Gay Patriot Header Image

If you disagree with Barney Frank, you’re a bigot!

Earlier today, when I linked Scott Ott’s satirical post, that Supreme Court Justice “Scalia Urges Patience with Barney Frank’s Heterophobia,” I did not realize that the unhappy Massachusetts Congressman called the Justice a “homophobe.” What is it with Barney that he has to label all those with whom he disagrees as bigots?

Brainy Barney may be, but narrow-minded he is as well.

Last fall, he accused conservatives of racism for linking the financial meltdown to the Community Reinvestment Act and the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

When, on the campaign trail, then-Republican presidential nominee John McCain made an issue of the Massachusetts Democrat’s proposals to raise taxes, increase domestic spending and gut the defense budget,* Barney called the attack on his statements, “an appeal to prejudice.”

Smart as Barney is, he has shown little capacity to understand conservative ideas, smearing his ideological adversaries rather than countering their arguments.  Is this the kind of man we want as the “most prominent openly gay politician in America”?

Now, do you have a better idea why I think he’s bad for gay people?

—————-

*Frighteningly, it seems what Barney hoped would come to pass in the Obama Administration is coming to pass.

UPDATE:  Ed Whelan and Mark Hemingway have been having a field day with this issue at the Corner.  Whelan called the attack “inane,” with Frank using the word, “homophobe. . . . to cut off serious discussion, not to promote it.“  Not sure I agree with him there, but I do share his distaste for the word.  (He, like me, would prefer a term like “anti-gay animus.”

Mark Hemingway agrees with Whelan that “the context of Frank’s remarks seems to betray his casual slander of” Justice Scalia.

Share

40 Comments

  1. Dan, Dan, Dan. Barney exemplifies the typical American Political Gay.

    If you disagree with them on a policy issue, clearly you are a homophobe.

    I’m surprised you didn’t know that since you live in the Homo Victim Capital of the World.

    :)

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 24, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - March 24, 2009

  2. GPW, I agree with everything you’ve said about Frank’s offenses, narrow-mindedness and victim stance!

    But still.. on the question of whether he is “bad for gay people”… I have to go back to my points in your earlier thread:

    1) He proves that gays are ordinary: so much a part of the fabric of humanity, that they can even be corrupt, brazen, economy-destroying Democratic Congresspersons. And,

    2) we have a bigger hurdle to cross first: getting the average American to *know and care* about Frank’s crimes. Once we have climbed that mountain, then we can worry whether Frank affects anyone’s view of gays.

    I bet that if you asked the average person on the street, they’d have no idea of Frank’s many offenses. “I bet” means that I have no direct evidence, but a strong hunch based on how little the average Democrat knows even about Presidential politics.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - March 24, 2009

  3. Yes, because if you disagree with a gay person about anything, it means you want to have them all exterminated.

    Kevin (A Gay Waiter): “May I recommend the vinaigrette for your salad dressing?”
    Customer: “No, thank you. I’ll have ranch.”
    Kevin (A Gay Waiter): “You hate-filled son of a bitch! You’d be perfectly happy to see me exterminated!”

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - March 24, 2009

  4. Man oh Man!!! I am so tired of the rhetoric that African Americans, Hispanics and Gays use to purposely divert an attempt at an intelligent dialogue off track. I am Native American (Sioux and Mountain Cahuilla) and grew up on an Indian Reservation in Southern California. I attended the University of California in the 70′s and have heard the “crap” that Barney and Friends rehash over and over and over again. White Man Speaks with Forked Tongue!!! And guess what??? I include Obama, Frank, Arnold, etc. in the “White Man Tribe.” However, the general Caucasian population is too afraid and cowed to actually state that Barney and Friends are “screwing over” (no pun intended) the United States of America because they dont want to be politically incorrect.

    Comment by Duffy — March 24, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - March 24, 2009

  5. Brainy? Smart? Please.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - March 24, 2009

  6. Bruce, you’ve got it nailed and the coffin’s heading into the ground. “Barney exemplifies the typical American Political Gay. If you disagree with them on a policy issue, clearly you are a homophobe.”

    Justice Scalia is great! Bravo for quipping back in kind to a man who has no respect for governance, judicial restraint or checks & balances. And who secretly hates heterosexuals.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - March 24, 2009

  7. I’m surprised you didn’t know that since you live in the Homo Victim Capital of the World.

    Correction. I live in the Homo Victim Capital of the World. Compared to us, GPW’s ‘hood is a bunch of rank amateurs. :)

    And isn’t it surprising that Barney Fag is already abusing his power to benefit his fellow Obama Party leftists?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - March 24, 2009

  8. Barney Frank is useless. He slept with a Fannie Mae exec as he said there was no problem there.
    Fannie mae implodes and he attacks AIG to deflect the obvious blame that he owns.
    The comments he made about Scalia just show how far he’ll go to demonize anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

    Comment by libocrat — March 24, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - March 24, 2009

  9. Considering Congressman Frank’s comment was directed to one specific person, have you considered that he might be right? Scalia has been quoted several times making homophobic comments: He claims gays convert children, has compared homosexuals to murders, etc., feels that gays don’t have a right to privacy in their own bedroom (his dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas – where he also discussed the “homosexual agenda” always love that term!)

