Gay Patriot Header Image

(Looming) Gay Rights’ Victory in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin!

Thanks to the Republican Senate in the Badger State, gay people may soon have a tool to protect themselves against assault.  Would-be gay bashers will now tread more carefully knowing that gay people could be packing:

The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public places, but not in police stations, courthouse and other specifically exempted locations.

The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed.

Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize carrying hidden guns. Those who want to carry the weapons would have to obtain a permit.

Before the bill goes to Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who backs the measure, it must also pass the Assembly. That could happen later in the week.

Thank you, Governor Walker, for supporting a means to give law-abiding gay people a means to protect themselves.  Via Instapundit.

Share

141 Comments

  1. I don’t know where that 49-states-number comes from. There’s no private concealed carry here in NJ…only law-enforcement can carry concealed guns here. Even private security guards have to be on-duty, in-uniform and openly-carrying to be armed on the job.

    Technically you can’t even keep a pistol at your business, only at your home as-long -as you have a state-issued license. And heaven help you if you’re stopped and they find any gun the trunk or glove-compartment of your car…even unloaded and in the case.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 15, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - June 15, 2011

  2. Carrying a firearm for personal defense needs to be understood as probably the best way to defend yourself. The mere brandishment of a firearm is shown to stop over 2 million crimes per year (FBI numbers).

    I have spoken to a woman that is liberal and was fervently anti-gun. Until she got raped. She did well to put it behind her but was rattled enough to do something she never thought she’d do; she went to a gun show and bought a .32 caliber automatic. Small enough to put in her purse. When she was threatened again, she pulled the gun out of her purse and the attacker ran. It was at that point she realized how a small purchase of a handgun could have saved her from being raped. And can save other women as well.

    I thought the liberals were for women’s rights?

    Comment by TooMuchTime — June 15, 2011 @ 1:22 pm - June 15, 2011

  3. The day I feel compelled to carry a gun is the day I leave this country. This is nothing to celebrate. People enrolling in self-defense class is something worth encouraging.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 1:34 pm - June 15, 2011

  4. “The day I feel compelled to carry a gun is the day I leave this country.”

    Well, BULLY for you! Meaning, evidently, that based upon YOUR opinion, for your own life, everyone else in America must be disarmed so you’ll feel better.

    Make that decision for yourself. If you try to make it for every man, woman, straight or gay person in this country, I will be one of those taking to the streets to resist.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 15, 2011 @ 1:54 pm - June 15, 2011

  5. Haven’t you folks ever heard of the Pink Pistols? That’s a gay group whose motto is “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed” and their Website is http://www.pinkpistols.org/. Their site looks a bit out of date, but it’s a place to check if you’re interested in using a gun for personal protection.

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 15, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - June 15, 2011

  6. Lori >> Perhaps, you should be “celebrating” more and being “less defensive,” non?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - June 15, 2011

  7. Guns don’t help if someone gets the drop on you. In many events pulling a gun is not practical as the attacker is already close enough to close in before you can pull your weapon.

    What WILL save you is training. You don’t need to be Jet Li or Tony Jaa, all you need is to put some space between you and your attacker. More guns won’t solve anything, but proper training can.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 2:28 pm - June 15, 2011

  8. “God made Man. Colt made them equal.”

    ” ‘The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,’ and that, until he does, ‘the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.’ ” Clarence Thomas, quoting Frederick Douglass

    Though with the parellels between gun permits and literacy tests… it’s good to know Dooms believes in more training. Does he believe in more reading to vote too?

    This *is* a good law. Criminals won’t suddenly stop carrying because it’s illegal after all.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 2:37 pm - June 15, 2011

  9. Training? Sure, if that’s the way you wish to proceed.

    As for me, if the government permits me to carry a firearm, I would expect everyone here to respect my decision to do so. It’s my choice, right?

    Kinda like abortion, were I a woman.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 2:39 pm - June 15, 2011

  10. Vinci,

    “Gun control is hitting your target.” Speaking as a rural country boy, me and my peers were raised to be proficient in, and respect, firearms. You know what it does and can do, you respect it.

    (I prefer swords though. If I’m forced to kill you, I want it to be personal)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 2:49 pm - June 15, 2011

  11. I do love how all the liberal men here are saying that little, weak girls like me do not need to be armed to protect ourselves, that martial arts and self defense classes are sufficient. Do they imagine that women who go to seminars of situational awareness and self defense all come out knowing Dim Mak?

