Gay Patriot Header Image

The Bush Era: A Golden One for Gay Americans

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:18 pm - January 13, 2010.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay America

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

As I’ve been preparing for my presentation tonight to LA’s Westside Republicans, I’ve been reviewing statistics on corporate policies toward gay employees and have been impressed to discover how quickly these private enterprises have responded to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in American society.  And the pace at which they offered benefits to same-sex domestic partners of employees did not slacken during the supposed dark days of the George W. Bush Era.

Indeed, the bellyaching of the gay left notwithstanding, the Bush Era was a Golden one for Gay Americans, thanks in large part to the greatness of the federal structure our framers designed–and to the freedom inherent in the American “experiment.”   It has become increasingly easy to live openly as a gay person in the United States.  Private organizations–and even some government ones–have made greater efforts to accommodate gay employees.

In 2000, only 255 corporations in the Fortune 500 had adopted non-discrimination policies including sexual orientation.  When Bush left office, that number was up to 472.  Last February, just a few weeks after that much anticipated (in gay political circles) departure, HRC (yes, that HRC) reported that its  ”2007-2008 [State of the Workplace] report revealed rapid expansion of protections for LGBT workers in the private sector over the past decade.”  A decade in which Republicans dominated Congress and where for eight years George W. Bush had been in the White House.

In 2000, only 102 Fortune 500 companies offered benefits to same-sex partners of their employees  In 2008, 286 did. Two years previously, before Democrats had recaptured Congress, Amy Joyce reported in the Washington Post that the “number of Fortune 500 companies that include domestic partner benefits has more than doubled since 2000.”  More than doubled under W’s watch?  Interesting.  Very interesting.

No, I don’t credit George W. Bush personally with this improvement. I don’t look to politicians to make things better for gay people.  I just expect them to get out of the way so that private institutions can respond to changing social circumstances.  It is politicians’ job to protect our freedom, not to make us feel good about ourselves.

All that said, all these improvements took place while George W. Bush’s was in the White House, with many occurring while Republicans held a majority in Congress.  As gay leaders regularly demonized that good man, with HRC’s 2004 President Cheryl Jacques making “George W. Bush, you’re fired” the defining slogan of her short time at the helm of that left-wing organization, things were steadily improving for gay Americans.  Mean-spirited, gay-baiting man that W supposedly was (in the eyes of Jacques et al.), he didn’t stop that progress.

The first decade of this century was a golden one for gay Americans.  And as long as government stays out of our way and does not impede our social progress so too will the next one be.   And the one after that.

Share

54 Comments

  1. If, as you say, you “don’t credit George W. Bush personally with the improvement,” could you please explain why you titled your post “The Bush Era: A Golden One for Gay Americans?” All the instances you cite are frankly incidental to “the Bush era” so frankly it could be the “anything” era that predominated the aught decade, no? And given that “the Bush era” was one where gay rights issues were ignored at best, and willfully regressed at worst, how do you justify linking the former president with anything related to progress on LGBT issues? This was a presidency that threatened to endorse a constitutional amendment denying same-sex marriage, a strict enforcement of DADT and DOMA, opposition to the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, and a threatened veto to the Matthew Shepard Act. It’s a presidency that did literally nothing to advance LGBT issues but you wouldn’t really get that from your title. So while this “took place on George W. Bush�s watch” there’s obviously nothing he did to encourage this happenstance, nor is there anything he could have done to prevent it.

    Also, I apologize for being cynical in thinking that these fortune 500 companies have the greater good at heart in promoting their employment practices apart from the bottom line. And surely it’s great for those employees of the said fortune 500 companies. But it still doesn’t account for these same employees facing discrimination in housing or the recognition of their same-sex partners in legal matters for examples. Private business entities are no substitute for fair and ethical government that protects all people the same, not just those fortunate enough to work for company that provides them with services that any heterosexual receives without thought, nor those wealthy enough to protect themselves from the inequities others less fortunate face.

    The two-thousandsies were no golden era by any standards, and absolutely not when put into context of the Bush presidency. Saying so only shows a willful politicization of the facts and desire of a personal set of political theory to be true when they’re obviously not.

    Comment by Countervail — January 13, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - January 13, 2010

  2. Counterveil, you are best described by the famous quote from Booker T. Washington.

    There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

    It is a triumph that companies have been able to look past the whiny, spoiled, helpless welfare gays like yourself who spend all your time complaining about how you need the government to redistribute wealth for you and to the honest, hardworking folk that actually want to be and are productive members of society.

    You will never understand that. You belong to the Obama Party, in which minority status trumps all, in which salaries should be determined by skin color, and in which promotions should be given based, not on how well one performs, but how many of a particular gender, ethnic, and sexual orientation status one “needs” to have to be “balanced”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2010 @ 3:50 pm - January 13, 2010

  3. “…these improvements took place on George W. Bush’s watch.”

    The phrase “under X’s watch” refers to events that happen in a given area while X has responsibility for that area.

