I’m happy to announce my participation in the “Same Sex Sunday” podcast’s new political panel (think: “This Week” or “Fox News Sunday” but all LGBT). I’m the proud token conservative! LOL
This week, Phil interviews The Advocate magazine’s Chief Washington Correspondent, Kerry Eleveld about Tuesday’s White House LGBT Pride Reception, rumors of the departure of Rahm Emmanuel, and General McChrystal’s comments about the Commander In Chief’s executive branch (read her Advocate piece on the subject here). We also discuss Joint Chief Chair Admiral Mullen’s comments on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” review process, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision on hiding Washington Referendum 71’s petitioners’ names from Public Record.
Also in interviews, Joe chats with Charlene Strong about what it was like to be mentioned by the President at Tuesday’s White House LGBT Pride Reception speech. Joe and Charlene also speak about the documentary “For My Wife” about the death of Charlene’s same-sex spouse the influence that story had on the effort to bring Domestic Partnerships to Washington State.
Then, in our first ever politics round table, Bruce Carroll, Michael Crawford, Chris Geidner, Cathy Renna and Dr. Jillian Weiss join Joe and Phil to discuss the Supreme Court decision on Washington’s Referendum 71–Doe V Reed. We also discuss recent changes at Secretary Clinton’s State Department involving transgender Americans’ passport and employment in that department.
Our round table also debates where we are going with efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” White House Chief of Staff, Emanuel, Tuesday’s White House Pride reception, and the Labor Department’s new rules including same-sex partners and LGBT families in the Family and Medical Leave Act. We also talk about the first installment of CNN’s Gay in America series, “Gary and Tony have a Baby” with project consultant Cathy Renna, and finally we tackle where we are at on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The actual podcast is at the bottom of this link. I tried to embed it here, but no luck and I’m on a short time leash today.
I’m not sure how often I’ll be on, but the podcast airs every Sunday!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
How far do we have to skip ahead to the part featuring you?
“Gary and Tony Have a Baby”? I’ll wait for the CNN special “I Have One Dad and Two Moms: A Polygamous Family in America”. I mean, if we’ve got to have sexual/domestic diversity to be a civilized society, why not?
Sounds like an item one finds on GayTorrents.
OT: Anti-USA Today, 970WFLA and Politico are reporting that Sen. Robert Byrd (D, KKK) passed away at 0300.
#4 Linens and Things have announced that they’ll be selling sheets at 50% off to mark his passing.
A whites only white sale?
like an item one finds on GayTorrents.
Now with Byrd dead, and all the eulogies going to start from both black and white Dhimmicrats, will there be a Trent Lott effect here?
Regards,
Peter H.
No comment so far that Montana GOPers have joined Texas in calling for a return of sodomy laws?
No comment so far that your party has yet to respond to this:
We’re still waiting…
9.No comment so far that Montana GOPers have joined Texas in calling for a return of sodomy laws?
It’s just empty words designed to get social conservatives to donate. They’re about as sincere on actually following through as Democrats are about actually passing gay right legislation, for the same reason: To dangle a carrot in front of donors so they keep donating.
And even if sodomy laws were passed, they’d be symbolic laws that would hardly ever be enforced. After all, Texas’s sodomy laws didn’t prevent the formation of a large gay community in that state.
http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx
“We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.”
No, NYAlly, laws are not passed to be merely symbolic. They are passed with the intent of being enforced. As much as the Democratic Party has to come to terms with its racist past and current indifference & inaction to illegal immigration (among other things), the Republican Party has to come to terms with its homophobia & intolerance of the LGBT community.
Funny, the gay and lesbian community has not one, but several platforms that openly support and endorses the elimination of age-of consent laws and the denigration of marriage.
Do Houndentenor and James want to answer to that? Or do they want to spin and whine about how “unfair” it is to hold them accountable for other peoples’ views and that not everyone in the gay community should have these platforms attributed to them?
Meanwhile, I would simply point out that, thanks to HRC, NLGTF, and the rest of the leaders of the gay community, being gay and lesbian has meant that you support increased taxation, that you hate businesses and corporations, that you think the government should control industry, that you want unlimited, Federally-funded abortion, that you intend to force everyone else to pay for your health care, that you have nothing but contempt for peoples’ religious beliefs, that you demand quotas and the right to sexually harass your coworkers, and that you believe that marriage is an outmoded and patriarchal institution that results in the civil death of one of the participants and that is no more special than whatever other arrangements you wish to make.
What, exactly, should Republicans support?
#4 Linens and Things have announced that they’ll be selling sheets at 50% off to mark his passing.
Bahahahah!! That’s great! Thanks!
And great news on the Political Panel, Bruce. I’ll be checking it out.
No, NYAlly, laws are not passed to be merely symbolic. They are passed with the intent of being enforced.
So, if Texas actually enforced its sodomy law rigorously, then how can you explain the large gay communities in the state’s cities, and the presence of multiple openly gay officeholders who seemed quite able to live openly without fear of being arrested?
As much as the Democratic Party has to come to terms with its racist past and current indifference & inaction to illegal immigration (among other things), the Republican Party has to come to terms with its homophobia & intolerance of the LGBT community.
Homophobia and intolerance, eh?
In 2004, which vice presidential candidate had a lesbian daughter who he loved, and which one admitted he didn’t feel comfortable around “those people”?
