Gay Patriot Header Image

Dishonestly tarring Scott Brown with the Anti-Gay Slur

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:18 pm - January 7, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Gay Media,Gay PC Silliness

Just five days ago, I blogged that “anti-gay” has become an “all purpose slur to silence politically incorrect opinions on gay issues“.  We’ve seen that in the current contest to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat.  Last month, a reader from New England alerted me to an article on gay Boston website identifying Scott Brown, the Republican nominee in that contest, as “anti-gay“.

The editors of the site did not respond to my e-mail requesting information on how they reached that conclusion.  And my research turned up no evidence to support their claim.  To be sure, Brown “opposes gay marriage and supports the Defense of Marriage Act”, but so too do a lot of Americans who do not harbor animus against homosexuals.  They just believe marriage is an institution (which should be) reserved for couples of different sexes.

Indeed, despite his opposition to gay marriage, Brown has not dwelled on the issue in his campaign, telling editors of the Boston Herald that gay marriage in the Bay State is “settled law“:

Gay marriage, which he once wanted to put up for a referendum? “This is settled law” in Massachusetts, he said. “People have moved on.”

Just the other day, in fact, he chatted up two lesbians at Doyle’s in Jamaica Plain. They were so wowed, they asked for a “Brown for Senate” sign.

Doesn’t sound like an anti-gay fellow to me.   Guess the editors at the Edge believe any Republican opposing gay marriage must necessarily be anti-gay.

Share

31 Comments

  1. I haven’t looked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if liberals are also calling him a racist. IN fact I rather expect it — particularly now that Brown has drawn withing single digits, and the race has been downgraded TWO levels from strong Democrat win, past likely Democrat win, to “leans Democrat”.

    The election is one week from next Tuesday! And he needs cash and volunteers. You can do both, here, and if he wins, we may still be able block Obamacare. He has pledged to vote against it. I get the impression that Democrats are trying to speed up the process because they fear the same outcome.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 7, 2010 @ 9:04 pm - January 7, 2010

  2. Dan, He’s a Republican in the NE – of course he’s an anti-gay, racist, Christianist bigot. Don’t you know they all are….

    I’m betting the racist stuff starts Monday

    Comment by Kevin — January 7, 2010 @ 9:14 pm - January 7, 2010

  3. Good, let ‘em say it…that’ll just drive the Independents right into his arms. People are getting sick and tired of the Dems hollering racist and bigot all the time.

    Comment by MissTammy — January 7, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - January 7, 2010

  4. Brown is correct: SSM in Mass. is settled law so who cares what his position is? Is he the best to represent Mass. in the US Senate during these difficult times? I dunno, he could be but I don’t follow Mass. politics that much. As far as DOMA goes, it ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. Repealing the section preventing the Feds from recognizing SSM that are legal in some States is a problem but the courts will probably take care of that. Yet the act itself will be with us for at least a decade more and I see nothing to indicate otherwise, Obama’s “promises” and Democrat lies notwithstanding. If I thought Brown were the best of the two, I’d vote for him with a clean conscience.

    Comment by John — January 7, 2010 @ 9:34 pm - January 7, 2010

  5. took a gander over to brown’s site and yes he doesn’t come across as anti-gay, but rather seems quite open to the idea of ssm as long as it is taken on by the people on the state level, very much like cheney. and he seems pretty open minded.

    under his ‘issues’ I do appreciate that he looks at another hot issue of abortion and states this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, he also continues with his belief that there is a need to reduce the number of abortions in America.

    sounds like a fella with a good head on his shoulders.

    Comment by rusty — January 7, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - January 7, 2010

  6. oh and I think it was AE, Brown is a hotty and I guess some nude photos from a COSMO spread have shown up. The photos are almost 20 years old. But still a hotty.

    Comment by rusty — January 7, 2010 @ 10:33 pm - January 7, 2010

  7. Isn’t that kinda like having your cake and eating it too? He can get support from conservatives by saying he doesn’t support SSM and then turn around and say to liberals or moderates and say well…its settled law and I’m not going to change it.

    I’m not saying he isn’t well within his right to have that stance but…seems like a loophole.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 7, 2010 @ 10:48 pm - January 7, 2010

  8. As a United States senator he will not be voting on MA marriage law. They are two separate matters. Conservatives should expect him to oppose national gay marriage if the opportunity presents itself.

    But on a side note… can Republicans please get over the “settled law” bullsh*t. The Supreme Court established over 40 years ago that there is no right to same sex marriage….does anyone see liberals respecting THAT “settled law?” or any other? Hell, they dont respect the Constitution itself, why would they care about precedent?