    Bush was not the dictator of America. He could not define what a corporation’s personnel policies would be. He had no responsibilities in this area. The changes did not occur ‘on his watch”.

    Comment by Tano — January 13, 2010 @ 4:44 pm - January 13, 2010

  4. WOW! The efforts of Dr. King in the civil rights movement were not because they wanted a welfare system. Those efforts were to secure equal rights in the face of a nation that did not want to change the status quo. We face the same struggle today. Its not about the re-distribution of wealth or being a liberal or a conservative. I can guarantee you that if you went to a TRUE conservative (read: Christian Right Republican) meeting and self-identified as a Gay Conservative Republican, they would ride your ass out of the building on a rail faster than you could say “Log Cabin Republican.” We need to stop this in-fighting of who has the better plan and just stand up and demand the rights that we are denied, either by willfull civil disobedience or taking them from the open hands of a government that gives them to us despite the objections of the majority. Either way, we CANNOT let this moment pass us by. And for the record, counterveil makes a valid point, the so called Golden Age under W was not due to anything he did, but due to us standing up for ourselves at one time and demanding what is rightfully ours: freedom.

    Comment by Larry G. — January 13, 2010 @ 4:46 pm - January 13, 2010

  5. Wow, Larry, wow, what incredible ignorance of the conservative movement you demonstrate in such a short comment

    Let’s see, I’ve been out as a gay conservative now for about 15 years and guess what, have yet to be ridden out on a rail, indeed, have been welcomed into the GOP. So, please learn the truth about the topics you address before commenting.

    And please read my post before responding next time, k? I said it wasn’t due to W that all these good things happened, but in the nature of the American capitalist system.

    Like I said, we don’t need a government to act on our behalf, we need government to get out of our way, you know, the same sort of thing the founders fought for.

    And Tano, while quibbling with my semantics, you make my point, so thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 13, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - January 13, 2010

  6. It is worth noting that Bush was responsible for certain direct “improvements” for gays. For example, if you are a gay man (I am) and if you believe government spending is the way to solve problems (I do not)… then you should have been thrilled that Bush greatly increased AIDS spending over his predecessor, Clinton. But you were probably too busy getting emotional over left-wing talking points memos to ever notice.

    The one thing Bush did that I can think of at the moment, that might be construed as “anti-gay”, was his proposing a constitutional amendment to ban the possibility of States recognizing gay marriage. However, even that wasn’t anti-gay so much as anti-federalism, i.e., anti-letting-the-States-decide-things. Therefore it was opposed within Bush’s own party by conservatives such as John McCain and (less explicitly) Dick Cheney.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2010 @ 5:43 pm - January 13, 2010

  7. Don’t forget the change W. signed last year January allowing me to leave my retirement account to a non-spouse partner WITHOUT him taking a huge hit on the taxes!

    Of course private enterprise will broaden their non-discrimination policies – they want to keep the best help they can! My previous job excluded sexual orientation in their ndp, and the caliber of employee was noticeably lacking. (a young female coworker was shocked that I could have been fired at any time for that cause)

    Comment by Jax Dancer — January 13, 2010 @ 5:43 pm - January 13, 2010

  8. Don’t forget the freedom from oppression we had under Lincoln. That was the era of the greatest amount of freedom for gays in society.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 13, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - January 13, 2010

  9. Don’t forget the change W. signed last year January allowing me to leave my retirement account to a non-spouse partner

    Oh, yeah. That too.

    As for the Bush -era- (the years 2001-2008) being golden for gay Americans… let me just say that I never felt more accepted by ordinary Americans, before then.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - January 13, 2010

  10. Actually my comment was more directed to NorthDallas40 than to you Mr Blatt. I recognize that YOU didn’t praise the Bush Administration or berate the current one.

    Comment by LarryG. — January 13, 2010 @ 5:53 pm - January 13, 2010

  11. Bush was not the dictator of America. He could not define what a corporation’s personnel policies would be.

    So since Barack Obama is screaming and wetting himself insisting that his pay czar has the right to make decisions on corporations’ personnel policies, Barack Obama can now be correctly called a dictator.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2010 @ 5:54 pm - January 13, 2010

  12. We need to stop this in-fighting of who has the better plan and just stand up and demand the rights that we are denied, either by willfull civil disobedience or taking them from the open hands of a government that gives them to us despite the objections of the majority.

    A government that does as it pleases despite the objections of the minority is not a democracy or a republic. It is at best an oligarchy, and at worst, a dictatorship.

    Let’s reverse the question. How about if the government gives preferential and special treatment to Jerry Falwell Jr. and his ilk over the objections of the minority? Would you support that?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2010 @ 5:56 pm - January 13, 2010

  13. As far as being ridden out on a rail, I call BS. There is NO way that the Religious Right that controls the Republican Party will EVER welcome gay people with open arms. Oh sure they’ll take your vote, but then stab you in the back the first chance they get. As far as learning about the “Conservative Movement” I have had a belly full of it for the last 25 years. I just started reading this blog today, and I must say that you react just like every other “conservative homo” I have ever met, typical hostility and finger pointing. I will continue to read, and probably comment.