    I mean I don’t want to have to walk around armed, but if it came to that I would.

    I guess liberal men like Dooms are truly blessed for never having been in fear of their lives.

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - June 15, 2011

  12. >sigh< it won't just be criminals you have to be worried about. You think homophobes won't jump at the chance to "scare" you if you are being "too gay"? We are a nation of people who get angry and do stupid things, the last thing we need is a mexican standoff because someone cut infront of someone else in a line.

    Essentially you are upping the chance of gun related injuries/crimes.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - June 15, 2011

  13. Lol, having never been in fear of my life? I’ve been defending myself for a long time and never needed a gun to do so.

    Less lethal weapons are great alternatives, pepper spray, knives, stun guns, expandable batons. All of which can equal the playing field with relatively light training.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:14 pm - June 15, 2011

  14. Also Khepri, that is just down right insulting toward women. Some of the toughest people I have trained with are women.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:17 pm - June 15, 2011

  15. Hey, liberal loons, if you don’t like guns, don’t own one. Simple as that.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - June 15, 2011

  16. I think the funniest part is the people most at risk usually can’t afford guns.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - June 15, 2011

  17. ironic.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 3:24 pm - June 15, 2011

  18. Hey, V the K, if you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t have one. Simple as that.

    Stop trying to ban something (same-sex marriage) because it offends your personal sensibilities or beliefs. Oh wait, only liberals do that right?

    Comment by James — June 15, 2011 @ 3:27 pm - June 15, 2011

  19. Dooms, I am a woman and I know my limits. I’ve taken martial arts and self defense classes, none of which change the fact that I weigh 115lbs fully clothed after a good meal, I lack the upper body strength to throw a proper punch.

    Maybe you’ve been able to defend yourself without a weapon, lucky you, but in a worst case situation I know that I could not.

    Maybe some of the toughest people you’ve sparred with have women, good for them, but what about me?

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - June 15, 2011

  20. @James

    LOL!

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 3:32 pm - June 15, 2011

  21. We are a nation of people who get angry and do stupid things, the last thing we need is a mexican standoff because someone cut infront of someone else in a line.

    History has shown that when more people carried guns, shit was less likely to go down because they were SMART enough to stir it up. The fact of the matter is that there’s comparatively more gun violence in today’s cities than in any of the old “wild west” towns.

    Comment by TGC — June 15, 2011 @ 3:34 pm - June 15, 2011

  22. I think the funniest part is the people most at risk usually can’t afford guns.

    How about instead of Big Government pissing away $8 billion in Socialist Stupidity money, you could have a program where government provides something useful to people in need?

    Comment by TGC — June 15, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - June 15, 2011

  23. We are a nation of people who get angry and do stupid things, the last thing we need is a mexican standoff because someone cut infront of someone else in a line.

    And just like that…Dooms gives us the mind of the proglodyte. We can’t be trusted to lead our own lives, so our betters should do it for us.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - June 15, 2011

  24. /sarc off.

    Comment by TGC — June 15, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - June 15, 2011

  25. Is that why gun violence is higher in countries that ban them?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 3:38 pm - June 15, 2011

  26. Good point TGC, my father does a lot of traveling to different parts of the country and he’s noted that the places where people are most likely to be carrying are the places where the people are most polite.

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 3:38 pm - June 15, 2011

  27. Again…

    Abortion is the law. It is a woman’s right to choose, and any opinion to the contrary is impeding upon that choice, correct?

    If conceal/carry is the that law, is it not MY right to choose? If so, why are so many progs attempting to take that away???

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - June 15, 2011

  28. Khepri, and what is someone like me to do when you feel “threatened”. I’m 5’9 (rounding up, don’t hate) 179 lbs and black. I’ve had people pull mace and other objects because I apparently look threatening(I look like a nerd with a sense of style, complete with black rimmed glasses). Whats to stop you from pulling a gun and shooting me because I “seemed dangerous?” like has happened with (thankfully less lethal objects) in the past?

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - June 15, 2011

  29. *pats James on the head* It’s ok that you don’t recognize the difference between a right, and a social construct.