Meanwhile, I would simply point out that, thanks to HRC, NLGTF, and the rest of the leaders of the gay community, being gay and lesbian has meant that you support increased taxation, etc…
To back up his point, the head of NGLTF not only spoke of such things in her State of the Movment address, but called them “achievments for LGBT people”. Said achievements were:
Here in our host state of Colorado, Amendment 46, a Ward Connerly initiative that would have ended affirmative action in public employment, public education or public contracting was defeated.
In Arizona, voters rejected Proposition 202, which would have penalized businesses that hire undocumented workers. And in Oregon, voters rejected an English-only proposal.
In three states — California, Colorado and South Dakota — voters considered initiatives related to reproductive freedoms. And we won in every state.
Remind me again what those have to do with gay rights.
NYAlly,
I think it’s great and admirable that former Vice-President Cheney supports his openly lesbian daughter, and that he has even made statements supporting legally-recognized gay unions. Are there individual Republicans who are tolerant, or even accept openly gay people? Absolutely! And are there Democrats who are intolerant, or even flat out hate openly gay people? Yes, there certainly are.
But when it comes to the Republican party on a national level, or even at a state level (particularly in states in the American Midwest and South), the party clings to a more socially conservative message. And that includes gays. So the Republican party in Massachusetts is probably more neutral when it comes to issues such as homosexuality, but then the Republican party platforms in states such as Texas and Montana state that they want to make “homosexual acts illegal.”
As for Texas’ sodomy laws, those were last invalidated by the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. And you’re right that even before 2003, there were relatively few arrests from that law.
But it if it was a law in Texas (and some other states) to arrest and prosecute two adult men who were having consensual sex with each other, and people weren’t getting arrested & charged — SOMEBODY clearly dropped the ball somewhere. The sodomy laws should have been vigorously enforced, or they should have been changed or invalidated (which they were invalidated, by the US Supreme Court).
I believe that laws are meant to be enforced, not just “symbolic”. It is for this reason that I don’t agree with local laws in many parts of California that essentially tell police officers to “look the other way” when it comes to people in possession of marijuana.
And also, taking the notion of a “symbolic” law even further, how would it be like if the Arizona illegal immigration law (SB 1070) was “symbolic” (on the books, but not vigorously enforced)?
This is what you wrote about sodomy laws —
“And even if sodomy laws were passed, they’d be symbolic laws that would hardly ever be enforced. After all, Texas’s sodomy laws didn’t prevent the formation of a large gay community in that state.”
Now lets just remove “sodomy laws” and substitute the AZ illegal immigration law into your statement —
“And even if the Arizona illegal immigration law was passed, it would be a symbolic law that would hardly ever be enforced. After all, even Arizona’s illegal immigration laws didn’t prevent the formation of a large illegal immigrant community in that state.”
That’s why I stated that laws should not be merely “symbolic”, but that they should be vigorously followed and defended. And that is also why I take the notion of re-criminalizing “homosexual acts” seriously.
It was great having you on, and we hope we can have you on as often as you can make it!
Nice dancing around the issue but no real denouncement of the plank in the platform. Just as I suspected. You’re okay with gay-baiting the religious right for votes and donations. But they don’t really mean it? They just say it but don’t mean it and that makes it okay?
For ND30, I don’t have time to respond to every loony liberal out there, especially ones no one would ever have heard of if some right-winger hadn’t dug up the quote. But I’m talking about state party platforms not some obscure gasbag wingnut.
But it if it was a law in Texas (and some other states) to arrest and prosecute two adult men who were having consensual sex with each other, and people weren’t getting arrested & charged — SOMEBODY clearly dropped the ball somewhere.
The reason why is because the nature of the law makes it very difficult to actually prove that sodomy happened unless an officer caught the participants in the act.
Even if the law was not intended to be symbolic and useless, it had that effect in practice. By the time of the Lawrence decision, many Texans didn’t even know that such a law existed.
I do disapprove of the plank, and wish it wasn’t there, but the gay left is greatly overexaggerating its actual effect.
But I’m talking about state party platforms not some obscure gasbag wingnut.
The signatories and authors of the Beyond Marriage statement include multiple senior members of the NGLTF, the co-founder of AFL-CIO Pride At Work, a high-ranking member of GLSEN, a former executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, a regional director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, two high-ranking members of a state-level gay rights organization, and a ton of professors at large universities.
And answer this: What do abortion, affirmative action, immgration law, and English-only laws have to do with gay rights, and why is the NGLTF executive director talking about them as if they are?
And, as I pointed out, ILGA counted among its members numerous gay and lesbian organizations in the United States.
Beyond Marriage is gay mainstream. The ILGA and its pronouncements endorsing the abolishment of age of consent laws are gay mainstream.
You’re okay with gay-baiting the religious right for votes and donations. But they don’t really mean it? They just say it but don’t mean it and that makes it okay?
Houndentenor, you know, you and your fellow gay-sex liberals have already stated that what you call “gay-baiting the religious right for votes and donations” is perfectly and completely acceptable.
So if you won’t follow your own rules, why should we care about them?
Let’s see you and your fellow gay-sex liberals demagogue the Obama Party the same way that you do Republicans. But you can’t, because your Obama Party massas only like you when you do exactly what they say, and you can’t survive without the Obama Party to tell you how to think and what to do.