,” which is true only in the sense that it allowed Carlisle to avoid a conviction for capital murder versus the conviction for felony murder he received. I also have a problem with the “gay panic” defense being permissible, however, the point here is to address your argument that local law enforcement has ignored these cases and federal intervention is needed.]
-Jack David McGraw: Gary Leon Brown was executed in 2003 for McGraw’s murder, during which he was stabbed 60+ times.
If the Alabama authorities have “done nothing” then why are all of these people in jail for the rest of their lives? The point of all of this information is to respond to your claim that you have to “turn to the Federal Government” because the Alabama Attorney General and Republican politicians (Riley, King, Sessions) have ignored the problem of “gay lynchings” and “are unlikely to do anything to provide the equal protection under the law.”
“Equal protection” is a legal term and you are not using it correctly. “Equal protection under the law” means only that government is required to treat all similarly-situated individuals the same when applying the law. The Equal Protection Clause is not a guarantee that all perpetrators of gay “hate crimes” will be brought to justice. It would only be implicated if Alabama law enforcement implemented a policy that crimes against gays would not be investigated or prosecuted simply because the victims were gay. Obviously, no such policy exists (your purely subjective and speculative belief that homophobia is rampant in the upper echelons of the Alabama state government, notwithstanding.) Further, government incompetence is not sufficient to show a denial of equal protection–in other words, just because the cops’ investigation doesn’t lead to the arrest of the bad guy, doesn’t mean the victim’s constitutional rights have been violated. [Conversely, there is a very solid argument that hate crimes laws imposing stiffer penalties for crimes against gays is a violation of the equal protection rights of heterosexuals.]
However, all of this is really irrelevant in light of the fact that the Alabama authorities have apparently done a bang-up job of arresting these worthless degenerates and putting them in jail for the rest of their lives. The “federal intervention” argument is a smoke-screen that has been added to hate crimes bills as a final push to get these feel-good, do-nothing laws passed. What’s really going on is that as time has passed since Matthew Shepard’s murder, hate crimes proposals have been losing steam and liberals can no longer push these bills through by ludicrously insisting they will prevent crime (and demonizing their opposition by accusing them of being IN FAVOR of more crimes against gays). So in these new, improved hate crimes proposals, gays are outfitted with a second layer of victimization. Without any factual support of “indifference” on the part of local police whatsoever (see examples above), the liberals add the federal intervention provisions to imply that gays are FIRST victimized by violent criminals, and then victimized a SECOND time by local law enforcement when their efforts to seek justice are callously ignored. Hence, the feds need to be called in because local authorities can’t be trusted. This is, of course, inexcusable slander against the dedicated police officers who arrested the killers of Gaither, Weaver, Speigner, McGraw, etc., but liberals aren’t bothered by that all. They have no problem labeling innocent people as homophobes, as long as it helps get these “vital” laws passed.
Accordingly, I’m not only not in favor of such laws, but I am vehemently opposed to them. So, if your argument in favor of these laws is nothing more than: (1) gays have been murdered; and (2) local law enforcement has done “nothing” because they don’t care about crimes against gays, you’re dead in the water.
Of course, the bigger point of GP’s post is that liberals indignantly refuse to consider arguments like the ones above when discussing this or any other issue. Gay lefties are physically incapable of agreeing to disagree. Differing opinions are tied directly to personal character–they are unable to acknowledge even the EXISTENCE of a rational counter-argument, albeit one that they disagree with. The proof, of course, is your comment #73–that conservatives don’t support these leftist proposals simply because they “don’t care about other people’s problems.” In comment after comment, I and others have explained in detail some of the rational arguments against these proposals–not because we expect you to agree with them, but just to educate you about the existence of alternative views. But after all that, you return to the same tired conclusion that all liberals do: conservatives are heartless and “indifferent” to gays that have been brutally murdered, abused or discriminated against (i.e. #73: “No..just not care about their problems. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.”) So, as usual, any rational debate is dispensed with in favor of a conclusion involving “love” and “hate.” Conservatives just “don’t care,” and in your view, this is a perfectly reasonable justification for being subjected to hatred, disgust and vilification from the “Gay Community” (whatever the hell that is). If this is acceptable to you, then that’s fine, but please pardon my loud chuckles if you or any other liberal calls the Democratic Party the “Party Of Ideas” and the Republican Party the “Party Of Hate.” Rush Limbaugh’s axiom is absolutely true: conservatives think liberals are wrong; liberals think conservatives are evil. Are you okay with that?
I’ll respond to your other points about the Alabama Supreme Court later (you obviously have a real problem with former Judge Moore, as do I and every other conservative pundit, radio host and blogger I’m aware of). I’m going to bed. Cheers.
Tom, amen to your #64, but it only reminded North Dallas Thirty that he hadn’t played that song today, so off went the little Wurlitzer in #67, and then, astonishingly enough, he moved from there to highlighting a drinking and drug problem among gays and tying that to “guaranteed jobs” (again) in his #68. Damn, the boy REALLY seems not to like gay folk other than the 3-4 he chats with online.
And before you forget again, North Dallas Thirty…did you find that easily available Internet summary of Dem-Rep votes on gay issues? Post it kiddo and let’s see what happens to your “Dems and Reps are equally anti-gay” arguments.
The successive posts by ilovecapitalism perfectly illustrate, even if at first without obvious malice, what moderate and liberal commenters encounter here from the more rabid of the gay patriots – this constant false accusation that we do not support the fight against terrorism and that we are therefore unpatriotic. Beyond the obvious “last refuge” motivation behind this false charge and leaving aside the fact that Democrats in Congress had to push the Bush into creating the DHS and have partnered with Republicans to award him unprecedented power to combat terrorism, the implication is that, if we do not support the failed components of his strategy for combating terrorism – i.e., attacking and occupying a country just for the hell of it – then somehow we don’t meet the standards for patriotism set by those who created the strategy. How self-serving an argument that is. Since the memories of many gay patriots are so limited, I’ll remind you that we were doing just fine as a unified and patriotic people when we were blowing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, right up to Tora Bora, and then the veer into Iraq. Now, add 2 + 2…
Opposing the Iraq War – not necessarily unpatriotic.
Rooting for the enemy – unpatriotic. Barring JROTC from all San Fransicko high schools – unpatriotic. Turning up your nose at docking a World War 2 battleship in San Fransicko Bay – unpatriotic. Accusing US troops of butchering Iraqi civilians – unpatriotic. Accusing US troops of massarcing troops at Haditha – unpatriotic. Making up phony stories about US troops creating war crimes (a la Scott Beauchamp and Jessie MacBeth) – unpatriotic.Making heroes out of those who spread lies about our soldiers – unpatriotic. Undercutting the war effort and thereby encouraging terrorists to kill more US soldiers – unpatriotic. Describing US troops as “American Myrmidon” – unpatriotic. Describing US soldiers as “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or something out od Pol Pot” – unpatriotic.
Perhaps the difference between legitimate criticism and traitorous slander is too subtle for the gross leftist mind to grasp.
Beside which, as we all learned in college, the elite left sneers at patriotism, regarding it as a crude an atavistic impulse that no post-modern comrade citizen of the world would ever dirty his multi-culti diversity-enhanced mind with.
BTW: If you can oppose the Iraq War without hating your country, why can’t you oppose ENDA/same-sex-marriage without hating gay people?
BTW: Using children as human shields in Olympia to prevent loading of equipment for troops in Iraq, not just unpatriotic, but child abuse.
#74 So whats your plan for stopping these crimes in Alabama? You know what? We don’t even know the full extent of the problem because the Republican Alabama Atty Generals Office refuses to collect hate crime data on the basis of sexual orientation. Obviously, the current Alabama policy of demonizing LGBT Alabamians and then waiting for crimes like this to happen isn’t working. Billy Jack, Scotty, and Prof. Speigner are still dead. And Speigner’s killer will likely be out of prison in ten years (after the judge gave the minimum sentence for the crime). I contrast the behavior of those Republican officials with their actions during the church burnings and Natalee Holloway cases. Im sorry, but when a church window has more standing under the law than a Gay life, I have problems with that.
In the Singh case, this is an issue that strikes at the heart of the inconsistencies of our national government’s treatment of extremist religious groups. While I support efforts to monitor and moderate radical Islamic groups, I don’t see the same efforts with the radical extremist groups that happen to not be Islamic. I think we do a better job in vetting Jamaican, Russian, Saudi, Nigerian, and Iranian immigrants. And remember, that group in Sacramento can mail order marriages to get more of them over here legally while a Gay man can not get immigration status for their legitimate partner. The PPIA has how many GOP cosponsors? Two?. I’m just saying.
I repeat my question about which current GOP candidate supports national marriage equality or even civil unions? And it ain’t Giuliani.
Howard Dean got in a fight with some people at the DNC. He got slapped down for it and deserved the criticism he received. So, an openly Gay Republican could take a leadership role in the GOP? Do y’all remember Kolbe’s speech at the RNC? So when will the GOP stop demonizing LGBT people in election campaigns? For an example, I’ll use the Ky GOP Pat Boone robocalls as an example. Sure, it was the state party and not the national one, but I hear crickets chirping from the national and other GOP leaders on that one. For the GOP, brown and pink are the new black.
#85
So by your zany rational, Mike Mukasey is unpatriotic
I wait for your condemnation of him
Unless of course like your patriotism, your bravado is also phony
Speigner’s killer got the minimum sentence (he will likely be out of jail in 10 years – I think the ‘gay panic’ defense worked there), Riley and King (Alabama’s GOP Gov and AG) said nothing while going bananas about hate crimes against church property and the murder of Natalee Holloway. What is your plan to stop these crimes before they happen? Because the Alabama AG’s is currently refusing to collect data on hate crimes against LGBT Alabamians, we don’t even know the extent of the problem. Nice try. Sammie, Billy Jack, and Scotty are still dead.
In the Singh case, it might be instructive if the US government included radical evangelical groups in its’ monitoring program like it does for radical Islamic groups. Furthermore, his killers church members can mail order spouses from the old country legally, but Gay native born Americans cannot get their legitimate partners here legally. How many GOP cosponsors of PPIA? Two?
Got any links from someone who isn’t a raging lunatic, silly one?
Didn’t think so.
Let’s give Beauchamps credit where credit’s due. He’s finishing his term of service over there.
It is a good arguement VtK. I mean adults can agree on the execution of the war on Islamofsacism. I for one prefer a Sherman-esque approach, but how can people not agree on that it needs to be done?
The difference between that and ENDa is we fundamentally don’t agree of the need of it.
Let me try to put the disagreement as neutral as I can, as I see them.
Tom, KY (I just realized this week it’s Kentucky, not the Jelly), Ian, etc.:
You see the need for ENDA as a pre-emptive defensive strike. The purpose of ENDA is to insure the freedom to be hired and not punished, disciplined, whichever term you choose to use, even if the market doesn’t accomidate you.