    Comment by LarryG. — January 13, 2010 @ 5:57 pm - January 13, 2010

  14. I live in a “Red” state. Most of the straights — and a lot of the gays — I know personally are conservative. Some are still Republicans.

    My liberal friends talk about conservatives as if they don’t actually know any, which I find odd — unless they spend most of their time in some underground bunker into which people to the political Right of them are not allowed.

    There is something to be said for the idea of “coming out” as a conservative or a libertarian (the latter being as sinister, to liberals, as the former). It provides opportunities for many teachable moments.

    I don’t think Bush was ever really anti-gay. He never seemed to have any personal animosity against us at all. Like all politicians, he responded to pressures from within his party.

    This is why people should probably stick with the party they find most in agreement with their views, and work to effect change from within, instead of distancing themselves and ignorantly sneering, as many liberals do. A lot of gays, in particular, are certainly liberal only because of a single issue.

    Had the pressures from within the GOP been different during the Bush Administration, we could have looked for greater favor not only from the commercial sector but the political one as well.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 13, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - January 13, 2010

  15. Well I don’t see anything in your post that he had a direct hand in helping LGBT community, its not like he wrote to these companies and told them to extend benefits. He didn’t try to extend benefits to federal gay employees, which would have been nice.Yes, we have definitely progressed since 2000 when the idea of gay marriage seemed highly unlikely and now we have five, or four, states with gay marriage.

    I really don’t see what the conclusions are from this post, that in spite of an empowered Religion Right we still manage to gain more? Its not like he handled the gay marriage all the well by supporting constitutional ban, and doesn’t really matter if he thought it would pass or not. I guess he could really go on and made a big deal about companies giving these benefits to gays, like some conservative groups do.

    We continue to make progress, even with recent set backs, we still push on and still gain more. If George W Bush’s ambivalence about the issue is considered a golden age, then if Obama does end DADT and federal DOMA…like will be an even greater age?

    I don’t W is bad or hostile or anything but I don’t think he played a huge role in our progress over the decade.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 13, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - January 13, 2010

  16. Um, Larry, been involved in GOP and conservative politics for better part of my adult life (save from 1999-2004) and have had almost no problem from any Republican or conservative organization. And even on these few cases where I did have a problem, I wasn’t excluded from gay organizations, so please get your information on the right and the GOP from conservatives and Republicans and not left-wingers and Democrats–and other prejudiced against those with political views at odds with their own.

    Darkeyed, good critique. And note I didn’t attribute our successes to W, merely said he didn’t stand in the way.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 13, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - January 13, 2010

  17. both obama and bush have come across as rather silent about homosexuals…

    the silence seems inconsistent with both of their party’s ‘perceived’ agendas.

    i leave it to readers to decide whose silence is worse.

    Comment by mark l. — January 13, 2010 @ 7:11 pm - January 13, 2010

  18. Dan

    Can we start a pool on who Larry is the sock-puppet for? Or does that whole end of the pool sound so similar?

    Darkeyed

    That is a good thing. If people move that way, without being forced by judges overturning laws, the more likely resistance will fade. If you notice, it spikes when someone uses the court rather than when companies or voters move than way.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2010 @ 7:25 pm - January 13, 2010

  19. I’m a tranny, and I’ve been thrown under the bus by the sainted Paul Wellstone, tweaked out of legislation by Barney Frank, and excluded from any friendly consideration by HRC. Bigotry is where you find it, and I’ve found it on the Left far more often than the Right.

    Comment by Ellen — January 13, 2010 @ 7:26 pm - January 13, 2010

  20. mark, l, with one word, “perceived,” particularly by putting it in quotation marks, your short comment becomes perhaps the most insightful in this thread.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 13, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - January 13, 2010

  21. Hey we got a leftie to admit that President bush wasn’t a dictator. That’s progress!

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2010 @ 7:34 pm - January 13, 2010

  22. Great piece, Dan. All very true. And while Bush isn’t directly responsible for the gains you mentioned, they would not have happened had he not gotten government out of the way, and had it not been for the Bush Boom.

    One thing is certain, no companies are extending benefits to gays during the Obama/Democrat depression — they simply cant afford to!

    The conclusion to draw from this post is that real progress happens as the result of free choice, not government mandate.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 13, 2010 @ 7:35 pm - January 13, 2010

  23. Bush did stand in the way, as well as the rest of the Republican party. General societal progress is responsible for improving things for gays in the past, and that’s despite efforts by people like George Bush and the GOP, who actively suppressed progress for gays on multiple fronts. Just because things got better doesn’t mean they got as good as they could (and should) have gotten, and standing up and applauding the people that did the most to stand in the way of that additional progress just because there was any progress at all is very weird, to say the least.

    The Republican Party isn’t the hero of gay advancement, MTV has more responsibility for that then the Bush administration does.

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - January 13, 2010

  24. both obama and bush have come across as rather silent about homosexuals…

    the silence seems inconsistent with both of their party’s ‘perceived’ agendas.

    i leave it to readers to decide whose silence is worse.