    Bad rulings that are not based in the strict meaning of the constitution should be overturned, not respected. And we severely handicap ourselves if we accept THEIR false premise that there should be some sort of statute of limitations on overturning their activist, unconstitutional rulings.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 7, 2010 @ 11:11 pm - January 7, 2010

  9. So Edge Boston has called someone anti-gay. Please allow me to explain how this works:

    anti-gay = opposed to any part of the Gay Left’s agenda

    anti-black = opposed to any part of the Black Left’s agenda

    anti-woman/anti-feminist/sexist = opposed to any part of the militant feminist (aka leftist feminist) agenda

    I think you get the picture.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 7, 2010 @ 11:17 pm - January 7, 2010

  10. Brown is a hotty

    rusty, indeed: http://bostonist.com/2009/09/16/your_dose_of_naked_senate_candidate.php (it’s safe for work)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 7, 2010 @ 11:24 pm - January 7, 2010

  11. Average Gay Joe @ 4:

    Brown is correct: SSM in Mass. is settled law so who cares what his position is?

    Since Brown is running for a position in the U.S. government’s legislature, his position on SSM certainly matters regarding federal laws on the issue.

    As for this concept of “settled law,” I don’t know what it means. Any law can be repealed. The fact that its repeal is unlikely doesn’t make it any more “settled” than a law whose repeal is immanent. A law that is popular is not any more settled than one that is unpopular.

    And I don’t think Brown is at all correct to say the matter of SSM is settled in Massachussets if by settled he means settled legally. An activist ruling by a court and a refusal by a legislature to act against the activist ruling does not count for legally settling anything in my book.

    As far as DOMA goes, it ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. Repealing the section preventing the Feds from recognizing SSM that are legal in some States is a problem but the courts will probably take care of that.

    Huh?

    I don’t think it would kill the U.S. government to recognize civil unions and same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, but just what do you expect the courts to do about it? Because a state has a legal institution of some kind does not obligate the national government to adopt it.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 8, 2010 @ 12:20 am - January 8, 2010

  12. As for this concept of “settled law,” I don’t know what it means. Any law can be repealed.

    But in the case of MA, it would take an enormous political effort (due to unusual requirements in their state Constitution) and the people of MA, on average or in the aggregate, have already shown they are not interested.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2010 @ 1:00 am - January 8, 2010

  13. As for this concept of “settled law,” I don’t know what it means.

    “settled law” is a magical little imp that appears very, very rarely, only when the stars and planets are in proper conjunction, when the hunter’s moon is also blue, or when a conservative judge sits for confirmation. Often sighted with his equally evasive sister, Super Dooper Precedent!

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 1:47 am - January 8, 2010

  14. Yes, I find it funny how people pick and choose which cases they want as ‘settled law’.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2010 @ 7:44 am - January 8, 2010

  15. Indeed, if he is a real conservative, the law in Ma. is settled law, and his position in the Senate will have nothing to do with that law.
    It should be left up to the states for the laws covering that. His position will not be a issue, unless someone tries to force the passing of a nationwide law on it, then his opposition should not be because he is against gay marriage, but be against usurping the States laws And if it is a DOMA, he should be against that for those very same reasons.
    iirc, Elton John is not all that keen on Gay marriage. He feels a civil union works better in the long run, and makes for a clearer split if a “divorce” comes into being.
    He certainly can’t be called anti-gay, now can he?

    Comment by JP — January 8, 2010 @ 8:57 am - January 8, 2010

  16. Since Brown is running for a position in the U.S. government’s legislature, his position on SSM certainly matters regarding federal laws on the issue.

    Why? Is this a state matter as many conservatives have argued or is it suddenly a national one to be handled by the Feds? Other than DOMA, what bearing do his views one way or the other have on this matter?

    As for this concept of “settled law,” I don’t know what it means. Any law can be repealed. The fact that its repeal is unlikely doesn’t make it any more “settled” than a law whose repeal is immanent. A law that is popular is not any more settled than one that is unpopular.

    True. The 13th Amendment can be repealed any day as well, but the chance of either happening are extremely remote. In that sense I consider this to be “settled law” in Mass. at least.

    And I don’t think Brown is at all correct to say the matter of SSM is settled in Massachussets if by settled he means settled legally. An activist ruling by a court and a refusal by a legislature to act against the activist ruling does not count for legally settling anything in my book.

    Really? Seems to have worked just fine on the national level quite a number of times without the decisions of the Court being overturned and their eventual acceptance by an overwhelming number of folks. of course there are exceptions, see Roe v. Wade for starters.

    I don’t think it would kill the U.S. government to recognize civil unions and same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, but just what do you expect the courts to do about it? Because a state has a legal institution of some kind does not obligate the national government to adopt it.

    So you claim. We shall see how the Feds defend themselves in court over this.