Myself, Dan, NDT, etc. We see ENDA as a (further) unconstitutional Government intrusion into the right of free assembly, the right of the businessman to hire/fire whomever they see fit for what reason. We see the market as a natural balancing factor. If the employer doesn’t want to hire Dan because of his sexual preference, me because I’m fat, LNC because she’s a woman, it’s their loss of our skills and productivity.
At the same time, we’re agreeing to the employer’s rules and adapting to their environment. I have to be able to use equipment built for a right handed person, Dan can’t have long passionate make out sessions in the lobby, LNC shouldn’t tak about her hot passionate date if it’s going to make people uncomfortable, etc.
Hopefully this is as neutral as I can get it, and I’m right in summing up the disagreements on this.
I think your analysis is fair and neutral, Livewire, nicely done. You are wise, and not the least bit silly.
#63:
Heh. I don’t think you were around for the last time I was accused of sock-puppetry. There’s a reason few folks – perhaps only one – are getting on that silly bandwagon this time.
The problem is the most offensive ranters are among the most prolific commenters so the ad hominem attacks are quite frequent. Furthermore, the attacks are rarely condemned and often supported by other conservatives if not with the same degree of venom. Dan says his date called him a day or so later to end whatever might have been budding between them. Is it much of a stretch to imagine that date might have ventured onto this blog and read attacks like this? It would certainly be understandable if the guy felt a little discomfort all the more if what he read occurred in a thread generated by one of Dan’s posts. Especially without any criticism apart from those to whom it was directed.
Livewire, V the K’s right (on that ONE post), though I’d modify what he said to be “as close to” “fair and neutral” as we’re going to get here.
I would add a bit more to your case for my side. ENDA’s an extension to gay people, for the first time, of an attempt by our country to guarantee — NOT a job/promotion/right to make out/etc. — but to guarantee at least an equal chance amid everyone else. It’s a start, though it’ll be decades (and probably with considerable natural attrition) to move some employers to an equal consideration of and treatment of gay employees as they accord to others. And you know, there WILL always be people trying to work any system of fairness to their own gain or to the detriment of others and those people seem to be all that many here are worrying about; they’re not thinking of all the people this will help. As an employer in an area of the country where diversity is a generally accepted goal, and in a firm with a really good mix of people — all hired for what they can do and not what they look like, sound like, dress like, etc — I have had instances of people trying to work fairness laws. And, in one recent case, was even sued through the state-level labor dept. by two lesbians who claimed their dismissals were the result of bias up and down the line in our firm (and not for excessive missed days and poor performance). Unfortunately for them, they were not aware that our firm’s ownership is gay or that the firm’s work as a Federal contractor (don’t go leaping folks, it’s only about 5% of our total revenues) meant that we adhere to (and train toward) Federal laws promoting diversity and avoiding bias. They were also not aware that the individuals they pinpointed as biased were people I had personally trained and people whom many others could vouch for when it came to fair treatment. Their complaint was quickly dismissed by the people at the state labor department — people who some here would sneer at as quota-filled bureaucrats, but who were in reality good folks doing their jobs well (by investigating the complaint, hearing both sides, and making a fair decision). Anticipating that some here will rejoin with “but look at all the time, red tape, blah-blah that the situation imposed on the firm”, I need to add that it took maybe two total hours of my time, plus a couple of hours by a couple of the legal staff. So, no bureaucratic horror story to latch onto here, folks.
So, I know first-hand what’s possible in this situation, and related to ENDA, I’m not worried about the occasional couple of miscreants (and there will be more of them, some gay, some not). Instead, I’m joyful about the possibilities for millions of other people. I just wish the Gay Patriots could experience the same joy.
By the way, this site seems to be populated mainly by conservative theorists. Any other employers here? If so, I’d be interested to hear of your own, real-world, experiences with diversity goaling.
LOL 🙂 Indeed.
Well, I know there are some leftists who get the difference. Indeed, in the 20th century there would have been alot!
But today, such people, like Senator Lieberman (my hero), get nothing but… (drumroll)… “Misunderstanding & Loathing from the Netroots”. As we see so very much of, on this blog.
#88: While your argument may be valid in the discussion over whether there should be any anti-discrimination laws at all, it’s not so clear to me that it’s valid in arguing for keeping sexual orientation off the long list of those characteristics that are currently protected. It’s not as if those protections are going anywhere or will be affected in any way by the addition of sexual orientation to the list.
#59 “5) To those who can’t ever think of anyone who could possibly need ENDA, we’re not even speaking the same language.”
I’ve only read to #60 so far so…
Tom, you’re right. It’s a “speak the same language” issue. It’s base assumptions that are so accepted that they are invisible. This is your assumption:
The problem and the solution are one and the same.
They aren’t.
You assume that recognition of the problem (discrimination against gays in the workplace) is and must be acceptance of the ONLY solution, which is ENDA.
It’s not.
People may or may not agree on the problem of discrimination or the scope of the problem. Even if they AGREE about the problem, there is no reason at all to assume that ENDA is the proper solution.
More than one person has pointed out that they believe ENDA and similar measures actively hurt us and have the potential, with other anti-freedom measures, to put us all in a really bad place. This has nothing to do with recognizing, or not, that some people suffer workplace discrimination.
The company my husband works for has a Latino co-owner. On purpose. Because the other co-owner is a lawyer and knows that because he has a Latino partner they will get PREFERENCE on government contracts.
I’m not going to tell him that this is rather vile, I think he knows it. But he’s playing the game by the rules that WE have given him.
Companies without minority owners are discriminated against legally (though I’d say NOT Constitutionally) and quite frankly it’s WRONG and it’s HARMFUL.
So are any other measure that will give any minority special protection.
It has nothing to do with CARING about people or wanting to HELP people. It has to do with recognizing that good intentions aren’t enough to replace thinking about the complex ways we get screwed by the feel-good solutions.
(And even obviously, personally, benefiting from the minority-business perks, I can see that they are WRONG.)
#93 Amen.
Because an argument against anti-discrimination/preference laws, thought crime laws, and the resulting erosion of liberty as well as the acceptance of discrimination against approved groups… requires actually opposing those laws.
You think?
You don’t have to agree, Tom, but it does worry me that the only logic that you can attribute to those with whom you disagree is a failure to care about other people.
A few responses now that my postings are making it in here again,
Just to clear up a few issues regarding the situation in Alabama.
1) The killer of Speigner got a sentence that amounts to 10 years in prison. You sure you want to tell me that the ‘gay panic defense’ didn’t work there? For shooting someone in cold blood?
2) If not HCPA, then what? Contrast the behavior of Gov Riley and AG King in response to these killings with their reaction to the church burnings in 2004 or the Natalee Holloway case. By the way, we don’t even know how bad the problem is because the AG’s office in Alabama wont even collect data on hate crimes based on sexual orientation. I think it is a deliberate attempt to not have to do anything about it. And I don’t think all Republicans are that cyncial. Just Troy King. You know, prosecuting people after they’ve murdered someone while continuing the rhetorical gay bashing by many in the GOP isn’t working. Pink and Brown appear to me to be the new Black. Whats your prevention plan? I’d like to see PSA’s by elected officials, a ban on the ‘gay panic defense’, a repeal of any judicial theory allowing GOP Alabama Chief Justices to opine that a case doesn’t have to be argued on its merits because the state of Alabama has the authority to mandate execution for gays and lesbians, and hate crime equality between a window in a church and a Gay life for starters.
In the California case, I’d like to see the US government track radical foreign based fundamentalist groups operating in this country based upon their actions and rhetoric equally between Islamic and other religions. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be freedom of religion or thought. We just shouldn’t be importing it here from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jamaica, or the Ukraine.
As far as Howard Dean goes, he certainly screwed up and got smacked down. And deserved it. However, how bout the GOP and openly Gay inclusion? Not so much. Y’all remember Kolbe’s speech at the RNC convention. I certainly remember the fear of bodily injury that I experienced at the 2000 Texas GOP Convention in Fort Worth when all we did was protest the deliberate exclusion of the LCR Texas group. Ok I criticized Dean. Some of y’all can’t even smack down Kilgore for crying out loud. Please.
ENDA is important. Not because it will cause millions of successful lawsuits. The vast majority of EEOC complaints are unsuccessful because most current anti-discrimination laws are notoriously hard to prove for the plaintiff. But what it does do is strongly encourage business owners to foster an appropriate work enviornment (which would have helped me when I got the ‘hey faggot treatment’ at my former employer – which was before the Oncale decision). And still I can’t fire someone because they go to some right wing anti-Gay suburban mega church, but they can fire me because if they feel that being Gay is a sin. I’m sorry, something needs to be equalized. The Democrats are largely trying to equalize it, the GOP – not so much.
Ian, great points.
Synova,
When I hear the justification for their opposition to ENDA is that ‘I’m doing okay so its not needed’, I get that selfish feeling. Its not everyone, but it exists above in the thread.
By the way, some of y’all are confusing affirmative action with ENDA. They’re not exactly the same thing. ENDA doesn’t mandate set-asides
The killer of Speigner got a sentence that amounts to 10 years in prison.
No; he got a sentence of 21 years in prison, with possibility of parole in ten years.
Hardly “doing nothing” — and the life sentences of those who killed Billy Jack Gaither and Scotty Joe Weaver, I notice, were completely and utterly ignored by you.
But why becomes obvious with your statement here:
and hate crime equality between a window in a church and a Gay life for starters.
And that shows the pathetic insanity of your demands. People are getting life sentences and having to take plea bargains to avoid the death penalty for taking a gay person’s life — and you are screaming that it’s not good enough and that a church window gets more penalty.
Personally, the Alabama cases you cited are the best examples of why we DON’T need hate crimes laws — because things are being prosecuted and punished quite nicely and equally without them.
Amazing how that works when you aren’t carrying a chip on your shoulder about how everyone in Alabama is “homophobic”.
And again, KY, your stories are amusing, but pointless, especially since Kentucky, where you claim to be, doesn’t HAVE a state ENDA. Thus it’s no surprise that the “claim” you pontificate about didn’t go anywhere.
Instead, why don’t we talk about lesbian Bonnie Bleskachek in Minnesota, where the state ENDA prevented her employer from firing her despite a record of YEARS of demanding sex from her coworkers, retaliating against coworkers who refused her, and discriminating against straight people — costing the city of Minneapolis millions of dollars in legal fees, settlements, and whatnot?
In short, under ENDA laws, liberal gays and lesbians like yourself have a proven track record of using them, not to avoid workplace discrimination, but to impose it and their own sexual needs on their coworkers.
The killer of Speigner got a sentence that amounts to 10 years in prison.”
No; he got a sentence of 21 years in prison, with possibility of parole in ten years.