    Seems that 0bama is not a big fan of gays much. unless he needs the vote.
    Prop 8 is likely passed because of the larger number of blacks who went to the polls and
    Bush didn’t hate people for doing something he thought was wrong or didn’t agree with, Dems hate anybody who does not agree with them on EVERYTHING (the hate within their own ranks is epic) so likely 0bama’s silence is to keep the rancor down for his not shoving along the agenda the gay left wants, and he likely does not agree with

    Comment by JP — January 13, 2010 @ 8:43 pm - January 13, 2010

  25. Seriously man…What brand of SMACK are you smoking?

    Comment by Hdtex — January 13, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - January 13, 2010

  26. As a gay man I don’t ask for anything from the government. Just stay out of my way. I can provide for my own freedom and independence. I don’t sit around waiting for any government to “grant” me the power to be happy. To grant me the power of a union. If I want to live forever with a man I love, I do it. And I don’ t need the blessing of any government troll in MA or CA or DC. Gay people made great strides during the Bush administrations. Popular culture showed that we were pretty normal, as normal as most straight people are anyway. The government allowed us to be ourselves. That’s all I will ever ask.
    The Booker T Washington quote in #2 is amazing and brings tears to my eyes. Beware those that make money on your misery.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2010 @ 10:21 pm - January 13, 2010

  27. Funny. In the days gone by, the mean-spirited went after the gays or blacks as a generic group of others who could all be lumped into one big icky group of people who could be demonized as inferior.

    Now, it is the mean-spirited among the gays and the “progressives” who find Christians to be that generic group of icky others.

    Comment by Becky — January 13, 2010 @ 10:28 pm - January 13, 2010

  28. I don’t think it is a justifiable comparison to make, between 8 years of Bush and one year of Obama. I am betting that Obama’s record will be hugely better by the time his first term is over.

    Why does it not happen instantly? Y’all know the answer to that, but are afraid to admit it. We all saw what happened to the last Democratic president who tried to advance gay rights in his first year – that position was used effectivly and relentlessly by the GOP to hand him a huge defeat in the midterms.

    I think it fair to say that the prominence that the GOP has had over the past two decades – much of which was based on their control of Congress for a dozen years, was built on the foundation of their trashing of Clinton for raising the prospect of allowing gays to serve in the military. It was not the only issue, but it was a central one.

    Obama is taking his time, getting his ducks in a row – getting full buy-in from the military (on the right to serve issue), for example – proceeding in a manner that will actually have lasting support in the country.

    Comment by Tano — January 13, 2010 @ 10:41 pm - January 13, 2010

  29. Yes, the GWBush Era was great for gays. But so was the entire Republican-Conservative Era that began with Richard Nixon and continues to this day. I was an adult in 1969 and I can tell you that the progress we gays have made in this Republican period has been staggering, revolutionary, messianic.

    I can easily make a case that the capitalistic, entrepreneurial value system that Republicans and conservatives foster (I generalize) is in fact great for gays. The 1920s were another period of great advance for gays, while the 30s-40s (the great collectivist era) were bad for us.

    But if you don’t want to buy that theory, you are left with two choices: a) Republicans were running a secret pro-gay conspiracy all these years, or b) politics is pretty much irrelevant to our progress in winning rights and acceptance.

    Comment by Barry Youngerman — January 13, 2010 @ 10:44 pm - January 13, 2010

  30. It seems for all the prevarication on this thread, no one has truly argued well the point of Dan’s post, that somehow the Bush presidency should be held in esteem as a golden age for gay men and women. As one poster pointed out very well, any progress in LGBT social issues seems to be in spite of the Bush presidency, not because of it. For example, while the president could be commended for increasing HIV and AIDS funding to African nations, it doesn’t represent some kind of idealogical support of gay men and women in those countries with the disease overwhelmingly affecting the general population. Likewise, the change in retirement fund rollovers was for the benefit of everyone, not instituted to specifically benefit same-sex couples. The Bush administration does not get points because of policies that generally help everyone, which might happen to include gay men and women.

    Of the four things I listed above that the Bush administration vociferously advocated regarding gay men and women – threatening a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, strict enforcement of DOMA and DADT, opposing the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, and threatening to veto the Matthew Shepard Act – only one of these might be considered against legislation specially benefitting gay men and women. The others, if you look at it in the same manner, represent government action in the private sector denying the extension of special benefits to heterosexual people. The fair and equal treatment to gay men and women is compromised by the privileged treatment given to non-gay people. If the ideology of conservatives is that government shouldn’t institute laws specially benefitting gay men and women, why then is there no concern of government policies that specially benefit straight men and women? That’s why I find it laughable when conservatives play the “special treatment” card when LGBT issues are mentioned when there’s so much special treatment afforded to heterosexuals as a cultural norm already. Heterosexual people aren’t denied housing because of their heterosexuality. No one loses a job because someone doesn’t like knowing a person makes love to their opposite-sex partner. No one gets beaten to death in an alley because they realized the person was straight. There are exceptions to everything but it just highlights the fact that the problem lies in the the unequal treatment afforded a majority comprised of heterosexual people against a minority comprised of non-hetersexual people.