    Comment by John — January 8, 2010 @ 10:42 am - January 8, 2010

  17. I agree that Brown is a hottie. I have seen the pictures. He looks awesome.

    Comment by StraightAussie — January 8, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - January 8, 2010

  18. First there was Shock, then Rubio, now Brown and Duffy….

    I’m beginning to think whoever is recruiting GOP candidates is gay.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 8, 2010 @ 7:40 pm - January 8, 2010

  19. ILoveCapitalism @ 12:

    But in the case of MA, it would take an enormous political effort (due to unusual requirements in their state Constitution) and the people of MA, on average or in the aggregate, have already shown they are not interested.

    So what? As I said before, Any law can be repealed. The fact that its repeal is unlikely doesn’t make it any more “settled” than a law whose repeal is immanent. A law that is popular is not any more settled than one that is unpopular.

    A law is a law. If you think one should be repealed you stick to your guns about it. The likelihood of your achieving your goal — in either the short-term or even your lifetime — should have nothing to do with it.

    As for this “settled law” notion, I think American Elephant is right: it’s a figment of overactive imaginations.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 9, 2010 @ 8:30 am - January 9, 2010

  20. verage Gay Joe @ 16:

    Other than DOMA, what bearing do his views one way or the other have on this matter?

    DOMA! DOMA! DOMA! All the time with the damn DOMA. Excuse me for having to point this out, AGJ, but you seem to have forgotten that Congress writes our immigration laws.

    True. The 13th Amendment can be repealed any day as well, but the chance of either happening are extremely remote. In that sense I consider this to be “settled law” in Mass. at least.

    I’m glad to see you accept my original point. As for the probability of a law being repealed (or changed) I’ll repeat my point to ILC:

    A law is a law. If you think one should be repealed you stick to your guns about it. The likelihood of your achieving your goal — in either the short-term or even your lifetime — should have nothing to do with it.

    Use of the term “settled law” by people like Brown is simply a form of evasion.

    Really? Seems to have worked just fine on the national level quite a number of times without the decisions of the Court being overturned and their eventual acceptance by an overwhelming number of folks.

    It is I who has to say “Really?” to this. As you admit, Roe hasn’t worked. But then Roe is the child of Griswold v. Connecticut which also led to decisions demanding that sexual relations between unmarried minors be treated the same as those between a husband and wife. So Griswold hasn’t worked.

    The Court’s using the establishment clause on the states has led to all sorts of nonsense. The courts’ activist death penalty jurisprudence leads to every possible form of execution being constantly challenged. Miranda never worked either — and is now causing trouble in the war with the terrorists. So please spare me the ‘it often works’ card.

    But to be honest, AGJ, the real problem here is I really don’t give a fuck about how fine something seems to have worked out. (And what that means in plainer language is I find your attitude unacceptable.)

    When a court exceeds its authority it is the duty of the legislature and executive to defend the constitution against the court’s actions. This has nothing to do with public popularity; it has to do with constitutional propriety and the duties of the political branches.

    The court in Massachussets invented a new meaning for a constitutional provision. The legislature in Massachussets has failed in its duty by letting this stand. If the legislators want same-sex marriage, they know how to create it.

    So you claim.

    No, my friend, so I know.

    The U.S. government has no more obligation to recognize even traditional marriage in its legal code because some states do than it does to recognize chiropracty because some states do. Just as a state isn’t obliged to recognize misprison in its code because federal law does. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 9, 2010 @ 9:01 am - January 9, 2010

  21. Shirtless Republican Senate Candidates Calendar anyone? Woof!

    Every Christmas morning I drive to relatives in central Mass. This year I noticed how worn out the central state looks. Town after town looks blighted, as if property owners are just hanging on. I kept contrasting this in my mind with stunning, wealthy government central Boston. It reminded me of TammyBruce’s comment about D.C. having the lowest unemployment rate in the country for large urban centers right now.

    Gay Marriage aside, my hunch is Massachusetts is tired…and looking for some sorely needed change. Let’s hope that’s reflected come January 20th.

    Comment by Patrick — January 9, 2010 @ 1:04 pm - January 9, 2010

  22. Classical Liberal Dave,

    My point wasnt quite that “settled law” doesn’t exist, I think it does. My point was that the phrase “settled law” is one you only hear when liberals have forced one of their unpopular policies on Americans via an activist court and that policy is threatened by the potential confirmation of judges who actually follow the constitution.

    Liberals use the phrase “settled law” the exact same way they talk about “consensus” in the global warming debate and the same way small children recite, “I’m rubber you’re glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you, infinity, king’s-x, no-give-backs” then sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you” as if that settles things.