Hardly “doing nothing” — and the life sentences of those who killed Billy Jack Gaither and Scotty Joe Weaver, I notice, were completely and utterly ignored by you.
But why becomes obvious with your statement here:
“and hate crime equality between a window in a church and a Gay life for starters.”
And that shows the pathetic insanity of your demands. People are getting life sentences and having to take plea bargains to avoid the death penalty for taking a gay person’s life — and you are screaming that it’s not good enough and that a church window gets more penalty.
Personally, the Alabama cases you cited are the best examples of why we DON’T need hate crimes laws — because things are being prosecuted and punished quite nicely and equally without them. Amazing how that works when you aren’t carrying a chip on your shoulder about how everyone in Alabama is “homophobic”.
And again, KY, your stories are amusing, but pointless, especially since Kentucky, where you claim to be, doesn’t HAVE a state ENDA. Thus it’s no surprise that the “claim” you pontificate about didn’t go anywhere. Instead, why don’t we talk about lesbian Bonnie Bleskachek in Minnesota, where the state ENDA prevented her employer from firing her despite a record of YEARS of ( http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2006-meetings/20061222/docs/Bleskachek_SummaryConclusion.pdf ) demanding sex from her coworkers, retaliating against coworkers who refused her, and discriminating against straight people — costing the city of Minneapolis millions of dollars in legal fees, settlements, and whatnot?
In short, under ENDA laws, liberal gays and lesbians like yourself have a proven track record of using them, not to avoid workplace discrimination, but to impose it and their own sexual needs on their coworkers.
No Tom – ENDA only mandates that employers can’t control who they hire and fire, and that gay people should have more “rights” (alleged) than straights.
What I came to say: Synova, you are obviously too good to stoop to Tom’s tactics. I admire you for that. If you did stoop to Tom’s tactics, then you could not avoid observing here what a completely selfish, heartless individual he is – because he cares not one whit for the U.S. Constitution, or the freedoms of his fellow Americans.
(i.e., observing that all he cares about is whether “he has his” freedom and job security)
Really, Tom? Tell that to the Supreme Court, which specifically stated in cases like Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which it was made perfectly clear that discrimination against whites and males was perfectly legal under Title VII, claiming that it is a “compelling state interest”.
Or to the numerous decisions that have made clear that it is a “compelling government interest” to discriminate against white- and male-owned businesses in awarding government contracts.
Or to KYKid, who openly admits that his firm sets “diversity goals”, aka quotas, for employees — meaning that if you’re white or male, you might as well go to the end of the line.
All of these are fully empowered by Title VII, mind you, which has the same language as ENDA — and which you claim doesn’t mandate or allow “set-asides”.
#101 No..all I’m requesting is equality. If a Gay man cannot fire someone because he is a anti-Baptist, then an anti-Gay Baptist shouldn’t be able to fire someone because he is Gay. Or vice-versa. I don’t see any movement by any official in the GOP or the Democratic party to allow discrimination in private employment based on religious belief; as a result, it should follow that in the interest of fairness, that sexual orientation should be included as a protected class. I’m not aware of set asides for religious groups, but they are covered by employment non-discrimination laws.
In the end, it should be illegal to discriminate in private or public employment based upon perceived or actual external characteristics or beliefs.
Yep, I guess it makes me selfish that I don’t believe that there should be legal discrimination in public and private employment, that public policy should draw no distinction between religious expression and being Gay, etc. (end heavy sarcasm). Sorry, you’re not selling me, and I seriously doubt you’re selling many people outside of here either.
So there are government set asides and affirmative action based upon religious beliefs? You learn something new every day.
Tried to post this last night, but it never showed up, so I’m trying again…
Hi Tom,
Regarding your points concerning hate crimes legislation (#61 & #69)…
Actually, I have very deep Southern roots. My mother’s family is from Meridian, Mississippi and I lived in Jackson for a number of years while attending college (I was the fifth generation in my family to attend the school and the Chemistry Chair is in my great uncle’s name). I have also spent considerable time in Alabama (primarily Mobile, Birmingham and Smith Lake) and Louisiana. I don’t dispute that gays have been brutalized and murdered in the South. Gays have also been murdered in California, where I currently live. In fact, I’d bet that many straight people were murdered in these locales as well. The giant, gaping hole in your hate crimes argument (the same one that liberals always fail to even address) is that hate crimes legislation will do NOTHING to stop these crimes. Teenage degenerates with the propensity to beat others with hammers and burn their bodies all while screaming Bible verses are not going to change their ways because a legislature passes a law (even if that law mandates a stiffer sentence upon conviction).
Accordingly, these laws do nothing to resolve or prevent crime, and instead create a dangerous precedent by which our governments are given free rein to value one group of people over others based solely upon the color of their skin, who they sleep with, etc. These measures appeal to gay liberals not because they make gay people (and other minorities) safer–but because it makes them FEEL better about themselves and assures them that their government values them as people. I find such quests for government “approval” of gays to be repugnant and dangerous–it literally turns a core principle upon which this country was founded on its head. Our constitution was designed for government to seek OUR APPROVAL, not the other way around.
So, Tom, I still haven’t heard a viable argument in support of this “vital” type of “needed” legislation–the fact that gays have been murdered and abused both in the South and everywhere else is simply no justification for these laws.
The other argument you seem to be making is that hate crimes legislation is needed because law enforcement (particularly, the Alabama Attorney General) “has pretty much sat on its hands and prevented collection of critical crime data” related to an epidemic of gay lynchings (#61). (You also state that the Attorney General has done “just about nothing about a rather nasty spate of violence against Gay and Lesbian persons.”) First of all, if law enforcement is so indifferent to these crimes, why are you able to provide so many details of the various assailants in comment # 69? Is it possible that in spite of being slack-jawed, inbred homophobes, the Alabama police actually did their job and caught the psychopaths? Hmmmmmmmmmmm………
-Billy Jack Gaither: Steven Mullins and Charles Butler are currently serving life terms in prison without the possibility of parole for Gaither’s murder. In fact, Mullins would be on death row had it not been for the victim’s family intervening because Gaither opposed the death penalty.
-Scotty Joe Weaver: Christopher Gaines is serving a life sentence without parole for Weaver’s murder; Robert Porter is serving 2 consecutive life sentences; Gaines’s girlfriend, Nichole Kelsay is serving a 20 year sentence.
-Sammie Speigner: Raymond Carlisle is currently serving a 21-year sentence for Speigner’s murder. [To clarify, you stated that Speigner’s murderer “successfully” used the “gay panic defense,” which is true only in the sense that it allowed Carlisle to avoid a conviction for capital murder versus the conviction for felony murder he received. I also have a problem with the “gay panic” defense being permissible, however, the point here is to address your argument that local law enforcement has ignored these cases and federal intervention is needed.]
-Jack David McGraw: Gary Leon Brown was executed in 2003 for McGraw’s murder, during which he was stabbed 60+ times.
If the Alabama authorities have “done nothing” then why are all of these people in jail for the rest of their lives? The point of all of this information is to respond to your claim that you have to “turn to the Federal Government” because the Alabama Attorney General and Republican politicians (Riley, King, Sessions) have ignored the problem of “gay lynchings” and “are unlikely to do anything to provide the equal protection under the law.”
“Equal protection” is a legal term and you are not using it correctly. “Equal protection under the law” means only that government is required to treat all similarly-situated individuals the same when applying the law. The Equal Protection Clause is not a guarantee that all perpetrators of gay “hate crimes” will be brought to justice. It would only be implicated if Alabama law enforcement implemented a policy that crimes against gays would not be investigated or prosecuted simply because the victims were gay. Obviously, no such policy exists (your purely subjective and speculative belief that homophobia is rampant in the upper echelons of the Alabama state government, notwithstanding.) Further, government incompetence is not sufficient to show a denial of equal protection–in other words, just because the cops’ investigation doesn’t lead to the arrest of the bad guy, doesn’t mean the victim’s constitutional rights have been violated. [Conversely, there is a very solid argument that hate crimes laws imposing stiffer penalties for crimes against gays is a violation of the equal protection rights of heterosexuals.]
However, all of this is really irrelevant in light of the fact that the Alabama authorities have apparently done a bang-up job of arresting these worthless degenerates and putting them in jail for the rest of their lives. The “federal intervention” argument is a smoke-screen that has been added to hate crimes bills as a final push to get these feel-good, do-nothing laws passed. What’s really going on is that as time has passed since Matthew Shepard’s murder, hate crimes proposals have been losing steam and liberals can no longer push these bills through by ludicrously insisting they will prevent crime (and demonizing their opposition by accusing them of being IN FAVOR of more crimes against gays). So in these new, improved hate crimes proposals, gays are outfitted with a second layer of victimization. Without any factual support of “indifference” on the part of local police whatsoever (see examples above), the liberals add the federal intervention provisions to imply that gays are FIRST victimized by violent criminals, and then victimized a SECOND time by local law enforcement when their efforts to seek justice are callously ignored. Hence, the feds need to be called in because local authorities can’t be trusted to enforce the law. This is, of course, inexcusable slander against the dedicated police officers who arrested the killers of Gaither, Weaver, Speigner, McGraw, etc., but liberals aren’t bothered by that all. They have no problem labeling innocent people as homophobes, as long as it helps get these supposedly “vital” laws passed.
Accordingly, I’m not only NOT in favor of such laws, but I am vehemently opposed to them. So, if your argument in favor of these laws is nothing more than: (1) gays have been murdered; and (2) local law enforcement has done “nothing” because they don’t care about crimes against gays–you’re dead in the water.
Of course, the bigger point of GP’s post is that liberals are incapable and unwilling to consider arguments like the ones above when discussing this or any other issue. Gay lefties are physically incapable of agreeing to disagree. Differing opinions are tied directly to personal character–they are unable to acknowledge even the EXISTENCE of a rational counter-argument, albeit one that they disagree with. The proof, of course, is your comment #73–that conservatives don’t support these leftist proposals simply because they “don’t care about other people’s problems.” In comment after comment, I and others have explained in detail some of the rational arguments against these proposals–not because we expect you to agree with them, but just to educate you about the existence of alternative views. But after all that, you return to the same tired conclusion that all liberals do: conservatives are heartless and “indifferent” to gays that have been brutally murdered, abused or discriminated against (i.e. #73: “No..just not care about their problems. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.”) So, as usual, any rational debate is dispensed with in favor of a conclusion involving “love” and “hate.” Conservatives just “don’t care,” and in your view, this is a perfectly reasonable justification for being subjected to hatred, disgust and vilification from the “Gay Community” (whatever the hell that is). If this is acceptable to you, then that’s fine, but please pardon my loud chuckles if you or any other liberal calls the Democratic Party the “Party Of Ideas” and the Republican Party the “Party Of Hate.” Rush Limbaugh’s axiom is absolutely true: conservatives think liberals are wrong; liberals think conservatives are evil. Are you okay with that?
