Gay Patriot Header Image

Ignoring Democrat’s Opposition to Gay Rights while Painting his Republican Opponent as “Raging Homophobe”

If there is just a hint, even if two decades old, that a Republican official or prominent conservative may not hold perfectly politically correct views of gay people, expect the MSM to feature it prominently, but if a Democrat does not toe the gay rights’ line, expect the MSM (and even the gay media and gay advocacy groups) to ignore or downplay the issue.

The Washington Post has done in several articles about Virginia GOP gubernatorial nominee Robert F. McDonnell, with many on its front page. The paper reported repeatedly on the Republican’s “1989 graduate school thesis in which the 14-year lawmaker and former attorney general had criticized working mothers and homosexuals and urged the promotion of traditional values through government.

While McDonnell’s attitudes toward gay people have shifted over the past twenty years, Michael Barone believes the Post‘s article on a hearing he chaired, when in the Viginia legislature, on the reappointment of a lesbian judge accused of sexual harassment had the “obvious message. . .: this candidate thinks it’s all right to penalize people, in some unspecified way, for homosexual conduct.

Meanwhile the conservative Weekly Standard has unearthed a statement from McDonnell’s Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds “of a more recent vintage” than McDonnell’s thesis.  In a 1999 campaign ad, that Democrat said he didn’t believe in “special rights for gays.“  (This wasn’t the only time Deeds (or his spokesman) said he opposed gay rights.) I doubt that will get the same coverage in the Post as have McDonnell’s comments made a decade earlier.

Commenting on this discrepancy, Barone writes:

If you gave me 20 minutes to do some googling and 15 minutes or so for writing, I think I could turn out a “news story” whose top paragraphs would suggest that Deeds is a raging homophobe, with exculpatory material planted far down in the story. I might reference Deeds’s 2009 ad, “Deeds Country,” in which he showcases his family and his roots in rural Virginia (the ad got panned by some conservatives, but I thought it was an attractive and effective introductory ad), as evidence that Deeds is a heterosexualist or something of that ilk. A fairer interpretation, I think, is that both Deeds and McDonnell have changed their opinions on gay rights issues over the years, as indeed have a majority of the American people, and that neither man has any animus against gay people. But that wouldn’t advance the obvious agenda of the Post’s news pages.

Emphasis added.  Well said, very well said.

You see, when you’re a Democrat, you’re presumed to be better for gays because of that (D) after your name.  That letter gives you immunity from past politically incorrect statements.  If you’re a Republican, such statements come to define your entire political philosophy, revealing you to harbor deep resentments against homosexuals.

Share

7 Comments

  1. Swell. And there’s no third part candidate running in Virginia. Tweedle-dee or Tweedle-dum, eh?

    Comment by John — September 10, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - September 10, 2009

  2. Oh and Dan, there’s more on McDonnell than a 20-year old thesis. He was a strong advocate of the marriage amendment in this state in 2006. Now I realize some folks have no problems with a simple “marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman”, but Virginia’s amendment is one of the most onerous that the extreme Right has pushed forward in 19 states including the Commonwealth. ALL arrangements are banned, including any kind of domestic partnership or civil union. Deeds may be a jerk, but McDonnell is a schmuck who will not get my vote either.

    Comment by John — September 10, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - September 10, 2009

  3. If McDonnell wrote his college thesis on how Bush brought down the Twin Towers, he wouldn’t have a problem.

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — September 10, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - September 10, 2009

  4. Why is it that all LGBT individuals, including those running HR departments, conveniently forget the most current sexual harassment legislation based on the 1998 Supreme Court decison, Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Oil Services, wherein the court finally came to the aid of social conservatives after a worker was sexually assaulted on the job by LGBT individuals, but you do remember that Lambda Legal piggybacked on the decision?

    Comment by RJLigier — September 11, 2009 @ 12:12 am - September 11, 2009

  5. typical self loathing faggots/anything liberal good-anything conservative bad/these are individuals who would eat there own young/or there own kind /i would never pick them for my team/remember conservative queers -get a gun

    Comment by river saytr — September 11, 2009 @ 12:45 am - September 11, 2009

  6. Wow, River Saytr, you appear to be pretty demented. I mean, if anyone is self-loathing, I cannot imagine liberal gays as self-loathing. Of course Deeds is no friend of gays, but do you think McDonnell is? Have you noticed, how the conservative press played down the fact that McDonnell supposedly changed his views on Gay Rights? The still correctly admit that he is against gay marriage, but how often do you see them admit that, according to what he has said, is now against discrimination of gay people in the workforce. Honestly, he probably is NOT against discrimination of gays. I mean, do you honestly think that a man that stated that gays should pay higher taxes is going to change his views when most of his right-wing supporters probably agree with those views even today?

    Comment by Vinney — September 14, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - September 14, 2009

  7. Oh, and RJLieger, gay men and lesbians have for many years tried to sue for sexual discrimination on the workforce, but their cases were often dismissed. You mention the 1998 Supreme Court decison, Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Oil Services, wherein the court finally came to the aid of social conservatives after a worker was sexually assaulted on the job by LGBT individuals. The reason why Lambda Legal and many gays applauded the decision was because, for many years, same-sex harassment on the job was often not considered sexual harassment. They applauded it because they believe that sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of the genders involved.

    And, isn’t it funny how when gays/lesbians for year have tried to press charges for sexual harassment by other gays or lesbians, their cases were dismissed. However, when a STRAIGHT guy was harassed by gays, look how all the conservatives and religious folk ran to this guys rescue.

    Comment by Vinney — September 14, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - September 14, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.