If it is true, what you say, shouldn’t the author of the article have posed those questions to gay Republicans before writing the piece? For that is the point of the post, that he didn’t talk to gay Republican when writing about them.

Maybe one can’t fault gays for returning the bias, but the piece wasn’t about anti-Republican bias in the gay community (though its author certainly provides an example of such bias), but about gay Republicans.

Get the difference?

Once again, it is the Republican party that has taken OFFICIAL anti-gay positions. You can hardly fault gays for returning the bias.

Just consider the moral and ethical depravity lurking in that statement. In effect, it’s saying:

1) It’s OK for gays to be demented and unfair, if they feel someone has been demented or unfair with them. Two wrongs make a right, basically. And,
2) It’s OK to be anti-gay if you just don’t say it, and take gay money. (Like the Democrats)

I WAS a moderate Republican.

You were a liberal.

I can give as good as I get.

Well that’s tolerant and compassionate. I thought liberals were supposed to be better than that instead of bitter, vindictive queens.

The Democrats

Who are the people who think it’s proper to dismiss anything you have to say because they disagree with you by telling everyone you’re gay?

The Democrat/Leftists

Who are the people who think that because a man was gay that all his communication with males should be monitored?

Democrats

Democrats are anti-gay in very personal and hateful ways.

Yeah, we can.

Because, oddly enough, gays seemingly have no problem endorsing and supporting as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats who brag about having the “same position” or supporting the same laws as the Republicans who gays have screamed take “anti-gay positions”.

What amazes me, Houndentenor, is that you think a party that lies to gays, takes money from gays, and then turns right around and supports positions that gays scream are “antigay” is somehow better for gays than one that doesn’t promise gays anything that it doesn’t promise anyone else, doesn’t seek out or demand gay money, and generally doesn’t bother.

In short, you like someone who pretends to like you, mooches from you, and then does nasty things about you behind your back more than you do someone who tells you up front that they don’t really like you and doesn’t take your money.

To paraphrase Stewie Griffin, “Do gays like it when you treat them like crap?”

I didn’t start out hating on the GOP. I WAS a moderate Republican. They are the ones who dropped the hate on me. I can give as good as I get.

I would fire Kaiser, not because of the subject, but the piss poor way he wrote it.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen an article in a major publication wandering all over the place like this. I’d expect this kind of crap in the local, liberal, free rag. What’s even more interesting is OUT’s Contact Us page keeps coming up blank.

Kudos to Log Cabin for exposing the anti-Republican bias in gay media. And kudos to our friend Chris Crain for the fairness of his blogging.

*Ahem*

Talk about elitism! It’s almost as bad as B. Hussein Obama’s “bitter” remark.

And yes, I use his middle name because IT IS his middle name. Deal with it.

Regards,
Peter H.

I’ll yield that the gay communities in the big coastal cities are probably more Democratic-supporters, just as their straight neighbors are; but out in the Red States and in the small towns where Gays stay for business or family reasons…rather them emigrating to the ghetto…there’s more support for small government, low taxes, small-business small-R republicanism rather than social activism and the leftist world-view that fuel the Act-Up and Move-On crowd.

If you are a lazy journalist, which most are I suspect, it’s too much work to get off the stool at the local gay latte’ joint and seek-out a truer cross-section of the G/L community.

And yes, I am equivocating Rogers with the Klan.

That should be a fair and balanced piece, right?

Thought so.

Regards,
Peter H.