I’ll respond to your other points about the Alabama Supreme Court later (you obviously have a real problem with former Judge Moore, as do I and every other conservative pundit, radio host and blogger I’m aware of).
Tom,
I wrote a comment last night addressing the hate crimes issues you raised, but so far I’ve had no luck posting it. In the meantime, I have a question for you.
In #98 (and elsewhere) you call for a “ban on the ‘gay panic defense.'” Would the enactment of a hate crimes law in Alabama that authorizes criminal prosecutors to seek harsher penalties by presenting evidence that the defendant committed a violent crime while entertaining anti-gay thoughts…
(a) Lead to the eradication of the gay-panic defense in criminal cases,
OR
(b) Ensure the continuing vitality of the defense in our justice system?
Take your time.
#103: Well done, NDT! Are you sure you’re not an attorney? Tom can say that all ENDA mandates is “equality,” but decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence irrefutably confirm the opposite–that it is precisely these types of laws (that seem neutral on the surface) that inevitably produce pro-active, discriminatory hiring and recruitment policies in the public and private sector. Any corporate or government employee who doubts this need only open their employee handbook to the page bearing the title “COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY” to confirm it.
#106: “So there are government set asides and affirmative action based upon religious beliefs?”
Yup. Proponents of multi-culturalism and diversity-for-diversity’s-sake are always on the lookout for “qualified” employees and students who practice “traditionally underrepresented” religions. Meaning, no Christians. Basically, if the practice of your religion requires a gong, insence, finger cymbals, a crystal ball, a Ouija board or anything resembling a Darth Vader costume, you’re in.
Tom,
My post regarding the issues you raised about hate crimes yesterday is now up at #83.
#105 “In the end, it should be illegal to discriminate in private or public employment based upon perceived or actual external characteristics or beliefs.”
I beleive the following is a reducto ad absurdium arguement. Sorry, never had debate in High School:
So a strip club should not be allowed to not hire a fat dancer? Or a store should not be allowed to hire someone to whom soap is an alien concept? Fred Phelps as an AIDS councelor?
We discriminate all the time. Everyone does. It’s not by itself a bad word. But Tom, that quote, it opens a Pandora’s Box of bad consequences.
And I’m curious, as to the “Gay fear’ or whatever murder defence. If a court can tack on extra time for someone’s thoughts (hate crimes) why isn’t it fair that the jury can take time off for the same reason?
#107:
Would I be correct to assume then that you think a criminal’s thoughts should simply not be considered in determining punishment at all, not just in the case of anti-gay thoughts?
I can’t speak for Sean, Ian, but as for me, yes.
If I’m shot for my wallet. or because I’m 1/4 Jewish, or because I’m straight it doesn’t matter, I’m still dead.
The laws already do discern between premeditated and ‘crimes of passion’.
May I try to reverse your question? I get shot for my wallet, you get shot for your choice of bedpartners. Why should my attacker get a lesser sentence than yours?
#113:
So then it does matter what the criminal’s thoughts are when a crime is committed.
Because my attacker is conveying a threat to the entire gay community: every gay person is put on notice that they should be shot for simply being gay. Now here’s a question for you: someone paints “Kilroy was here” on a synagogue wall. The following week someone else paints “Jews will die!” together with a swastika on the same wall. The perpetrators are caught. The “Kilroy” painter is a college student never in trouble with the law. The other guy is the same age, has never been in trouble with the law but is a member of a neo-nazi group. Apparently you would argue that they both guilty of identical crimes and should receive identical punishments. I would disagree.
Hmm, good question. I hope this doesn’t seem previcating but “Killroy was here” is vandalism “Jews must die” is inciting violence and vandalism.
I’d say that if the neo-nazi spray painted “Hitler was here.” it’s the same crime. Tasteless in both cases, but the same crime.
And isn’t my shooter, by his actions, “every person with money in his wallet is put on notice that they should be shot for simply having money in his wallet”?
Premeditation is differnt though. Premeditation is the deliberate planning of the crime. Crimes of passion are “I found him in bed with my wife, the sword was on the wall, I saw red, your honour.”
Well said, Ian
Sean, I wasn’t even aware of the McGraw case. Was that in Mississippi? Responding to your other item, I don’t see any company trying to hire Wiccans or Buddhists or Methodists in an affirmative action program. I don’t see set asides for Catholics or for Mormons in government contracting (other than in Bush’s faith based payola – where there is a set aside 100% for his political allies). If you’re talking about manger displays, maybe, but that really isn’t a GLBT civil rights issue or is it an employment or funding issue.
#115: Actually, it was “Jews will die” which I, along with the miscreant’s lawyer, could reasonably argue is a benign statement of fact not an incitement to violence. And, unless you’re going to delve into the person’s thoughts – something I assume you would not want to do – you’re not going to be able to establish otherwise. WRT premeditation/passion, consider the following: two men get into a fight. One is a very powerful man. The other is average. In the first scenario, the former lands a punch that sends the other guy to the pavement where he hits his head on a concrete curb causing such serious brain damage that the man dies. The puncher is charged with negligent homicide. In the second scenario, everything else is the same except that just before he swings, the puncher shouts out “I’m going to kill you.” What should he be charged with?
#112: “Would I be correct to assume then that you think a criminal’s thoughts should simply not be considered in determining punishment at all, not just in the case of anti-gay thoughts?”
No, Ian. You would NOT be correct. The defendant’s state of mind is always at issue in a criminal case. Every crime is comprised of two essential elements: the “actus reus” (the actual conduct that accomplishes the crime); and the “mens rea” (the defendant’s state of mind when the actus reus is carried out). Hence, the distinction between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter. For murder, the mens rea must be premeditated intent to end the life of another. For involuntary manslaughter the mens rea is typically called recklessness or gross negligence.
In both situations, someone has died, but the defendant’s state of mind is the determining factor as to whether its murder or manslaughter, and to what degree the defendant will be punished.
The state of mind element should be confined to these basic degrees of culpability. Injecting the issue of the victim’s sexuality (or perceived sexuality) and how the defendant felt about it into criminal cases is absurd and designed SOLELY to appease the gay left’s never-ending, militant demand for societal approval compelled by government.
#118:
Why? Because you say so? You are quite happy to have a criminal’s thoughts determine the level of punishment meted out in certain circumstances but arbitrarily dismiss efforts to do so when the crime has the effect of terrorizing vast numbers of people beyond the individual victim.
You’re ranting as if hate crimes laws are something new dreamed up by the gay community. They’re not and indeed, serve to protect various communities based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. from what amounts to terrorism. What do gay conservatives hope to gain by opposing hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation? You think the homohaters are going to pat you on the head and thank you for your self-sacrificial effort in support of their bigoted agenda? Dream on.
#114: “The ‘Kilroy’ painter is a college student never in trouble with the law. The other guy is the same age, has never been in trouble with the law but is a member of a neo-nazi group. Apparently you would argue that they both guilty of identical crimes and should receive identical punishments. I would disagree.”
Oh my Lord, Ian. Is it possible that you have outdone yourself again? You are truly unbelievable.
Ian, it doesn’t surprise me that you would impose different punishments on the two hypothetical defendants you describe. The name for the distinction you cavalierly draw between the two vandals has a name: thought-crime.
Ian, your conclusion exposes the fascism of the left and that your endgame is NOT to use government to gain “equality,” but to punish and ultimately eradicate personal beliefs that you disagree with. Seriously, Ian, have you ever heard of or bothered to read the U.S. Constitution? I’m sure you have a long, rich history of screaming the word “unconstitutional” through a bullhorn whenever you want something from our government, but you have revealed that you have no idea what the words coming out of your mouth mean.
Ian, if you believe that the neo-nazi you describe above should receive greater punishment for his vandalism than Kilroy, then you truly have no idea what this country stands for. It means you support government suppression of personal beliefs and government-imposed punishment for one’s personal associations.
I know you probably won’t understand this, but here goes: Ian, in this country, people are free to BELIEVE that Jews are evil and that the world would be a better place if they were exterminated. In this country, people are free to BELIEVE that black people are inferior savages. In this country, people are free to BELIEVE that plants have feelings. We are free to BELIEVE anything we want, no matter how repugnant, scandalous or silly. It is one of the things that makes this country great.
The fact that you are blind to the implications of the mortifying conclusion you reached above, plainly demonstrates that you have no grasp of the concept of freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, and worse, you are completely comfortable with fascism but too obtuse to realize that fascism is exactly what you are advocating. It’s breathtaking really. Ian, how do you do it?
#116: “Sean, I wasn’t even aware of the McGraw case. Was that in Mississippi?”
No, Tom. All of the cases were in Alabama. You haven’t answered my question. You have argued that one of the reasons a hate crimes law is “vital” and “needed” is because it will authorize federal intervention in these cases–and thus, remedy Alabama’s supposedly egriegious refusal to investigate and prosecute these crimes. You have been unequivocal in your repeated assertions that Alabama authorities have done “nothing” to address these brutal murders of gay men.
So, let’s have it, Tom. Where is the FACTUAL EVIDENCE to substantiate your claim that the State of Alabama cannot be trusted to vindicate crimes that target gays?
#120: I think your insistence that the two miscreants be treated the same shows you to be outside the American mainstream. Indeed, in any jurisdiction where there are hate crimes laws, I’d bet that the Jewish community would demand and the authorities would gladly treat the neo-nazi vandal’s crime under the hate crimes statute. Indeed, here in conservative Arizona, we have those laws – passed by conservative repubs – and they have been enforced for just such defacing of houses of worship.
But you have no qualms shoving the TS & TG to the back of the bus. Nice.
Say, why don’t we include the incompetent and chronically tardy in these protections? Surely it’s wrong to fire them too. Better yet, instead of having ENDA, why not have all jobs asigned by the federal government. Let them do the HR stuff?
Say Tom,
How many billions in pork will be attatched to ENDA?
Will it have anything to do with balancing the budget? How about passing the emergency supplemental for our military? Will it do anything for No Child Left Behind (or the liberal fav, No Child’s Behind Left Untouchd)? Will it address the Terrorist Surveillance Program?
How about immigration reform? The energy bill? Healthcare? Mortgages? Justices? Real tax reform?
In short, is there anything useful this will address? Is there anything useful this liberal congress can do? Or are they too concerned with protecting their donors to give two shits about the rest of us?
I can provide even better examples, Sean, of supposedly-neutral laws being used to codify outright discrimination.
And that’s what the gay leftists want from ENDA; they want to force employers to hire and stop employers from ever firing gays, based solely on meeting the required number of gay people regardless of their performance.