    Kherpi. It doesn’t matter to Dooms, he doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Don’t you see? you only get to use Dooms approved methods of self defense. Clearly Dooms supported the laws keeping blacks from having guns in the post-reconstruction south. Because if you *gasp* have a weapon to defend yourself ‘those people’ might try to scare you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 3:41 pm - June 15, 2011

  30. I would like to add, whats to stop me from pulling a gun because now MY life is in danger? What then? In those situations when fight or flight kicks in, your IQ is lowered in you are relying on pure instinct.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - June 15, 2011

  31. Well, things just got very interesting.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 3:44 pm - June 15, 2011

  32. Livewire, you do realize people most likely to need a gun for self defense can’t afford one right?

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:44 pm - June 15, 2011

  33. I’ve had people pull mace and other objects because I apparently look threatening(I look like a nerd with a sense of style, complete with black rimmed glasses).

    So, this has happened on multiple occasions??? I’m not calling BS on your story, per se, Dooms. I’d just like you to come out and say some racist crackers have made it a habit of pulling “mace and other objects” on you.

    Whats to stop you from pulling a gun and shooting me because I “seemed dangerous?” like has happened with (thankfully less lethal objects) in the past?

    And just who the holy hell do you think you are to advocate for a sweeping set of restrictive laws because you think everyone with whom you come into contact wants to shoot you????

    Jesus, talk about self-absorbed…

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - June 15, 2011

  34. I would like to add, whats to stop me from pulling a gun because now MY life is in danger?

    Not only doesn’t he trust anyone else, he can’t even trust himself! No wonder he wants government to do it for him.

    Every time Dooms hits “enter,” he just becomes that much sadder.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 3:48 pm - June 15, 2011

  35. Dooms, as long as you don’t do things like try to break into my house, threaten to kill me, corner me while I’m out for my evening walk, tell me to my face that you’re going to kill my dog, or wander around my backyard in the middle of the night when I’m home alone, I promise that I will never point a gun at you.

    Does that make you feel safer?

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 3:51 pm - June 15, 2011

  36. Dooms Logic, “Since some people can’t have them, nobody should.’

    Oh this is going to be a fun thread to link to later…

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 3:53 pm - June 15, 2011

  37. Interesting that a post I wrote in about 2 minutes time has generated so much controversy so quickly.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 15, 2011 @ 3:53 pm - June 15, 2011

  38. Interesting that a post I wrote in about 2 minutes time has generated so much controversy so quickly.

    It’s hardly surprising, Dan…

    If you dare write something celebrating a liberty the left doesn’t want you to have, you’re bound to hear about it.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 15, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - June 15, 2011

  39. That’s us, bitter clingers with our God and our guns, right?

    Or we tea-baggers here? I forget sometimes, heh.

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 3:59 pm - June 15, 2011

  40. 18.Hey, V the K, if you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t have one. Simple as that.

    Stop trying to ban something (same-sex marriage) because it offends your personal sensibilities or beliefs. Oh wait, only liberals do that right?

    Comment by James — June 15, 2011 @ 3:27 pm – June 15, 2011

    Sorry, James, but gun ownership is a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Your comparing it to gay-sex marriage is only demonstrating how little you know about the constitution, given that the government can regularly and routinely bar marriage to large swaths of people based on their sexual preferences.

    Also, James, if you don’t like child marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, and plural marriage, don’t have one. Stop trying to ban or support bans on them because it offends your personal sensibilities or beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 3:59 pm - June 15, 2011

  41. 30.I would like to add, whats to stop me from pulling a gun because now MY life is in danger? What then? In those situations when fight or flight kicks in, your IQ is lowered in you are relying on pure instinct.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:43 pm – June 15, 2011

    Just because you are incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong doesn’t mean everyone else is, Dooms.

    We understand that liberals like yourself are naturally violent. Look at the nice letters you send to Sarah Palin and other people who disagree with you.

    But unfortunately, there’s a whole lot of people out here who are mature and responsible. Why should individuals like yourself who are not set the rules for society? Why should society be forced to pander to clearly-inferior individuals like yourself who are not capable of controlling or managing their emotions?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 4:04 pm - June 15, 2011

  42. Eric I never brought up the race of the people. And I’m self absorbed because im worried about my safety? Im not advocating anything other then alternatives.

    Khepri I live in a major city, simply walking down the street is enough to make someone feel threatened.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:05 pm - June 15, 2011

  43. Northy you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:07 pm - June 15, 2011

  44. This whole “if I can’t have it, nobody should” attitude is really at the core of the gay and lesbian community and of liberalism.

    Notice how liberals constantly – CONSTANTLY – insist that anyone who has more money than they do is a criminal who stole it from someone else. In liberal world, a profit is a sign of moral failing.

    Same with gay-sex marriage. Notice how people like James and the like never talk about the actual advantages to society that would come from gay-sex marriage. Instead, they point out the worst of heterosexuals and try to appeal to lowest-common-denominator arguments.