    To see what private companies are doing, giving the same benefits to gay men and women and by extension their partners, represents an extension of special benefits typically reserved for heterosexual people that these firms are in the fortunate financial position to extend to gay employees. This is not an example of fair treatment. This is an example of privileged treatment extended to a minority of the minority. It’s a false equivalent of fair treatment since it only benefits a small portion of those who normally would have no access to these privileges. Dan suggests these privileges represents an expression of fair treatment, which couldn’t be further from the truth. And it certainly can’t be attributed to the actions or inactions of a president with a record of little regard for gay men and women except in standing against the extension of similar special privileges in a governmental capacity.

    Comment by Countervail — January 14, 2010 @ 12:27 am - January 14, 2010

  31. P.S. I have a quote in response to the Booker T. Washington quote from someone a little more foundational to the notion of what our country is supposed to be about.

    “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Comment by Countervail — January 14, 2010 @ 12:37 am - January 14, 2010

  32. Actually, countervail, for most of the Bush Presidency, enforcement of DADT was down compared to the time under Obama’s administration, who have done nothing to try and mitigate its enforcement even by making the standards stricter on initiating investigations, etc, all of which are achievable even without the President countermanding Congress-passed law.

    Comment by Retcon — January 14, 2010 @ 12:41 am - January 14, 2010

  33. Great piece, Dan. All very true. And while Bush isn’t directly responsible for the gains you mentioned, they would not have happened had he not gotten government out of the way, and had it not been for the Bush Boom.

    So… what you’re saying is… Bush is directly responsible for the gains, right?

    There’s just too much to say about how ridiculous that is. The gay folks around this website may just love Republicans, but there’s a pretty big reason that gays are a hugely reliable liberal constituency. The GOP has made a lot of its gains by at best being indifferent to gay concerns and at worst, condoning and justifying homophobia. You need to learn a little bit about cause and effect here – just because the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse didn’t come hurtling through the sky during Bush’s term meant he was somehow responsible for keeping them at bay.

    Comment by Levi — January 14, 2010 @ 12:50 am - January 14, 2010

  34. Barry, as to winning acceptance, I choose (b).

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 14, 2010 @ 12:54 am - January 14, 2010

  35. I don’t sit around waiting for any government to “grant” me the power to be happy. To grant me the power of a union. If I want to live forever with a man I love, I do it. And I don’ t need the blessing of any government troll in MA or CA or DC.

    And what if the man you love is from a foreign country? You won’t be living with him forever because our government won’t let you – you can either move to his country (though he may not be a country that allows that, either) or you can figure out how to love someone else – a nice foreign woman perhaps?

    The bottom line is that there are hundreds of scenarios like this where easy solutions for straight people are made into impossible, no-win situations for gay people for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. You seem to think you’re somehow more special than the gays that would like these normal, sensible rights because you can get by without them – but good lord man, it’s not like these people are asking for what they’re asking for merely because they want validation in the eyes of their government. Do you really think that matters to anybody? They want to live normal lives and enjoy the same benefits that the rest of us enjoy. Just because you might be in an ideal situation doesn’t mean that others are.

    Two dudes in a long-term monogamous relationship that happen to hail from different countries is somehow less ‘traditional’ than a sweaty fat guy ordering a mail order bride half his age from Russia… that makes sense to you?

    Comment by Levi — January 14, 2010 @ 1:06 am - January 14, 2010

  36. […] us.  Responding to my post on the Golden Age for gays while Bush was in the White House, a reader guaranteed me that if you went to a TRUE conservative (read: Christian Right Republican) meeting and […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » They forgot to bring a rail to Westside Republicans meeting — January 14, 2010 @ 1:19 am - January 14, 2010

  37. I think the gay bigot Counterveil inadvertently made their problem obvious.

    The Bush administration does not get points because of policies that generally help everyone, which might happen to include gay men and women.

    Policies that help everyone are, by definition, equalitarian and equally protecting. Indeed, the best policy government could make would be one that helps everyone.

    But Counterveil refuses to support that because these policies don’t give special privileges to gays or single out heterosexuals for punishment. Counterveil, the gay bigot, makes it clear that he does not and will not support policies that help gay people if they help other people as well.

    Really, that is the issue here. The Obama Party shills like LarryG, Levi, Counterveil, and Tano base whether a not a policy is “good for gays” on whether or not it singles gays out for special privileges and treatments. If a policy benefits other people as well, they oppose it because it’s not “pro-gay”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2010 @ 2:57 am - January 14, 2010

  38. The funny part is how Levi responds to a gay person who states that they don’t need special privileges from the government; he tries to make that gay person feel bad and selfish.

    That’s typical of a moocher. “Moochers” demand others’ earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves, however, they curse the producers who make that help possible and are jealous and resentful of the talented on whom they depend.