It could have been written into ENDA that any sort of quota, affirmative action plan, or whatnot based on sexual orientation was strictly illegal — but it wasn’t. Wonder why not?
One More:
#91
BOOSH!!!
Hit the nail on the head, didn’t I Ian?
Ian, if my view that crimes like vandalism, arson, assult and murder should be prosecuted consistent with the U.S. Constitution places me outside the “American mainstream,” then I am happy to be there. I believe government is responsible for prosecuting criminals and putting them in jail. You believe government should prosecute criminals and put them in jail, and then tack on an extra 5-10 years to their prison term because of their personal beliefs. Under the reich you prefer: murder a man, go to jail for 10 years; murder a homosexual, go to jail for 10 years, then stay in jail for another 10 years because your personal beliefs are anti-gay and homophobic. And if you’re okay with that, then that’s your choice. But Ian, you can’t have it both ways. If this is the side you’re choosing then you’re stuck with it, even when they start throwing liberals in jail for “hate crimes” against Christians.
I have a hypothetical for you: the Supreme Court is moments from handing down an important ruling concerning abortion rights. Outside the court house, two groups have gathered to protest. One group is comprised of the typical, angry, bitter, agenda-of-rage NARAL pro-choice hags. The other group is comprised of pro-life Catholics and evangelical Christians. The protest starts to approach a boiling point. A handful of the protesters start yelling at one another. It becomes more and more heated until the two groups are practically nose to nose screaming at each other. One of the (historically law-abiding) pro-choice hags just snaps and in a moment of uncontrolled rage she screams at one of the pro-lifers, “fu*k you, you Bible-thumping, Jesus freak!” and punches the pro-lifer in the nose. When the NARAL hag is arrested for assault and battery and charged with a hate crime (since her actions were tied to religious prejudice) and she is facing a possible 30 days in jail for the assault, plus an additional 10 YEARS under a hate crimes statute (the amount that Arizona’s hate crimes law authorizes), just remember………YOU ASKED FOR IT.
Sean A, you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. Ian wants a world where people are punished for their social and political opinions. BTW, that violates the 14th Amendment (equal protection) as well as the 1st (Free Speech).
Regarding that… and TGC, regarding your mock-proposal to just have all jobs assigned by the government… I can never decide if the extreme Left hankers more for the technocratic totalitarian socialism of Orwell’s _1984_, or more for the backward totalitarian socialism of Ayn Rand’s _Anthem_. Probably both.
#124: Amen, brother. ENDA would be a blank check in the public sector, particularly for those idiotic do-gooder public school and university administrators, and a ticking time-bomb in the private sector. Public University chancellors across the country would gleefully interpret the “neutral” act as both a love letter and a solemn command from the federal government to recommit their efforts to diversity at all costs (because what’s more important to education than that!?) [I’m also reminded of those weird-looking ads that are always popping up in the freebie gay rags stating, “the San Diego Sheriff’s Department Is Hiring!” with a picture of an uncomfortable looking guy standing there in a cop uniform. Of course, the ad looks so out of place because every other ad on the page features photos of men from the neck down in their underwear along with the prices for IN-CALLS and OUT-CALLS.]
Private corporations would respond to the Act as a race against time to populate the office with homos pronto. Make it happen. Discrimination lawsuits have been out of control for so long that they are now regarded as one of the inevitable costs of doing business. However, private companies (particularly the ones based in California) learned long ago (millions and millions of dollars ago) that it would be financial Russian Roulette to respond to ENDA by simply “not discriminating.” I would be sued for malpractice and out on the street if my advice to a corporation was to respond to a discrimination lawsuit with the paltry defense that the company simply didn’t discriminate against anyone. No, in every case, it goes something like this: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence in this case will show that not only did XYZ Corp. not violate ENDA, but in fact, went above and beyond its legal obligations pursuant to its long-standing ‘Commitment To Diversity Policy’…..blah, blah, blah.” Corporations don’t leave liability exposure to chance–“benign” laws like ENDA are the reasons gay pride festivals start looking more like job fairs. And the liberals KNOW this from the Title VII playbook. So, to answer your question, the reason ENDA contains no language expressly stating that the law SHALL NOT be interpreted to authorize or require pro-active affirmative action programs or quotas, is because it would make it very inconvenient for liberal, activist judges to issue baseless rulings in the future interpreting ENDA to authorize or require affirmative action or quotas in favor of gays.
And that, my friend, would spoil all their diversity fun and we can’t have that.
#122: “But you have no qualms shoving the TS & TG to the back of the bus. Nice.”
Yeah, as if there’s a self-respecting tranny on Earth that would be caught dead riding public transportation.
Here’s what ENDA is all about:
Most people have a desire to be liked by others. Liberals can’t figure out why there’s a ton of people who are repulsed by their illogical, purple-plectic rage, hate and anger. They can’t figure out why people don’t just jump on board and accept the “gay culture” of the Folsom Street Fair etc. They can’t make friends through their “wit and charm” and instead of changing themselves so people will like them, the have to force everybody to like them via legislation, political correctness and multi-culturism. Their hope is that they can force people to like them by outlawing everyone’s own individual thought and prejudices.
Tom supposedly suffered a slight when someone at work said “hey faggot”. A mature person would roll their eyes and say “whatever”, vocally or not, move on and think little of it. However, when you lack a sack, that sort of thing makes you piss in your panties and you’re crippled by the notion that some people are a**holes. You can’t fathom the notion that there couldn’t possibly be anybody in the world who doesn’t think your sh*t doesn’t stink. The only way to deal with it, naturally, is to demand that Uncle Sugar make people like you. It is, after all, everybody elses’s fault.
Of course the legislation works in states like California and Washington where everybody’s a va-jay-jay(sp?), but it doesn’t work with the rest of the country. Invariably, forcing people to like you only makes people hate you more. Believe me, I know from experience (Jr. high). A lot of people don’t like the notion that San Francisco-ish values are being thrust (no double entendre intended) upon them and will resist as much as possible. You should know, Tom, that we Southerners don’t fancy folks comin’ ’round telling us how we should be.
You have to examine yourself (a foreign concept for liberals) and find out what it is about you that people don’t like. You have to change yourself, not change those around you. You have to give others a reason to like you and accept you, not tell them “you’ll like me or else”. You just wind up repelling everybody in sight.
So, Tom, somebody made a cruel remark to you at work. In the grand scheme of things, who really gives a damn? I don’t, I doubt many here do and you, especially, shouldn’t. Grow a pair and move on.
And before you get your tampon in a bunch, as I’ve pointed out, I have been disciminated against because I’m white and I’m a man and also because of the clothes I was wearing. I got over it, moved on and rarely think of it. I didn’t p*ss myself, wallow in the mud of victimhood shouting “oh woe is me” to anyone who cared to listen. That, btw, repels people too.
If you want to be respected and “liked”, give people something to respect and like. Don’t demand that they respect you and like you. If you go the latter route, they’re less likely to p*ss on you if you’re on fire.
It’s up to you, not them.
Long story short, take some responsibility for a change.
Ann Coulter is one of the best – not necessarily friend nor necessarily “ally” but – fellow conservatives a gay conservative will ever have. Bravo, again.
At least Tom seems to have developed a little understanding that opposition to ENDA can be based on principles and not “self-loathing.” That’s more progress than any other lefty has ever made on this forum.
North Dallas Thirty, in #104, says “KYKid openly admits that his firm sets “diversity goals”, aka quotas, for employees — meaning that if you’re white or male, you might as well go to the end of the line.” North, my boy, you don’t read carefully and have obviously never run a business. I think your problem may be that you studied a little conservative theory somewhere along the line and would like others here to believe you’re something of an expert on absolutely everything being discussed, including the staffing and shaping of a business. As they say in Texas, “all hat and no cattle” (or perhaps like your hero, GBush, all hat and no horse)?
#127: In 1993 (Wisconsin vs Mitchell), the US Supreme Court established that current type of hate crimes statutes (enhanced sentencing) are Constitutional and they did so by a unanimous decision.
#130:
Except in this thread! LOL!
#125:
Actually, it was.
Dear Sean A…
I don’t think that anti-abortion protesters are any less crazy than pro-choice protestors so your set-up is a little off to me. But yes, if people inflicted violence on anti-abortion activists for the purpose of threatening and intimidating them, then that would indeed be a hate crime. These laws should work both ways. If a group of gays beats up straight people who wonder into a gay neighborhood, then yes that is a hate crime. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Important clarification is needed here.
The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld that the hate crimes law in Wisconsin was Constitutional and overturned the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Other states might look to Wisconsin v. Mitchell and compare their hate crime statutes to Wisconsin’s, but SCOTUS did not rule on anything more than the specific law in question in Wisconsin.
I do.
A crime is a crime. A “hate” crime is a distinction without a clear difference.
If our jury system is weak on punishing people who do really bad things, it is not because it lacks the power.
Since “hate” is a comparative term and is without clear definition, we necessarily resort to narrowing it through definition within the statute. (“For the purposes of this statute, ‘hate’ shall be limited to those actions which include one or more of the following: blah, blah, blah.”)
Around a third of the states have some version of hate crimes statues and they are not identical in their definition or even intent.
If a person commits a crime while having a gun in his possession, why should he not be charged with hate? Even if the gun is fake or unloaded or left in the car, he still intended to take what was not his under the guise of causing deadly harm. Yet when the NRA says that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, we hear a huge chorus of people demanding that guns be banished or heavily restricted.
In most crimes, the perpetrator hates his victim. He hates the clerk at 7-11 for not meeting him at the door with a bag of cash. He hates the coed for not pulling her pants down and assuming the position. He hates the cop for pulling him over.
I fully understand that some need to feel hated as a “special” category, but I hardly see how it serves any concept of justice.
Count me with Heliotrope. ALL crimes are ultimately involve hate on some level. I do have a problem with the crime described: namely, that some people were beat up. I don’t care who or why.
My attitude, by the way, is something called “Equal Protection”. Which is in something called the “U.S. Constitution”.
A crime is a crime is a crime. If it’s offense against “the community”… well, ALL crimes are. Which is why prosecutors represent “The People”, and say, “The People versus O.J. Simpson” or what have you. (As opposed to saying “Nicole Brown, in absentia, versus O.J. Simpson”.)
#145:
Technically that’s true but pretty irrelevant: statutes based on the Wisconsin law are highly unlikely to be found unconstitutional. For all intents and purposes, hate crimes laws relying on enhanced penalties are constitutional and are being successfully used in law enforcement.
#141: And what a brilliantly logical and well-reasoned decision that is. In Mitchell, the Court agrees that government is prohibited from punishing individuals for their personal beliefs, and then proceeds to allow the State of Wisconsin to do exactly that.