    Actually, the behaviors are so exactly alike, it really is stunning.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 8:23 pm - January 10, 2010

  23. I have a very hard time believing any of the contributors to this website are homosexuals and if they are they have been confused by propaganda. Being a conservative homosexual is like being a Jewish Nazi, republican and conservatives have openly allowed tens of thousands homosexuals to parish during the Reagan administration. In 1987, 41,027 persons are dead and
    71,176 persons diagnosed with AIDS in the US, the Reagan administration was urged to do something anything about the disease in 1981 when cases were raining into the administration; since then the GOP has discriminated and harassed the homosexual on a daily basis.
    Please open your eyes.

    Comment by TJ — January 13, 2010 @ 11:00 pm - January 13, 2010

  24. All of you are so afraid of gay marriage.

    Yet, not one of you can say how my marrying my lover, who has been my monogamous partner for 11 years is going to affect your marriage, or your life. Your marriage has never affected my life, and thus, I wouldn’t give you the same disrespect and unduly fears that you guys have.

    Yet, NOT ONE OF YOU, raises any questions when it comes to “straight” marriage. Not ONE OF YOU denies a pedophile from marrying; a murderous criminal from marrying, and on and on.

    Your only argument is that you marry to procreate. And NOT ONE OF YOU is fighting to keep the elderly from marrying (for companionship which is, of course, OKAY when they’re straight), not ONE OF YOU is fighting to keep couples who can’t have children from marrying.

    This tired argument that you conservatives throw out there is ridiculous…and years from now, you guys will look just as HATE FILLED as the people who fought to keep marriage between WHITES…you see how successful that was!

    Shame on you all.

    Comment by Don Harrison — January 20, 2010 @ 11:26 am - January 20, 2010

  25. Saying he is not anti-gay using what you cite is specious.

    The man voted to strip us of our rights in 2007.

    That’s anti-gay. PERIOD.

    Comment by Peter — January 20, 2010 @ 3:26 pm - January 20, 2010

  26. Strip you of your rights? Oh give me a break, Peter. Calling his vote as anti-gay is what’s specious.

    Your bitterness is showing–and it’s amusing.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 20, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - January 20, 2010

  27. [...] e-mail from Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, sounds a lot like some of our critics in the wake of Scott Brown’s resounding victory yesterday in the Bay State. Whining [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Geoff Kors Throws Hissy Fit over Brown Victory — January 20, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - January 20, 2010

  28. All of you are so afraid of gay marriage.

    Bzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Some of us support it. And have done so for years, well over a decade in fact.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 20, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - January 20, 2010

  29. All of you are so afraid of gay marriage.

    Actually, most people here other than me, are pretty unquestionably in favor of it, they just dont support achieving it by unethical means.

    Yet, not one of you can say how my marrying my lover, who has been my monogamous partner for 11 years is going to affect your marriage

    Sure we can, and have, many times. It changes policy that exists to deal with the natural consequences of heterosexuality — reproduction — and exists to focus society on the best, most beneficial pracitces for that natural consequence into policy that exists instead to provide entitlements for adults That harms every marriage, and harms the country by further eroding the very understanding of why marriage is important to society in the first place, by furthering the very dangerous entitlement mentality that is already doing so much damage to America, and by furthering liberalization of attitudes towards marriage — when the liberalization of marriage is exactly what has harmed that institution so much to begin with.

    Not ONE OF YOU denies a pedophile from marrying; a murderous criminal from marrying, and on and on.

    I wonder if he even realizes that he just compared himself to a pedophile and a murderer.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 20, 2010 @ 9:52 pm - January 20, 2010

  30. [...] when I did a few google searches to investigate the claims of gay left-wingers that Brown was anti-gay, I could find no evidence he harbored animus against homosexuals and only one time he addressed gay [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » By avoiding gay issues and focusing on economic ones, GOP candidates can more readily repeat Scott Brown’s feat — January 21, 2010 @ 4:57 pm - January 21, 2010

  31. Rather than having this argument, I suggest something simpler. Ask Mr. Brown (or any Senator or Congressman) this question:

    Where do you draw the line in terms of rights and privileges for gay people? What protections should they have and what legal limitations should they not have because of their gayness? What are the gray areas? And why?

    That is a fair question. Give him ample space to spell out his position and explain his rationale, rather than the rest of us trying to make sense out of sound bites.

    Then, after he answers, an interviewer should ask for clarification in case any answer was confusing. Make sure Mr. Scott goes through the basic checklist like frequent flier bonus points, visitation right in hospitals, buying property, job dismissal, hate crimes, teaching in schools, the military and the marriage question, etc. It would be better if this were done in a private, taped interview, with no audience cheering or booing. And there should be no shenanigans in the editing of the tape. Are we capable of doing something that simple?

    He will be making laws and policies. All of us have the right to know his positions and he has the right – no the OBLIGATION- to make sure we know what those positions are,how he may vote and why.

    Comment by Mark W aw — February 7, 2010 @ 11:32 am - February 7, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.