    As a supreme court justice, I find it interesting in these comments that he doesn’t question the legality of the laws themselves being (unconstitutional or constitutional, the primary duty of the Supreme Court), it seems that because the laws are targeted at gays, then they are fine as they are, constitutional or not. He simply uses personal rhetoric as a means to justify his views and opinions.

    Based on this, can you provide proof that Scalia isn’t homophobic? Or can you present any proof that Congressman Frank lobs a homophobia attack at anyone who disagrees with him?

    Comment by Kevin — March 24, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - March 24, 2009

  10. Actually, Kevin, what struck me was indeed the fact that he singled out Scalia. It isn’t like there aren’t other conservative justices on the bench who agree with their fellow jurist. So why mention just Scalia? I think it’s because he (like Rush Limbaugh and others) is highly unpopular with the left. So Frank recasts the question to one, not of constitutionality, but of prejudice and homophobia. I think that’s a bad tactic on his part as it will turn off centrist Republicans and independents who might be sympathetic to the issue.

    There are good, constitutional arguments to be made against DOMA. Name calling is just childish.

    Comment by Draybee — March 24, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - March 24, 2009

  11. By the way, I hope the rest of you noticed that I responded to Kevin’s post without resorting to insulting him or calling him names. He’s entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I’d like to see more mature debate on this site and less ad hominem attacks.

    Comment by Draybee — March 24, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - March 24, 2009

  12. go read scalia’s dissent in lawrence v. texas.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 24, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - March 24, 2009

  13. and while i agree we should criticize those who too loosely use terms like “bigot” when arguing with those with whom they disagree, i think we should at the same time be careful not to automatically brush aside any accusations of bigotry.

    while i would characterize scalia as ignorant on gay issues before i use the word “bigoted”, i think one could make a strong argument supporting frank’s claim.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 24, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - March 24, 2009

  14. I don’t think that using the “Homophobe” title means anything to anyone who’s not gay. At some time in the past, somebody got the idea that the term carried weight, frankly that’s stupidity.

    Imagine a straight person being afraid to have others think that they actually feared gays. That’s the only way that the term bothers anyone. For anyone to care they would have to be “homophobicphobic”. An irrational fear of being labeled a homophobe.

    That said, and although I have a personal loathing of Congressman Frank for the political damage he is responsible for, I must defend him in this case. His remark about Justice Scalia was in the context of being asked about pushing gay marriage to the SCOTUS. He replied to the effect that he wouldn’t want to take the issue to the present court, with that homophobe Scalia etc. It wasn’t like he was attacking Justice Scalia out of thin air, he was just explaining that SCOTUS ain’t the same as MA or CA, it’s unlikely that homophiles would be happy with the ruling.

    I suspect that Justice Scalia would agree with Congessman Frank’s assessment of the situation.

    Comment by HoosierHawk — March 24, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - March 24, 2009

  15. Any judge that would uphold a law which would throw me and my partner in jail for having sex in the privacy of our own home, opens himself up to being called a homophobe. Frank is without a doubt a biased person, but in calling Justice Scalia a homophobe he is only stating the truth.

    Comment by Cecil — March 25, 2009 @ 12:19 am - March 25, 2009

  16. Kevin queeries: “Based on this, can you provide proof that Scalia isn’t homophobic?”

    Sure, Kevin; the bigger question to me is is your mind open on the subject? Let’s look at Scalia’s hiring practices, eh? In the last 22 years, Justice Scalia has hired 7 openly gay law clerks and 9 who were widely presumed gay among the law clerk community -law clerks are a close knitted group as one can find and it is a lifelong association for most… for a total of 16 out of just over 100+ clerks.

    I don’t know about his law clerks on the DC Circuit Ct prior to his appointment to SCOTUS, but I’m sure there were some because, just like George W Bush, Scalia holds that a person’s sexual character doesn’t exclude them from serving well as a law clerk and is NOT an impediment to being on his team. And he brought one over from the DC Circuit Ct.

    How do I know? My putative brother-in-law was a clerk for JP Stevens and my uncle clerked for Whizzer White… it’s a small, small world when you’re a SCOTUS clerk and it’s a topic that heated up when the gayLeft Democrat radical fringe was outing gay GOPers out of partisan spite –and using intimate aspects of someone’s private life as a sordid tool just to score political points.