A few highlights from the decision:
“[I]t is equally true that a defendant’s abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, may not be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge.” But crime that “…is thought to inflict greater individual AND SOCIETAL HARM…”, may be punished more severely by the state because it is “most destructive of the public safety AND HAPPINESS.” (emphasis added)
Translation: The Constitution prohibits the sentencing judge from considering the defendant’s beliefs unless it’s one of those really MEAN crimes that makes a minority group UNHAPPY. In other words, the Court is saying, “We would never dream of punishing an individual for their briefs, but here goes…”
Oh come now. We all know the difference between spraypainting “Houndie loves Gaypatriot” on a bridge and painting a swastika on the door of a syangogue. Let’s not pretend we don’t know the difference between vandalism and an open attempt to threaten and harrass a person or group for being different.
And yes, motivation is a factor in sentencing, if not there would be no difference between manslaughter, murder 1 and murder 2.
Actually, it was.
No, Ian, it wasn’t.
What was put in was the same weaselly wording used everywhere else, which is the “nothing in this act shall be construed or interpreted” — and yet, as history has shown us, time after time it has been construed or interpreted by the courts to force quotas — as in what I cited above.
It should surprise no one that you and your fellow liberal gays are trying to spin, rather than simply putting in a statement that all preferential treatment based on sexual orientation of any type is strictly illegal and leaving nothing up to “interpretation”. Period.
North, my boy, you don’t read carefully and have obviously never run a business.
The amusing part is, KY, that your saying that only makes it more obvious to several people here, who DO know me and what I do for a living, that you’re making up your own credentials. 😉
Isn’t it amazing how, when it was pointed out that your fictional lesbians’ lawsuit would have been dismissed regardless because Kentucky doesn’t HAVE an ENDA, you then ignored the obvious example of what happens when a state DOES have an ENDA — which is that liberal gays like yourself sexually harass coworkers, demand sex, and retaliate against those who won’t give in to you, then use ENDA’s prohibition on firing gays to keep their jobs?
#143: Ian, there is NOTHING in the language of ENDA that would prevent a plaintiff in a civil discrimination case from introducing evidence of the statistical makeup of a public or private organization’s workforce to prove liability. In every case brought under ENDA, a gay plaintiff could use the mere fact that a company has fewer gay employees than straight employees, or fewer gay employees than employees of other minorities to argue that there has been discrimination. Plaintiffs’ subjective arguments that in their opinion, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH gay people working in their companies are routinely permitted in these cases as “evidence” that discrimination has occurred in their particular case. This leaves an orgainzation with no choice but to prefer and affirmatively recruit, hire and retain employees merely because of their membership in a protected minority group. It’s like saying, “Yeah, the company has no obligation to fulfill a quota of gay employees, BUT ISN’T IT SUSPICIOUS THAT IN A WORKFORCE OF 50 ONLY 2 OF THEM ARE GAY? Hmmmmm….” This is the standard, accepted practice in the playbook of lawyers representing plaintiffs in discrimination cases. So to act as though ENDA would not compel employers to implement an affirmative action plan to insure against potential liability sounds great, but it bears no relationship to the reality employers have endured under Title VII (another federal law that supposedly imposes no obligation on employers to diversify the minority representation in their workforces).
What’s interesting about quotas? One of the biggest and most powerful advocates for quotas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for over a decade operated a law office in a city where African-Americans where the majority of the population … without ever hiring a single minority.
#151: here’s what ENDA says:
It’s pretty clear to me that ENDA cannot be used to permit quotas by any interpretation of it. If you want to pass a specific law to ban all preferential hiring for any purpose, have at it.
#150: “Oh come now. We all know the difference between spraypainting ‘Houndie loves Gaypatriot’ on a bridge and painting a swastika on the door of a syangogue. Let’s not pretend we don’t know the difference between vandalism and an open attempt to threaten and harrass a person or group for being different.”
Wrong, Houndentenor. Liberals have no inclination or capability of making such distinctions. Anything less than a ticker-tape parade celebrating the mere fact that they suck co*k is labeled HATE. The fact that another individual’s deeply-held religious beliefs condemns their lifestyle is HATE. A parent’s right to decide whether or not their child learns about homosexuality in kindergarten is HATE. Requiring immigrants to adhere to our laws or risk deportation is condemned as HATE. A corporate policy to hire and promote employees based solely upon merit without reference to the color of their skin is labeled HATE. Protecting Americans from execution by Islamofascists is HATE. To liberals, America is a dark, evil, bigoted, imperialist death-machine fueled by HATE. They have ABSOLUTELY no capability to make the rational, logical distinctions you are talking about, which is why hate crimes laws are such a threat to our freedoms.
#154: “It’s pretty clear to me that ENDA cannot be used to permit quotas by any interpretation of it. If you want to pass a specific law to ban all preferential hiring for any purpose, have at it.”
You’re missing the point, Ian. The purpose of the law is to give gays the right to sue employers for money damages if they believe they were not hired, fired or not promoted because they are gay. Their attorneys are free to walk in the court room and argue to juries that an organization’s lack of diversity is PROOF that discrimination likely occurred with regard to their particular client. There is no other way for companies to protect themselves against this type of “evidence” (and potentially millions of dollars in liability) than to make sure they have lots of gay people working in their company. It makes no difference that the Act says quotas are not required if their failure to have “enough” gay employees can be used against them in court to prove liability. That’s exactly how these cases have been litigated under Title VII and the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (which includes actual or perceived homosexuality as a protected class).
Home sick so staring at the screen is not condusive to a migraine…
Ian, I think I’ve found a fundamental difference here, and I worry it’s something we’ll never be able to find common ground on. You wrote:
“Actually, it was “Jews will die” which I, along with the miscreant’s lawyer, could reasonably argue is a benign statement of fact not an incitement to violence. And, unless you’re going to delve into the person’s thoughts – something I assume you would not want to do – you’re not going to be able to establish otherwise.”
First, sorry for misquoting you. Second, you feel the Government can say “Yes that was a hate crime and we’re going to pass laws to make it hurt more.”
I feel the jury in this case, the people, his peers, are going to smack him and his lawyer down if they tried that defence.
A law can’t make value judgements, people can. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but they can. That’s why it’s trial by jury, not trial by computer.
But using the same kind of ‘hate crimes’ You don’t feel “I felt he was intending to rape me, so I shot him six times.” is a valid defence?
Tom in Houston, I know I promised, but sometimes, what North Dallas Thirty writes bears repeating (see #151, and before that #104)…
North in #151 writes: “The amusing part is, KY, that your saying that only makes it more obvious to several people here, who DO know me and what I do for a living, that you’re making up your own credentials.”
— North, that doesn’t make a lot of sense – unless those “several people here” actually believe, along with you, that you do indeed know everything about every topic (and every HR situation) that ever came up; therefore, anyone who has a different viewpoint or business experience from you must be “making it up”. And if those several people do believe that, then they’d be wise to read what follows and reconsider what they think they know about you, your professional expertise/lack thereof, and your style of argument…
— For continuing in #151, North Dallas Thirty then fell straight into it with this…
“Isn’t it amazing how, when it was pointed out that your fictional lesbians’ lawsuit would have been dismissed regardless because Kentucky doesn’t HAVE an ENDA, you then ignored the obvious example of what happens when a state DOES have an ENDA — which is that liberal gays like yourself sexually harass coworkers, demand sex, and retaliate against those who won’t give in to you, then use ENDA’s prohibition on firing gays to keep their jobs?”
— Big old LOL, for there went North doing two things you can always count on him for: (Number 1) doing a wee wiki and then assuming the worst of anyone he disagrees with (for I never said my firm is located in Kentucky – try one of about 20 other states, Northie), and (Number 2) tossing in a shrill personal attack to boot – this one about me supposedly harassing, demanding sex, retaliating, etc. Incidentally, don’t the bloggers here have a policy against crap like that? In any event, there – in a nutshell – is what North Dallas Thirty is all about. I thought I had taught him better in #63 way up above, but apparently our children “is NOT learning”.
Ah yes, isn’t it amazing how when KY is confronted with the holes in his argument, how his “firm” magically reshapes itself and changes characteristics to make him “right”?
Furthermore, isn’t it amazing that KY denies how liberal gays like himself sexually harass coworkers, demand sex, and retaliate against those who won’t give in to them, then use a state’s ENDA’s prohibition on firing gays to keep their jobs, even when he is provided with proof that it’s happening?
Finally, KY, what makes your arguments so amusing is how readily you contradict yourself in them. For instance, you cited multiple examples of gays filing frivolous lawsuits to harass and punish their employers, arguing that they shouldn’t be fired regardless of their performance because they’re gay — as a means of “proving” that ENDA won’t facilitate the filing of frivolous lawsuits to harass and punish employers.
#148 Ian, if you are practicing law with a license, I hope you have a paying day job.
Shall we send out a memo to the Attorney General in each state with a hate crime statute that Ian says the narrow decision in Wisconsin is pretty irrelevant and therefore they should order full steam ahead on employing their own statutes?
Ian, you have not only spoken anew for SCOTUS in the application of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, but you have delivered direction to all of the district courts and the supreme courts of the other states that have hate crime statutes. Wow! I am impressed.
Or not.
What a sad debater North Dallas Thirty is. He talks about “holes”, but cannot identify one – not even the one he’s digging for himself here. However, he may have a future in fiction, for it takes imagination (and absence of conscience) to accuse someone you don’t know of “sexually harassing co-workers, demanding sex, and retaliating against those who won’t give in”. Following his tactics of debate, one would be justified in asking him “and where were you on the night of the murder?”. It takes a weasel to debate that way and we should have known as much when we asked him to back up his claims that “Dems and Republicans are equally bad on gay issues) by posting the easily-available history of Dem-Rep votes on gay issues, and he fled.
Following his tactics of debate, one would be justified in asking him “and where were you on the night of the murder?”.
Actually, KY, you’ve been doing that all along WITHOUT the benefit of any justification, so I fail to see why you’re suddenly concerned now.
In addition, the difference between you and me is this; I wouldn’t spin to protect Bonnie Bleskachek, like you are doing. But that’s because shared sexual orientation does not trump right and wrong in my worldview.
Furthermore, as regards the “votes” you keep touting, what I have pointed out is that your definition of what is “pro-gay” changes based solely on party affiliation; therefore, your vote comparison is meaningless since, as you’ve already demonstrated, you will declare a Democrat vote for the FMA or for a state constitutional amendment to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and will fully endorse and support any politician who does so with millions of gay dollars.
However, he may have a future in fiction, for it takes imagination (and absence of conscience) to accuse someone you don’t know of “sexually harassing co-workers, demanding sex, and retaliating against those who won’t give in”.
Sooooo…….NDT is a liberal?
#162, LOL, for you have now reduced our little back and forth to “so’s your mother”.