    Levi isn’t interested in gay people being happy. He’s interested in making gay people feel bad and victimized so that he can exploit them. He’s a user in the worst sense of the word, a minority pimp and abuser.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2010 @ 3:08 am - January 14, 2010

  39. There’s just too much to say about how ridiculous that is.

    Thank you. That you think it ridiculous only confirms that it is right on the money.

    So… what you’re saying is… Bush is directly responsible for the gains, right?

    No, I said what I meant and meant what I said. Real progress of all kinds happens most when people are free and prosperous. I realize this idea is anathema to those who belong to a party that does not believe in freedom, and believes that progress happens when government forces it. It is nevertheless true. Bush safeguarded our freedom and ability to prosper, and we did just that, in more ways than just economic.

    but there’s a pretty big reason that gays are a hugely reliable liberal constituency

    Oh yes! A truly humiliating sense of victimhood. Its ever so much easier to play the victim and demand special rights than it is to live by the same rules as everybody else. The latter, however, is the only morally respectable thing to do. The former are also known as the Democrat party.

    The GOP has made a lot of its gains by at best being indifferent to gay concerns

    Exactly as they should because those “concerns” are phony! Indeed, that used to be the aim of the gay movement, to be left alone by government. Now, far from wanting to be left alone, the gay movement has been infected with Statists who want to use government to force others to humor their delusions, oppress the rights of others in the name of “tolerance”, and grant them special rights.

    and at worst, condoning and justifying homophobia.

    1. Nonsense. and
    2. Even if you were correct, which youre not, so what? *I* am homophobic. The most dangerous group in America is not Christian conservatives by a long shot, the most dangerous group in America is the far left, and gay liberals are among the most enthusiastic members of that fascist group. They are also the most intolerant group and the group most eager to use the force of government to control others. people should be afraid of the fascist gay left. very afraid. And there is more than ample reason for them to be.

    just because the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse didn’t come hurtling through the sky during Bush’s term meant he was somehow responsible for keeping them at bay.

    nobody said he was. I said he was responsible for safeguarding our freedoms including our freedom to prosper. And the longest period of continuous economic growth in our nations history proves that he, and Republicans, did just that.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 14, 2010 @ 3:23 am - January 14, 2010

  40. …and what NDT said

    Comment by American Elephant — January 14, 2010 @ 3:26 am - January 14, 2010

  41. If I remember correctly, the the GOP and Bush passed a pensions reform bill in 2005 and 2006 it included significant advances in gay rights, primarily it opened up shared pensions to partners. I often think about how Clinton passed DOMA and Bush did modest things like this.

    Comment by robert verdi — January 14, 2010 @ 6:18 am - January 14, 2010

  42. So…

    It’s not an advancement for ‘teh gheys’ if it benefits everyone, eh Countervail?

    Levi’s sad, nay, pathetic attempt at a retort ignores the fact that INS looks down on the ‘mail order bride’ aspect. Indeed, I’ve a friend who emigrated to England because her husband couldn’t get a visa here to get married.

    Of course, Immigration isn’t a ‘right’, nor is there a ‘right’ to have the government recognize your union. So again, the chonic liar is whining that things aren’t equal, when they are. Levi’s definition of ‘equal’ means ‘give me what I want, the devil take the hindmost’.

    (And for those of you who enjoy keeping score for equality, GWB did appoint the first lesbian poet laureate, so there’s an ‘advancement’)

    The fact is that President Bush did more for gays and straights around the world, and at home, than the previous administration had, or this one will.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 14, 2010 @ 8:08 am - January 14, 2010

  43. No, I said what I meant and meant what I said. Real progress of all kinds happens most when people are free and prosperous. I realize this idea is anathema to those who belong to a party that does not believe in freedom, and believes that progress happens when government forces it. It is nevertheless true. Bush safeguarded our freedom and ability to prosper, and we did just that, in more ways than just economic.

    Oooh yes, now we’re getting into the specifics. Bush helped gays by ‘safeguarding our freedom and ability to prosper.’ Now it makes sense, I can really see how the actions of the Bush administration directly lead to more companies expanding their anti-discrimination policies. You’re not being vague or speaking in sweeping generalities at all!

    The Bush administration failed on both those counts anyway – the economy tanked while the GOP was in control and they’ve started two of the most counter-productive wars in our history. And lately I’ve been hearing about how Obama’s out of control spending is enslaving Americans for generations – wouldn’t that apply to Bush’s out of control spending as well?

    At this point last year, there were no Republicans willing to say two kind words about the Bush – my how things have changed after a little mis-remembering and revisionist history.

    Oh yes! A truly humiliating sense of victimhood. Its ever so much easier to play the victim and demand special rights than it is to live by the same rules as everybody else. The latter, however, is the only morally respectable thing to do. The former are also known as the Democrat party.

    That’s exactly opposite. I think the whole point is that they want to live by the same rules as everybody else because currently they’re not being allowed to. Gays aren’t playing the victim, they are victims, used as a wedge issue to increase conservative turnout and taken for granted as a constituency by Democrats, all the while their ability to lead a normal, American life is compromised in any number of ways because some strangers they’ll never meet have some kind of problem with ‘those people.’