    I was always amazed at how gayLefties have treated both Bush 43 and McCain –as well as other GOPers– who have hired without regard to sexual preference. No merit points for them; no merit points for Scalia either –but the facts are tough to face and still maintain Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

    What next then? He’s a closeted gay and that’s why he wants gays around him –including women? Yeah, that will sell at the lemonaide stand over at BlogAmerica.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 12:26 am - March 25, 2009

  17. Why can’t we all be big boys and simply accept that Barney Frank, starved for attention as he often is, went over the top and made wild-assed, no-basis-to-it-charges that aren’t worthy of a low end trailer trash twink, let alone a Congressman from Massachusetts.

    Come to think of it, that’s redundant for Frank.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 12:30 am - March 25, 2009

  18. [...] sometimes including those who occasionally use ad hominems. I was heartened to read Draybee’s response to Kevin’s comment in the thread to my latest post on Barney Frank’s name-calling and [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » A word on comments; a plea for civil discourse — March 25, 2009 @ 3:18 am - March 25, 2009

  19. it seems that because the laws are targeted at gays, then they are fine as they are, constitutional or not.

    I pray you, why is he a homophobe and not the liberals who wrote and passed the law in the first place?

    Or can you present any proof that Congressman Frank lobs a homophobia attack at anyone who disagrees with him?

    Dan did just that in his post. Go back, read, and absorb. That, or have someone read it to you.

    go read scalia’s dissent in lawrence v. texas.

    Go look up the “tolerant”, “compassionate” and “gay friendly” liberals who passed it in the first place.

    Which governor signed it into law????? Don’t forget the party affiliation.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 25, 2009 @ 3:26 am - March 25, 2009

  20. …the liberals who passed what, TGC? lawrence v texas did overturn another ruling from the 80s, but it was its own case, not some legislation from congress. the original sodomy laws were hundreds of years old. what does lawrence v. texas have to do w/ who’s in office? we’re talking about the supreme court here.

    and even if there were democrats who were intolerant (and there always have been some), what is your point? the question here is about scalia.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 25, 2009 @ 6:47 am - March 25, 2009

  21. Hmm, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

    nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l s-o-d-o-m-y is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.”

    Curse those liberals for not protecting it under due process.

    Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”–which it undoubtedly is–

    Curse that evil Scalia for accepting individual liberty.

    Amazing what happens when you read…

    Comment by The Livewire — March 25, 2009 @ 7:09 am - March 25, 2009

  22. Even more amazing what happens when you forget to close your HTML links :-(

    Comment by The Livewire — March 25, 2009 @ 7:10 am - March 25, 2009

  23. Several days ago I listened to Bill Bennett’s criticisms of Barney Frank. Funny how he tip toed around the fact that he’s gay and it’s not an issue. Even to the point where Bennett didn’t care that he misused his office for acts of indiscretion. As much as I like Bennett, he behaved like a wimp in regards to Frank. Barney’s personal behavior in years past has been a disgrace to the office of Congressman.

    Like a West Hollywood hoodlum, Frank could have used himself and office to set an example to the rest of our community. I’m well aware we’ll never change the minds of anti-gay bigots on both conservative and liberal factions of our society, but it would have given our detractors a lot less ammunition. Much more importantly, setting an example of a distinguished gentleman with a sense of faithfulness to our nation and one partner. Such an example would encourage monogamy among our young and to stick it out for those who are struggling to stay together. Then again it may be too much of ask of Frank since personal responsibility is not in the left wing vernacular.

    Comment by Dave_62 — March 25, 2009 @ 9:57 am - March 25, 2009

  24. [...] If you disagree with Barney Frank, you’re a bigot! [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Ann Althouse takes Barney Frank to the woodshed — March 25, 2009 @ 1:03 pm - March 25, 2009

  25. 19: hmmmmm….interesting comments. How old was the law in question and who exactly passed it?

    The original post quoted a comment Frank made about Republican campaign tactics and (if you knew more about Frank thank just that he’s a “lefty gay”) you’d know that he is known for humorous quips when the time calls for it. Big difference between that quote from the Globe and his direct comment about Scalia.

    Yes, I did read the dissent. Did you? I stand by my original statement. Scalia’s writings could be attributed to any group of people who have laws written that specifically target them, simply because of who they are. According to this tenet, it seems he doens’t believe there is any reason for the courts to be bothered with these issues. Yet another example of a conservative who works in the government, yet seems to hold nothing but contempt for it. I also particularly enjoy the paragraph that begins “I have nothing against homosexuals”. yes, right.

