Gay Patriot Header Image

GOProud Slams Gay Left Over Scott Brown Attacks

From GOProud:

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley.

“As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they turn to smears, distortions and name-calling,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud.

“In the last few weeks the gay left has slandered Scott Brown, claiming that he is ‘anti-gay.’ The truth is that Scott Brown has said that same-sex marriage is settled law in Massachusetts. Scott Brown has also said they he believes each state should decide its marriage laws – the exact same position taken by President Barack Obama.”

“What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10%, spending spiraling out of control, a super majority bent on expanding discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam. Nothing would send a clearer message to the current leadership in Washington about the unhappiness that all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans, have with the direction in Washington then a win by Scott Brown.”



  1. “a super majority bent on expanding discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam.”

    Thats where they blow it – losing any shred of credibility and sounding like utter hacks, of the lowest kind.

    Don’t y’all think that what you might need is a group of people that has at least some minimal committment to actually trying to persuade people, rather than being yet another group of ranters?

    Comment by Tano — January 12, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - January 12, 2010

  2. You mean like the Stonewall Democrats?

    Comment by John — January 12, 2010 @ 5:39 pm - January 12, 2010

  3. Please Tano, tell us where the statement is.

    Oh wait, that’s right you never answer questions.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 12, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - January 12, 2010

  4. Scott Brown voted to ban gay marriage in the Commonwealth. Please feel free to look it up. He’s also no friend to gay people, doesn’t really favor civil unions, doesn’t think gay people should be adopting or having children, and he’d be lockstep in line with Republicans to vote for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage. In other words, he’s a perfect candidate.

    Comment by fnln — January 12, 2010 @ 7:17 pm - January 12, 2010

  5. They did go overboard in attacking the Democrats as a whole.

    This race is about Brown vs. Coakley, not Democrats vs. Republicans, and in fact, Brown has done a good job distancing himself from the GOP as a party structure. You really shouldn’t emphasize party, certainly not in Massachusetts.

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — January 12, 2010 @ 7:17 pm - January 12, 2010

  6. Please feel free to look it up.

    Well surely you have the evidence supporting your claims handy and would be more than willing to share it with everyone who might read your words, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2010 @ 7:31 pm - January 12, 2010

  7. Besides, fnln, by your description, it sounds like he’s more in line with the liberals y’all have voted into office. Chairman Obama doesn’t believe in gay marriage, doesn’t seem to think gays should serve in the military etc.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2010 @ 7:33 pm - January 12, 2010

  8. Yep, here you go:

    Gay Marriage:

    Gays having children:
    In an interview with the Boston Globe, Brown, at the time considering a bid to unseat Jacques, demeaned Jacques’ decision to start a family. “They’re certainly not married,” he said of Jacques and Chrisler. “There’s a difference of philosophy there. Are there two mothers there? Are they husband and wife?” Later in the interview he stated, “It’s unusual for two women having a baby. It’s just not normal, in terms of what’s normal in today’s society.”

    I thank you, though, for not living in Massachusetts.

    Comment by fnln — January 12, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - January 12, 2010

  9. Excellent choice, fnln; let’s demonstrate, for example, how Cheryl Jacques herself fully endorsed and supported John Kerry as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as he stated he would vote for amendments banning gay marriage.

    So since Jacques herself and her organization support and endorse the FMA and bans on gay-sex marriage, fnln, what is your argument? Don’t tell us you’re so foolish as to attack Republicans for opposing gay-sex marriage when it’s so blatantly obvious that you fully endorse and support Obama Party members who support it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2010 @ 8:30 pm - January 12, 2010

  10. fnln: Let’s assume that everything you have said about Brown is accurate. Ok. So what? Does FMA have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting 67 Senators to approve it, let alone 38 States to ratify? No, not at all. Are there any real signs of DOMA being repealed in this Congress? Other than more empty promises and lies from the Democrats, not at all. Heck, their leaders can’t even deign to help out state efforts on SSM, let alone make favorable statements in support of them. Is ENDA going anywhere? No. Is DADT going to be repealed? Not likely given the spineless leadership in Congress right now. So what exactly does a gay person in Massachusetts get by voting for Coakley? Well that’s where all the other important issues come in to play because like EVERYONE else they too are effected by poor defense policy, an insane fiscal policy, government meddling in their health care, etc.