    Exactly as they should because those “concerns” are phony! Indeed, that used to be the aim of the gay movement, to be left alone by government. Now, far from wanting to be left alone, the gay movement has been infected with Statists who want to use government to force others to humor their delusions, oppress the rights of others in the name of “tolerance”, and grant them special rights.

    Humor their delusions? What are you talking about?

    1. Nonsense. and

    Yeah, that’s why these gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot every year. Easiest way to gin up votes for the GOP since race-based fear-mongering! (although as we all know, that made a comeback last year, too)

    2. Even if you were correct, which youre not, so what? *I* am homophobic. The most dangerous group in America is not Christian conservatives by a long shot, the most dangerous group in America is the far left, and gay liberals are among the most enthusiastic members of that fascist group. They are also the most intolerant group and the group most eager to use the force of government to control others. people should be afraid of the fascist gay left. very afraid. And there is more than ample reason for them to be.

    Oh please. Republicans spent the last decade spying on American citizens, shipping off teenagers to die in a war used exclusively for political fundraising and propaganda, and torturing people based on things as rock solid as ‘gossip’ and ‘a feeling.’ What’s Obama done that’s so menacing? Ooooo…. he wanted to provide health care to more Americans! How so very sinister…

    nobody said he was. I said he was responsible for safeguarding our freedoms including our freedom to prosper. And the longest period of continuous economic growth in our nations history proves that he, and Republicans, did just that.

    Touched on this before, but yeah, he didn’t safeguard anybody’s ‘freedom to prosper’ the housing bubble and financial crisis fully gestated and erupted during the Bush years when he was busy blowing money on wars and tax cuts. All that economic growth was a greed and delusion – fueled bubble that is currently resulting in one of the worst economic periods in our history.

    But oh, right – this time it’s all Obama’s fault!

    Comment by Levi — January 14, 2010 @ 9:56 am - January 14, 2010

  44. Obama has certainly made nice noises about gay rights, but what has he actually done?

    *His justice department produced a truly horrific screed in support of DOMA, which he claims to oppose. That

    *A simple executive order is all that is required to gut DADT, by suspending the discharge provision; has has stated that he opposes DADT as well.

    *He claims to support ENDA, but there has been no big push by the administration or the Democratic Party leadership to bring it to the table for discussion, and it’s not like they don’t have the numbers to bring it up.

    *He has repeatedly stated that he opposes gay marriage, which means that he holds the same view as his predecessor and his significant opponent in the general election. There’s a tiny sliver of space between Obama and Bush on that issue, but the mote becomes a beam when viewed through the gay activist’s prism.

    He says all the right things, but until he actually *does* something, he’s all hat, no cattle.

    Comment by timekeeper — January 14, 2010 @ 10:36 am - January 14, 2010

  45. Bush helped gays by ’safeguarding our freedom and ability to prosper.’

    Of course he did.

    That is, if you see gays as regular people just like anyone else who are aided by our freedoms and opportunities being protected.

    But if you see them as an ignorant minority group who aren’t capable of functioning by themselves and need the plantation kindness of “enlightened” individuals like yourself, that wouldn’t make any sense to you.

    Encomiendas went out of style centuries ago, Levi, except among “progressives” like yourself who saw the opportunity to enslave and control minority groups by claiming they were inferior and needed “protection”.

    Why do you hate gay people who are self-reliant, Levi? Why do you attack those gay people who do not support special treatment laws for gays? Do you not want gays to be self-sufficient? Do you dislike gays who can function without government aid and assistance?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2010 @ 11:22 am - January 14, 2010

  46. Oh look, Levi’s going on about ‘spying on Americans’ now (proof?) and claiming that he’s not being ‘treated like other Americans’ (so he’s not being spied on?)

    Well it’s true, I’m not treating him like ‘other Americans’ since I treat sane and reasonable people differently than raving conspiracy loons.

    He’s liking to make binary distinctions, forgetting who controlled the congress (thus the purse strings) the last two years of the last administration, and that Bruce and Dan have complimented the current President on the (little) things he’s gotten right. Stopped clocks and all that.

    I do feel sorry for Levi, his banging away on his keyboard in his mother’s basement, complaining how the Man is putting him down while he can’t get his Thai ladyboy across the border. He’s afraid to go out and get a job consumate with his skillset, as he’s convinced the Wal-Mart vests are bugged with VLF transmitters, and the black helicopters left over from the Bush administration are still looking for him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 14, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - January 14, 2010

  47. There you go again, taking credit for the work of Liberal Gays. I don’t like HRC. But this is largely a result of their “Worknet” program and by the efforts of groups like unions and their pension plans to pressure companies to play fair.

    Granted, there have been some exceptions. Many of those tend to be very Republican companies.

    Earlier this month, you guys tried to spin Annise Parker’s victory as having nothing to do with the very liberal, Gay activist candidate and her hardworking, frequently nelly, supporters.

    Now you are taking years of work by HRC and approriating it to a man that was diametrically opposed to employment non-discrimination.