Plus, you say I “spin to protect Bonnie Bleskachek”. I don’t know anything about that person and, unlike you, I won’t pretend to be an expert on her — so I’ve never commented on her here, yet you claim I have. You’re getting smaller with every comment, kiddo.
And, let me help you out on the Dem-Rep votes on gay issues: you post ’em and interpret them anyway you want. I won’t comment, as they’ll speak for themselves. Though, if you fudge ’em (and I suspect you’ll try), I’ll link to the entire list. So, no weaseling on this one, OK?
Really? What is it? Do explain. The difference I see is the difference between defacing public property vs. defacing private property. Defacing private property is naturally worse, because the specific people injured are fewer in number and must bear correspondingly more of the repair cost.
You apparently want me to see some other difference. Let me guess. You live in a world, apparently, where anytime anyone hurts anyone’s feelings, it’s an affront against the community – i.e., you among others. I don’t live in that world. My world is more grown-up than that.
Plus, you say I “spin to protect Bonnie Bleskachek”. I don’t know anything about that person and, unlike you, I won’t pretend to be an expert on her
That’s because you haven’t been reading the links I’ve been graciously providing you about her so that you can educate yourself.
But you may not like it, because it shows quite clearly how ENDA laws and your so-called “diversity goals” are used by Democrats to protect liberal gays who sexually harass other people in the workplace, discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and demand sex from their coworkers, and not only keep them from getting fired, but put them into larger positions of responsibility.
And, let me help you out on the Dem-Rep votes on gay issues: you post ‘em and interpret them anyway you want.
Already did.
I posted examples of Democrat politicians endorsing and supporting state constitutional amendments and the FMA; you and your fellow liberal Democrats and gay organizations responded by endorsing them as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving them huge sums of money.
And as for the rest, let’s be clear; “pro-gay” in your context means supporting laws that protect gays from being fired even if they retaliate against coworkers who refuse their sexual advances, as in the case of Bonnie Bleskachek, and which treat every crime against a gay person as a hate crime, regardless of evidence, as in the case of Andrew Anthos.
The Democrat Party, by pushing those, shows only that they are interested in victimization, not in strong gay people who speak out — as the firing of DNC gay liaison Donald Hitchcock demonstrates, who was canned by Howard Dean because Hitchcock’s partner dared to criticize Dean’s patronizing ways towards gays.
#164:”Plus, you say I ‘spin to protect Bonnie Bleskachek’. I don’t know anything about that person and, unlike you, I won’t pretend to be an expert on her — so I’ve never commented on her here, yet you claim I have. You’re getting smaller with every comment, kiddo.”
And it’s probably best that you continue to know nothing about Bonnie Bleskachek, KYKid, because the fact that she was only demoted (and not summarily fired) from her position as Fire Chief of Minneapolis after waging a two-year reign of terror against male subordinates for being heterosexual and female subordinates who refused to sleep with her is THE SMOKING GUN in the case against discriminatory laws like ENDA. By all means, PLEASE don’t get informed about this woman–I’ve come to rely on liberals and their standard practice of basing their arguments on platitudes and feelings instead of facts. Don’t rock the boat.
#158:
LOL! Sometimes when he gets repetitive, I think NeverDoesTruth is actually just a defective old Fortran program that gets into an endless DO loop on occasion. As for his flinging accusations about liberal gays being sexual harassers one wonders if he’s ever heard of projection.
#160:
Absolutely not. Indeed I’d argue the opposite.
Except in this thread! LOL!
Au contraire. I’m not whining, I’m just sayin’ so Tom can’t huff and puff with the predictable “you’ve never been disciminated against” line.
The difference is that I grabbed my sack and moved on. I’m not demanding apologies, reparations or that Uncle Sugar should make people like me.
Yeow, talk about trying to set a record for intolerance of others’ in a thread about intolerance!
To get BACK to the topic, Dan wrote: “And I wondered. . . . what does it say about these people that they so revile something they don’t even understand and repeatedly misrepresent?”
After some of the exchanges above and earlier exchanges in other threads, I wonder why he would even need to pose that question. It’s quite clear that many here would rather score debate points –like with the echo chamber reverberations of commendation to like-minded peers that pepper this thread– than attempt to comprehend what the “opposition” is saying. Afterall, they MUST be wrong.
And please, the use of irrational reductions of the other guy’s comments never, ever scores you a debate point in any forum of forensics -not even in Discussion forums. Only in the blogland is that AnnCoulter-ish nonsense raised to a level of merit.
Maybe, Dan, the answer lies in the nature of the debate spawned in your blog and those like SadlyNo intolerant views are generally held by intolerant, narrow-minded people. As sure of the veracity of their opinion as they are of their right to impress it on all others.
I guess, for America, this kind of assuredness of the sancity of their opinion in blogland can be equated to the role the Church of England plays in that aging empire… to Hell with all others, we are what’s right and it is our duty is to impose our view on others.
Lovely. Could it be a thread on intolerance which underscores how intolerant we’ve become? Sadly, maybe.
#169 Ian: You are dead right. I really muffed proofreading what I wrote.
I realize that you believe that Wisconsin v. Mitchell affects all states with hate crime laws. What I wrote is: “Ian says the narrow decision in Wisconsin is pretty irrelevant…”
What I should have written is: “Shall we send out a memo to the Attorney General in each state with a hate crime statute that Ian says the the fact that the narrow decision in Wisconsin is limited to the Wisconsin statute is pretty irrelevant and therefore they should order full steam ahead on employing their own statutes?”
#172:
Well, that’s what they’re doing here in conservative Arizona. It seems to me that if statutes like the Wisconsin law were as iffy as you imply, then we should have seen a flurry of cases challenging them since the 1993 decision. Do you know of any?
#171: Speaking of intolerance, the story link below pretty much has it all: gay lefties screaming obscenities at people who disagree with them, vandalizing their property, and attacking them with unprovoked physical violence. As if that weren’t enough, the gay lefties then posted public statements defaming their victims, calling the incident a “complete fabrication,” and keeping the statements on their website for a week even after police confirmed that the incident occurred as reported. Lucky for these degenerate gay activists, the victim of the assault (a Christian ex-gay) has elected not to press charges because “turning the other cheek is what Jesus would have done.”
Makes me wonder. If the gay assailant were charged with a hate crime and was given an additional 10 years in prison tacked on to a 30-day sentence for the assault, would Tom of Houston, Ian and KYKid agree that justice had been done? Or would they condemn the defendant’s imprisonment as an outrage, perpetrated by government because of the defendant’s personal belief that Christian-based, ex-gay ministries are wrong?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57710
#126: “So, let’s have it, Tom. Where is the FACTUAL EVIDENCE to substantiate your claim that the State of Alabama cannot be trusted to vindicate crimes that target gays?”
…cricket…………….cricket…………cricket………….
Hey Ian, Tom and KYKid! FYI, while you were busy informing all of us that hate crimes legislation and workplace discrimination laws are desperately needed to stop the draconian oppression and slaughter of gays all over America, this heart-warming puff piece just hit the news:
Gays Deserve Torture, Death Penalty, Iranian Minister Says
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311025,00.html
I wonder how long it will take Columbia University to “open a dialogue” with this distinguished foreign leader and offer him a speaking gig?
#174: Oh good grief: a link to a Wingnut Daily “story” or more likely fairy tale. I wonder why the police apparently have no knowledge of the incident.
Because, Ian, you didn’t bother to do any research beyond consulting the people who were trying to cover it up.
Now go ahead and start screaming that THAT’s a “fairy tale”, or start denigrating the source as “antigay”.
#177: Ian, the story you linked was published on August 31, 2007 and in it, Ex-Gay Watch states that they spoke to the police department’s media relations rep, John Lisle who had no knowledge of the incident.
The WND story was published almost three weeks later, September 19, 2007 and contains the following:
“”One officer told me today he was on patrol at the Fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed,” said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.”
“PFOX thanks the Arlington County Police Department for their commitment to securing a safe environment for all of its citizens,” Griggs said later. “We also commend John Lisle of the Police Dept. for locating the two police officers who responded to our request for help.”
This would certainly suggest that Lisle was ultimately able to determine the identity of the two police officers that responded to the incident and confirmed its occurrence.
Of course, I realize this is irrelevant to you because you condemn the story as a “fairy tale” simply because it appeared in the “Wingnut Daily” anyway. It doesn’t fit your agenda, so it must be false. That’s fine (and to be expected), but you haven’t answered the hypothetical I proposed regarding the hate crimes issue. I responded to your “Kilroy was here” hypothetical. What’s your response to mine?
I expected Ian and/or his funky bunch to deny the story merely because it appeared in WND. Further, they’ll claim that #176 can’t possibly be true because it’s a Fox News story.
If it ain’t dissimenated by CBS-BS, NBC-BS, ABC-BS, the Commie News Network or PMSNBC, it didn’t happen. Ooops! Forgot Mother Jones.
Ian, is that what it’s known as here — “NeverDoesTruth”? That IS funny. Notice now the pissing and moaning about ME not reading “links so graciously provided”? So child-like: “I post it, so YOU have to read it. Now. Now. Now. Now.” And, predictably, the weaseling followed on the challenge to post “Dem-Rep votes on gay issues”. Latest claim is “already done that”. Guess the next claim will be that the filters blocked the homework. We’re not going to see that summary posted here. Just as well, I suppose. Surely, they’re all aware of the 80-85/15-20 Dem-Rep split on those votes (civil unions in various states, marriage equality in a couple, and ENDA).
What does Bonnie Bleskachek have to do with EDNA?
She acted like a pig and was fired.
Just like a straight person would be.
Blaming anti-discrimination laws for her behavior seems a little bizarre…
#181: I think I figured out NeverDoesTruth’s problem: he got sued once for firing a blind undocumented liberal Muslim lesbian. BTW, you really have to watch carefully when NDT provides links: they all too frequently don’t support whatever unbelievable claims he’s trying foist on the unsuspecting.
Somehow you have managed to talk past my point.
You started out by implying that SCOTUS gave blanket approval to hate crimes statutes nationwide through Wisconsin v Mitchell. You are wrong. That is the point I addressed.
I never implied that the Wisconsin law is “iffy.” I have no opinion on it. If the other states have statutes that are close to the Wisconsin statute, then they would look to Wisconsin v Mitchell for guidance. States enacting hate crimes would certainly study Wisconsin v Mitchell. A “flurry” of cases is not the usual action when a statute is upheld.
If you look at the basis of the Wisconsin v Mitchell decision, you will note that it hinges on the point of giving the state of Wisconsin the same latitude that the national government has taken for itself. If the Roberts Court were to decide a case declaring the federal activity as unconstitutional, then the Wisconsin decision would be in jeopardy.
I am not speculating or stretching a narrow decision for my purposes of fulmination. That is how the fallacy of false premise is born.
You made a false premise and I pointed it out. End of story.