    No. Were I a Massachusetts voter and all I kept getting for my support was continued lie after lie after lie after lie from the Democrat Party, not to mention the arrogance and sense of entitlement by their politicians, guess what? I’d vote for a Republican soc-con before I’d vote for Coakley, which if you knew anything about on this blog says a lot. From a purely selfish standpoint if they aren’t going to address some of the issues I care about at least I could vote for someone who will take care of the other one that mean a lot to me as well.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2010 @ 8:56 pm - January 12, 2010

  11. Senator Brown is on record as supporting civil unions, medical oversight rights and benenefits for same sex partners. He did NOT vote to to ban gay marriage, he voted to put it to a referendum, so a vote on gay marriage never really took place. He is against a federal ban amendment, but for states rights (DOMA). This is the same position as candidate Obama held.

    Brown has denied that quote on numerous occasions. He was responding to a question about whether people thought Jacques’ situation was unusual for a politcian in his area. What he actually said was something to the effect of “I do not know if this is the norm in my district or society”. He was commenting more on her situation as an elected official, rather than an individual. The newspaper never corrected it.

    How do you know he is not a friend of gay people? How do you know he is not for adoption when the issue has never been before the MA legislature?

    After reading what he really believes in, there is no way anyone can say he is in lock step with other Republicans.

    Comment by clifford — January 12, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - January 12, 2010

  12. I thank you, though, for not living in Massachusetts.

    I thank God that I don’t, even though I’m paying for a freaking tunnel to BOS. Not to mention the kickbacks to Kennedy and Kerry for said tunnel.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2010 @ 1:34 am - January 13, 2010

  13. If you don’t think gays should be allowed to marry for any reason, you’re anti-gay. That includes Scott Brown, that includes Barrack Obama, that includes these majorities that vote down gay marriage laws. This is regardless of whichever ridiculous excuse you choose to run behind, be it ‘settled law’ or ‘tradition’ or ‘being gay is a sin,’ etc. I’m sure we’ve all heard the comparisons to other times in American history when Group X wasn’t allowed to do Activity Y (blacks marrying whites, women voting), and how there’s a difference here doesn’t make any sense to me. That blacks were 3/5 of a person was at one point ‘settled law’ and ‘tradition’ – that didn’t make it anti-black.

    In another recent post, liberals like myself were accused of not understanding our opponents’ arguments against gay marriage. I can tell you right now,I understand them perfectly. What would I need to do to prove that? I am ready for the exam. I can restate a number of positions I’ve heard over the years precisely. It’s not like it’s hard to understand – I get it, and yet, I still judge people advancing those arguments to be fundamentally anti-gay and acting against some of the most basic elements of America. Again, this includes Barack Obama and any Democrats too afraid to do anything about it.

    There’s also a minor distinction to point out – regular people that go to polls and vote against gay marriage are strictly homophobic, while the politicians that either exploit that homophobia (Republicans) or politicians that don’t want to stick their necks out to combat it (Democrats) are sacrificing the freedoms and rights of a segment of citizens for the purposes of their own political ambitions. There’s nothing else you can call that but a sad state of affairs, and one thing Ido not understand is why a group of people that call themselves the gay patriots would be so joyously defensive of such insidious behavior on the part of both politicians and the electorate. Oh, oh – I know – we’re supposed to convince them of our position through reasoned discourse and dialogue, right? All we have to do is overcome decades of religious indoctrination and political pandering – that should be so easy! Wasting your breath on a bunch of irrational bigots while people are being denied their rights – that will get you equality all right!

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2010 @ 6:43 am - January 13, 2010

  14. Oh look, more lies from Levi, how cute.

    Levi, you’re saying ‘anyone who disagrees with me is anti-gay’. What a poor sad bigoted view of the world you have.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2010 @ 7:42 am - January 13, 2010

  15. Forgot to add, Levi’s attitude doesn’t surprise me. After all, he believes that anyone who isn’t for his agenda is ‘anti-gay’ just as Harry Reid can’t be a racist because he’s been vetted by the ‘officially black’ democrats and found to support their agenda.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2010 @ 7:45 am - January 13, 2010

  16. Levi, God bless you. That was really sad and pathetic, and makes me feel bad for you. To think you are so deeply delusional to think that anyone who recognizes basic biological fact is automatically anti-gay….wow. you really have issues to work out and I hope you do. Cus that kind of denial is very unhealthy.

    Talk about the party that hates science!