    Feel free to tell me what you or W for that matter did to enact non-discrimination policies in pay/benefits/employment.

    Otherwise, stop stealing the work of others.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 14, 2010 @ 6:23 pm - January 14, 2010

  48. Let’s see. Bush campaigned on bashing the gays once and for all. The first thing he did was to cancel DADT right out of the box. Then he ginned up a nationwide furor to amend the Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. Then he threatened to withhold federal funds from any state which allowed civil unions or gay marriage…………. no……. wait……….

    Oh, yeah, Bush was so intent on enriching himself and the Saudis from oil and feeding Cheyney’s habits and making war on innocent Arabs and lying to Congress that he never got around to screwing the gays……. but he would have.

    No, wait, Bush was too dumb to know what he was doing. Everyone knows that his lobotomy was the result of homophobia as the only way to keep him from self destruction.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2010 @ 9:04 pm - January 14, 2010

  49. And Tom is too eager to let HRC have credit for decisions in the private sector.

    BTW, I am for immigration reform. Give us a way to stop the brain drain and draw the talented here. Oh wait, that would affect everyone equally. No wonder Levi would oppose it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 15, 2010 @ 7:59 am - January 15, 2010

  50. Of course he did.

    That is, if you see gays as regular people just like anyone else who are aided by our freedoms and opportunities being protected.

    Our freedoms weren’t protected. The Bush administration created a massive spy network to monitor Americans communicating with other Americans in our country – how is that protecting our freedoms? And opportunities? The most significant economic activity in the Bush decade involved a dangerously inflated housing bubble that eventually burst and threw the globab economy off track – would you consider that good stewardship of the economy?

    Also, committing to wars that don’t make any sense and are counterproductive in every measurable way also does not constitute protecting our freedoms.

    But if you see them as an ignorant minority group who aren’t capable of functioning by themselves and need the plantation kindness of “enlightened” individuals like yourself, that wouldn’t make any sense to you.

    Encomiendas went out of style centuries ago, Levi, except among “progressives” like yourself who saw the opportunity to enslave and control minority groups by claiming they were inferior and needed “protection”.

    Why do you hate gay people who are self-reliant, Levi? Why do you attack those gay people who do not support special treatment laws for gays? Do you not want gays to be self-sufficient? Do you dislike gays who can function without government aid and assistance?

    I have no frame of reference for what you’re talking about. I’m not at all like the delusional caricature you’re describing and I don’t know any that is. What does self-reliance have to do anything? How would it be special treatment to treat gays like anybody else? How would allowing gay marriage equate to government aid to gays?

    Like I said before, you must be confusing your stereotypes. It seems to me that you anti-welfare attitude about poor blacks is creeping into your arguments about gay marriage, because whoa Nelly, what you just said makes absolutely no sense, none of it.

    Comment by Levi — January 15, 2010 @ 10:09 am - January 15, 2010

  51. “We had no domestic terror attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.”

    I don’t know how I’m supposed to interpret that. There’ve been other prominent Republicans like Dana Perino that have gone on TV that have said the exact same thing.

    Well, if you have the “willing suspension of disbelief” you sure can make this quote work. I will give you that.

    I was afraid you were going to ooze that foolish theme in here as your prize exhibit.

    What are the odds that Rudy Guiliani forgot that 9-11 happened while Bush was President as opposed to Rudy Guiliani meaning that “After 9/11 we had no domestic terror attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.”?

    When we examine sentences taken out of context, we consider all manner of context. For instance, Rudy Guiliani was Mayor of New York City on 9/11 and he was immediately involved in all the details and decision making of the crisis. What are the chances that he would forget the incident or forget who was President or any other major aspect of the event? Then we have to look at whether Rudy Guiliani has deteriorated in mind and competence since 9/11. Apparently, you think he has, because you have labeled him to be an “idiot” which is very low functioning human on the IQ scale. Of course, he could slip to imbecile or even moron.

    You also include Dana Perino in your “idiot” assessment.

    The ball is in your court. Where do you find the measurements for these assessments? Where do you find the context for proving your thesis that:

    They’re either forgetting the dates, or they’re disseminating shameless propaganda.

    Caution: When you willfully abuse the context of a person’s words you are either funny farm qualified or you are willing to peddle any dropping off the chicken coop floor as conclusive, unchallengeable factual gold.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 15, 2010 @ 10:32 am - January 15, 2010

  52. And there he goes again with President Bush spying on him…

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 15, 2010 @ 11:17 am - January 15, 2010

  53. Livewire,

    The private sector isn’t gonna do anything unless they are asked. What has Gaypatriot/GOProud! do to ask or get ONE company to enact non-discrimination policies.

    By the way, Are there ANY GOProud! supporters who actually support non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 15, 2010 @ 7:19 pm - January 15, 2010

  54. Tom,

    Private businesses do what’s in their best interest, if they find that it is more useful to have such a policy, they will.

    Personally, if my employer had an issue with my choice of bedmates, I’d find another employer…

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 15, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - January 15, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.