#178, 179: It’s very telling that you would swallow whatever unsubstantiated claims the homohaters in the fraudulent “ex-gay” movement might spew. The police obviously didn’t take them too seriously especially after the “victim” refused to press charges.
#179:
I must have missed that. What’s the comment number?
No, KY. NDT is greatly respected here, I can assure you. Ian, the interloper, is the one who is rightly disrespected in this place for his general lack of intellectual honesty, or (in some instances) his lack of basic truthfulness.
There, TGC… fixed it for you 😉
P.S. KY, just if you’re really interested: Ian has been known in this place at various times as IgnorantAndNauseating, Wonder Woman (because is always spinning so much), and others.
NDT has always just been known as NorthDallasThirty.
#188: Say, that reminds me, whatever happened to my ol’ pal, P-Hughes anyway? I kinda miss him fantasizing about my “massive member.”
Why? Have your dreams about him finally left you?
(voice of Peter singing the B-52s song, “Meet me two-niiiiiiiight… in… dre-eam-land….”)
“NDT is greatly respected here”
Whaa? By who?
Even John the guest commentator here has called out NDT on his BS
gil, I’ll refer you back to V’s comment at #85. Oh heck, I know you’re lazy, so I’ll just quote it for you:
I’m sure John has disagreed with NDT before, or even criticized him. As I have, on occasion. But perhaps the difference between that, and your / Ian’s need to slander him as a cover for your intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty, is too subtle for your mind to grasp? 🙂
Well, it’s been fun. Gotta do errands!
This has gotten interesting. We all have the right to our own views, to vote as we choose and to express our opinions. What we don’t have is the right for other people to respect those views or to like us.
#182: “What does Bonnie Bleskachek have to do with EDNA?
She acted like a pig and was fired.
Just like a straight person would be.”
WRONG, GIL. Bleshachek was sued by four different employees for harassment and discrimination AND IS STILL WORKING FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT. Bleskacheck’s lawyer negotiated Bleskacheck keeping a job at the fire department by threatening to sue under Minnesota’s non-discrimination law. So, to avoid LAWSUIT NO. 5 (based on sexual orientation discrimination alleged by Bleskacheck) they only demoted her, even after her conduct cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements and attorneys’ fees.
#185: “#178, 179: It’s very telling that you would swallow whatever unsubstantiated claims the homohaters in the fraudulent “ex-gay” movement might spew. The police obviously didn’t take them too seriously especially after the “victim” refused to press charges.”
So, Ian, the claims are “unsubstantiated,” but the “police obviously didn’t take them too seriously” because the victim elected not to press charges? You managed to completely contradict yourself in two sentences or less, however I doubt that’s even a record for you.
#195: What we don’t have is the right for other people to respect those views or to like us.”
Tell that to KYKid, Ian, Tom In Houston, etc. Their political philosophy is based entirely on the opposite.
#192 ““NDT is greatly respected here” Whaa? By who?”
Me.
Bleskacheck’s lawyer negotiated Bleskacheck keeping a job at the fire department by threatening to sue under Minnesota’s non-discrimination law. So, to avoid LAWSUIT NO. 5 (based on sexual orientation discrimination alleged by Bleskacheck) they only demoted her, even after her conduct cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements and attorneys’ fees.
If a white male supervisor had abused his authority in such a way, would the city have been so accommodating?
(I mean, unless he was the Democrat President of the United States)
#197: Your selective quotes notwithstanding, nothing I said is contradictory. As I stated, the claims are unsubstantiated and the police didn’t take them too seriously especially after no charges were pressed.
#201:
Okay, Ian. Whatever you say.
By the way, the hypothetical I proposed that you didn’t answer is in #174.
#202: No one asking for 10 years to be added to a 30 day sentence. Sheesh! But yes, if the circumstances warranted then a gay attacker should be charged with a hate crime. And actually, that’s the law already – religion is already protected under hate crimes statutes. Interestingly, if your position of not adopting hate crimes protection based on sexual orientation were applied, only the gay man could have an enhanced punishment for assault not the ex-gay Christian were he to have had attacked the gay man for being gay. A bit unfair, no?
No one is asking for 10 years to be added? That’s funny, I thought Arizona’s hate crimes law authorizes exactly that. Well, I guess time will tell, but I have absolutely no doubt that the gay left will cry foul when the police start rounding up the aggressive gays and liberals and throwing them in jail for excessive prison terms since their standard practice in such matters is to demand preferential rights but express outrage when they have to accept the accompanying responsibilities.
#192
Me also too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
(I mean, unless he was the Democrat President of the United States)
Or Senate Majority Failure Reid.
#176
Notably, Fox News carried it.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. did not.
#96
Do you have a link on that? (Her being protected by discrimination laws)
I live in MN and am moderately plugged in and have never seen/heard that.
sorry comment #196
Sure you haven’t, gil.
Money quote:
Bleskachek has shown “extremely poor behavior” and committed “deep violations of public trust,” Rybak said Friday. He said he wanted to go the route of a settlement rather than running the risk of a lawsuit, which could have left Bleskachek in a position to supervise others.
“I will not risk having her return as a manager in this city,” said Rybak.
In short, they couldn’t fire her because she could sue and be restored to her position, thanks to Minnesota’s ENDA, because she is a lesbian.
And of course, what did Bleskachek and her lawyer say? That holding Bleskachek responsible for her actions meant “that people are uncomfortable working around lesbians in a workplace like the Fire Department”.
He accused people of being homophobic for saying that Bonnie Bleskachek should be punished for demanding sex from her coworkers, for openly discriminating against straight people, and for retaliating against coworkers who WOULDN’T have sex with her.
No wonder Ian, KYKid, etc. want ENDA extended to everyone. Look what it did in terms of protecting and normalizing Bleskachek’s behavior.
In keeping with the theme of ” Misunderstanding & Loathing from the Netroots”, an insightful article in today’s WSJ on Bush-hatred:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010861
#210 NDT – Like I said awhile ago,
P.S. And no, it isn’t just BB. She’s just the one that made the news. In the course of my career, I’ve personally witnessed other examples.
Wow, ya’ll have been busy in this thread. I finally had the chance to read through all of these comments today and picked some that I’d like to respond to. First are some of those from Tom in Houston:
Perhaps the problem you are having is that you fail to understand that one can oppose certain legislation without any animus, but because they have a philosophical differences. The irony here is that in general I support the measure you posted about, though I have concerns I want addressed prior to their passage, and do not view the disagreement from Dan, Bruce or anyone else here as coming from an anti-gay bias. Dan has clearly stated his reasons for opposing ENDA which stem from his conservative beliefs, not out of some hatred for himself or others who are gay. I understand his reasons and disagree with him yet not at any time did I see the animus you apparently do.
Do you really mean this, or are you just saying that? The reason I ask is because if you believe all gays must take a certain position on legislation just because they are gay, than clearly you do not. Your post here and subsequent ones seem to indicate that such is your belief.
Right here we have a fundamental difference in outlook. This is not about what’s best for any “community” but what’s right for the country as a whole. When I take a position on something it’s usually because I think, rightly or wrongly, that it’s the right thing for all Americans not just one group of them. Take for example my opposition to DADT, I do so not because gays get something out of it (I certainly get not personal benefit from the ban being repealed), but because the arguments in favor of it are false and the continuance of this ban is not good for the military and the country.
This right here shows me that you pay very little attention to this blog, let alone mine, and are making the same kind of false assumptions liberals tend to do about conservatives not based on fact but partisan rhetoric. If you had paid attention you would easily see have seen that we’ve all commented on all of these a number of times.
Which means that you proceed from a false assumption. If those here who oppose ENDA had expressed such because they despise gays, you would have a point yet nobody here has. Instead, those who do oppose ENDA here do so out of opposition to ALL such laws because it is against their own philosophical beliefs. Also, you may wish to choose a different word than “projecting” unless you yourself actually have those “selfish” feelings and are erroneously projecting those onto conservatives. Finally, based upon your posts in this thread I’m willing to bet that you agree with Ponytail Guy and fail to understand why this makes conservatives and libertarians regardless of sexuality cringe. That’s not a slam but an example of a significant difference in worldviews.
#29 (Synova): Outstanding post, I echo your comments!
#76 (ILC): Superb post. That many on the Left ignore this threat not only boggles the mind but frankly I find to offensive and anti-gay in the extreme.
#85 & 86 (V the K): Indeed. When I see such behavior by politicians and activists on the Left that they cannot understand just why I despise the DNC is amazing. Have they taken leave of their senses? Do they really think that my being gay means I endorse such anti-American and anti-military rantings? No. I am more than just whom I love.
Good point and this raises one of my concerns with ENDA. I am adamantly opposed to quotas, including the game of suing companies because they do not have the ‘magic’ number of each group. Without those things being specifically excluded, along with First Amendment issues being addressed, I cannot support it.
Gil:
Please fight your own personal battles and refrain from dragging me in as back-up. Thanks.
NDT, as usual, nails down the sniveling liberals. Therefore, as usual, they do their best to try and shut him up.
What are you scared of, gillie girl?
I don’t see quotas coming for gays. First of all, they don’t ask us about sexual orientation during the job interview. And no matter what the rules are, a lot of people are just not going to be that out at work, especially in a conservative work environment. Quotas are only imposed when there has been a proven history of discrmination.
Title IX is another matter and there is a lot of crazy that has come from that. (Requiring equal sports programs even when there is much less interest from women at the school for participation.)
Then let’s avoid a repeat of past mistakes when it came to racial integration and explicitly address these matters in any proposed legislation. For that matter, I’d like to see a Federal version of California’s Proposition 209 with sexual orientation added. This could help alleviate problems and fears.
Ian drop off the face of the net again? I was hoping he’d answer my questions. *sigh*
Ian drop off the face of the net again?
He and his KY.
News flash: Some of us actually have lives involving work/business and family — as well as interests that take us beyond 24/7 chat fests with weird Republican queens.
#224:Ain’t that the truth! Still it’s almost adorable that they miss us so much when we get too busy to comment.
225, indeed. I saw that one up above going, “Ian, where’s Ian? I need me some Ian.” Let’s face it, without us, the commentary always peters out once the collective here realizes they’re reading the same old BS over and over again.
Trying to be polite, but Ian, please stop patting yourself on the back and reply. # 157, posted a week ago.
Regarding the Dean/DNC anti-gay discrimination lawsuit, I wrote a lot about it here
http://gaypatriot.net/2007/05/19/a-reason-to-smile
See Comment number
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
(I was trying to defeat the filter, which is why so many comments)
#227: Frankly, the question makes little sense.
I’ll take that as an ‘I can’t answer it.’
From the perspective of 3 and 1/2 months later: we now know that Ian, KYKid, and gil were all sockpuppets of one person. They all disappeared at the same time, around January 5 or so.