    Comment by American Elephant — January 13, 2010 @ 11:18 am - January 13, 2010

  17. This race isn’t about Obama. Obama’s positions are another battle.

    This race is about Coakley verus Brown versus Kennedy (no relation to the famous Kennedy’s). If you believe that Brown is any kind of friend to gay people and really supports second-rate civil unions, supports gay adoption, or you’re trying to argue in nuances that he’s not anti-gay, then by all means vote for him. It is your right to make tax cuts your top priority. However, it is equally my right to not vote for him precisely because of his past and his current position on issues that are important to me. Some of you care about tax cuts, which is fine. I care about gay issues more than I care about tax cuts. With Democrats, there’s at least a chance of advancing gay issues. With Republicans, there’s a strong chance that gay issues will go nowhere, or even backwards. If you’re happy with that and you want that tax cut, go for it!

    Comment by fnln — January 13, 2010 @ 12:35 pm - January 13, 2010

  18. shorter fnln: Scott Brown doesn’t want anything I want, so I’m not going to vote for him. Neither do his opponents, but at least they don’t have that R behind their names.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2010 @ 1:24 pm - January 13, 2010

  19. This race isn’t about Obama. Obama’s positions are another battle.

    What are you talking about? Of COURSE this and every other race this year are about Obama and his positions!!! Not only that, but they are all also about the party he leads, which has frankly scared the beejesus out of everyone on fiscal policy. That is what midterms are for, to send a message to the president that he needs to change the way he is handling matters because the public is not amused.

    It is your right to make tax cuts your top priority. However, it is equally my right to not vote for him precisely because of his past and his current position on issues that are important to me. Some of you care about tax cuts, which is fine. I care about gay issues more than I care about tax cuts.

    No one disputes your right to vote for whomever you please, or to choose not to vote at all. This isn’t about tax cuts either. This is about preventing the government from taking over health care, “bailing out” more businesses and then trying to run them, over a TRILLION dollar deficit for years to come and stiffing the next generation with the bill (that would be not only my nieces and nephews but EVERY American kid gay and straight), and insane policy on spending in general, etc. All of this is even BEFORE one thinks about tax cuts, defense policy, and so on.

    Look, it’s quite simple: ENDA doesn’t help me keep my job if the business I work for goes under because of a bad economy. DADT repeal doesn’t help me if I lose my house because I can’t afford to make the payments because I lose my job. DOMA repeal or Federal civil unions do not help me put food on my table if more and more of paycheck is sucked away in new taxes and “fees” to pay for all of this spending. Etc. Etc. Etc. To put it in terms a Democrat should be able to understand: “It’s the economy, stupid”. Right now I as a voter am VERY dissatisfied with how this president and the ruling party have handled the economic crisis. I am NOT convinced that they are going to do anything but make matters worse. Until I feel that my basic needs for survival and those of the people I care about are not being threatened, EVERYTHING else is secondary in EVERY election.

    If there is one thing that elections in this country have shown me during my lifetime is that sometimes you need divided government to reign the madness in. The time has come to take away some of the power the Democrats were entrusted with.

    With Democrats, there’s at least a chance of advancing gay issues.

    What chance? A chance for more lies from them while they take donations from gays only to pat our heads and promptly forget us again? Please. I’m not buying it.

    With Republicans, there’s a strong chance that gay issues will go nowhere, or even backwards.

    I’m far more comfortable with the opponent who makes their opposition known to my face than one who smiles at me while slipping the knife in my back.

    Comment by John — January 13, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - January 13, 2010

  20. How one easily forgets the Hate Crimes Bill – the Matthew Shephard Act that EVERY Republican voted against. Sorry GayPatriot, you’re sounding more like a GOPIdiot.

    Comment by Michael — January 15, 2010 @ 9:41 am - January 15, 2010

  21. Michael:
    Just wanted you to know… not EVERY Republican voted against it, 44 in the House voted FOR it and 5 in the Senate voted FOR it.
    They are named here…

    Comment by Denise — January 15, 2010 @ 6:26 pm - January 15, 2010

  22. You don’t live in Massachusetts do you, John (number 19)? If you did, then you would know that Martha Coakley has been a friend to gays in this state and she would continue to be one to gays at the Federal level. Despite what all of you are saying, Scott Brown has a legislative record and public statements that show that he’s no friend to gays.

    We all care about the economy, but caring about the economy doesn’t mean that all voters care about nothing else.

    Comment by fnln — January 16, 2010 @ 5:04 pm - January 16, 2010

  23. fnln, it all depends on how you define being a friend to the gays. And liberals like Coakley base their friendship on using the heavy hand of the state to limit the freedoms of private enterprise.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 16, 2010 @ 5:39 pm - January 16, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.