    Comment by Kevin — March 25, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - March 25, 2009

  26. Kevin intones “I also particularly enjoy the paragraph that begins “I (Associate Justice Scalia) have nothing against homosexuals”. yes, right.”

    Well, Kevin, we’ve already proved above that Scalia practices that very principle of tolerance when hiring the people he is most initimate with 16 hours a day and socializes with a few of the other hours of the week –namely gay and likely-gay law clerks.

    But that fact makes it difficult for you to hold on the bitter resentment toward conservative Justices who won’t legislate from the bench to advance, without much political muscle, the gayLeft agenda.

    We know from George Bush’s statement that being gay wouldn’t affect his hiring decisions for his first term in office –he said, pointedly shaking his head with a puzzled look when the reporter asked if there were any litmus tests –like being gay– for his executive staff.

    Bush, with Veep-designate Cheney and SOS-designate Powell sitting nearby, said there are no litmus tests like that for people working in his Administration.

    Like Scalia’s track record, Bush’s strong affirmative statement doesn’t carry any weight with the gayLeft, though… does it?

    Care to rephrase your dismissive “yes, right” comment above? Better yet, show us all the proof you have of Scalia’s openly homophobic character that he seems to be able to subvert nicely when hiring his law clerks.

    Care to step up to that task, Kevin?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - March 25, 2009

  27. Scalia’s writings could be attributed to any group of people who have laws written that specifically target them, simply because of who they are.

    Except that wouldn’t be the case, because there are specific things in the Constitution that prohibit that on the basis of race and religion, just to name a few; they’re called “amendments”.

    Scalia simply believes in following what’s written in the Constitution, versus the Kevin/Barney Fag method of ignoring what’s written and making things up instead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - March 25, 2009

  28. and even if there were democrats who were intolerant (and there always have been some), what is your point?

    I knew you wouldn’t get it. The liberals have given us the most anti-gay laws over the past few years. Let’s pretend that Scalia sided with one. Why does that make him a homophobe and not those liberals?

    The fact of the matter is that the GayLeftBorg still orgasms for those liberals. They still throw money and votes at them. They still defend them to the hilt and then deflect their own homophobia on Conservatives and Republicans just to distract the masses they hold in contempt. Not to mention playing the fear card.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 25, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - March 25, 2009

  29. [Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - March 25, 2009

  30. we’re talking about sodomy laws here, TGC, not DOMA or DADT or anything else. try to keep up.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 25, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - March 25, 2009

  31. #30 – So boob, what you are saying is that you would support sodomy laws if they pertained to their original intent, i.e. protecting women in the event of rape or incest?

    Please advise.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 25, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - March 25, 2009

  32. peter:

    plant feet firmly. reach down. pull head out of ass.

    that is all.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 25, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - March 25, 2009

  33. poor bob,

    He asks people to read from the dissent, then when quotes are posted, he shies away from them like roaches from sunlight.
    I stick by my inital quote. “You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 25, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - March 25, 2009

  34. where did peter quote from the dissent, livewire?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 25, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - March 25, 2009

  35. I did, thus my “When quotes are posted.”

    “You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”

    Comment by The Livewire — March 26, 2009 @ 7:07 am - March 26, 2009

  36. [Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Attmay — March 26, 2009 @ 9:22 am - March 26, 2009

  37. #32 – Back at you, boob. I asked you a simple question about original intent – which is EXACTLY what the Texas sodomy law dealt with in its initial passage based upon Mexican law – and you immediately violate the GP “code of conduct.”

    Sodomy statutes – especially in the South and West – were passed in order to otherwise prosecute rapists who (shall we say) didn’t use the front door with their victims. If repeated sexual attacks occurred during the committing of a crime, one could theoretically be charged with both rape and sodomy. One such incident happened in Missouri about 20 years ago, when a woman was gang-raped and the perps were charged with several counts of rape AND sodomy.

    Unfortunately, you didn’t wish to discuss the issues and instead asked me to perform something physically impossible – unless, of course, you are adept at doing it yourself.

    Now you know why I often insult people such as yourself – because you are petty, pathetic and immature. You are a miserable wretch.

    Grow up and grow a pair, OK?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 11:25 am - March 26, 2009

  38. [...] This behavior is entirely consistent with his manner in addressing ideological adversaries, demonize them so as to more readily dismiss their [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Barney the Bully — March 27, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - March 27, 2009

  39. regardless of how you claim sodomy laws came into being, in the last 50 years or so (longer, likely) sodomy laws were basically seen as bans on gay sex.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - March 27, 2009

  40. [...] the unhappy Barney Frank attacks his political adversaries, accusing them of blaming black people, hating gays and having psychological disorders. But, so used is this career politician to fawning [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Barney Can Dish it Out, but he Just Can’t Take It — June 11, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - June 11, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.