    As we have seen with the whole Weiner case, liberals are truly in a race to the bottom of the morality pool. Now we have gay-sex marriage supporters and Weiner supporters stating that it’s NORMAL for married men to play around with prostitutes and that if they do, it’s their wife’s fault. Even better, the libbies scream about David Vitter when their new mayor-elect of Denver is in hot water for exactly the thing they attack Vitter for doing.

    Zombie said it best a week ago: liberals are finally admitting that they are completely amoral.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - June 15, 2011

  45. V the K, if you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t have one. Simple as that.

    I don’t intend to. Somehow, I don’t believe this will stop liberals from trying to push for anti-gun laws.

    Stop trying to ban something (same-sex marriage) because it offends your personal sensibilities or beliefs. Oh wait, only liberals do that right?

    Pretty much. I mean, there is no law anywhere that stops gay couples from entering into committed monogamous relationships and having a ceremony to mark the occasion. That should be enough… but … no-o-o-o-o-o-o-o… It’s like you guys think your relationships are worthless without some sort of recognition from a state bureaucracy. You also want all the benefits without any of the responsibilities.

    And, as NDT pointed out, unlike gun ownership, there is no explicit right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 4:11 pm - June 15, 2011

  46. What dos society gain by denying gay marriage? Nothing. What it gains though is adopted children.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - June 15, 2011

  47. Dooms, what does society gain from denying people the right to own guns?

    Comment by Khepri — June 15, 2011 @ 4:18 pm - June 15, 2011

  48. If marriage still carried an expectation of chastity before and monogamous commitment after, would gays even want it?

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 4:21 pm - June 15, 2011

  49. As time goes on I’m opposed to conceal carry laws, if you’re going to wear a gun and say that you think it’s necessary to your safety wear it openly. You’ll be stating your case a lot more eloquently than hiding your gun.
    We do not live in the wild west we live in a civilized society with a lot of police protection. Increasing gun ownership while perfectly legal invariably increases gun accidents and shootings. rather than increasing or chances for being accidentally shot by someone with a concealed handgun lets step back and focus on crime prevention.

    Comment by Tim — June 15, 2011 @ 4:36 pm - June 15, 2011

  50. 46.What dos society gain by denying gay marriage? Nothing.

    Again, tantrum child, why won’t you tell us about the benefits society gains from gay-sex marriage?

    Probably because society has seen how gays and lesbians treat marriage., i.e. Anthony Weiner and Jim McGreevey, and doesn’t think it’s a good idea to extend it to promiscuous losers like yourself.

    Furthermore, Dooms, given how gays like you acknowledge you resort to violence whenever someone upsets you, the only thing marriage would produce for gays would be more domestic violence. Gays and lesbians like you who admit that you can’t stop yourself from hurting or shooting people should not be allowed to marry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 4:36 pm - June 15, 2011

  51. 47 >> Not to get in Dooms’ way, but lower murder rates for one.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 4:40 pm - June 15, 2011

  52. Vk, if those were the requirements most straight people wouldn’t be getting married, so how about you stop demonizing gays mk?

    Same goes for you northy.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:41 pm - June 15, 2011

  53. North when did I ever talk about me resorting to violence? Can you ever make an argument without making things up?

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - June 15, 2011

  54. 50 >> “Probably because society has seen how gays and lesbians treat marriage., i.e. Anthony Weiner” Weiner is gay???

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - June 15, 2011

  55. 50 >> ND30 uses the terms “promiscuous loser” and “tantrum child” towards another poster.

    Does that make me in violation of GP’s comment policy for pointing that out? I’ll take my answer offline.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 15, 2011

  56. Come on guys you aren’t even making this fun anymore. You are just making false claims to back arguments that don’t exist. You might as well start quoting holy texts.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 15, 2011

  57. Lol @ northy calling me a “promiscuous loser”. Not only am I extremely selective about who I have sex with (I respect myself far to much to let someone use me just so they can get off). Talk about a lack of cooth…

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 4:50 pm - June 15, 2011

  58. 53.North when did I ever talk about me resorting to violence?

    Quote:

    30.I would like to add, whats to stop me from pulling a gun because now MY life is in danger? What then? In those situations when fight or flight kicks in, your IQ is lowered in you are relying on pure instinct.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 3:43 pm – June 15, 2011

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:04 pm - June 15, 2011

  59. 54.50 >> “Probably because society has seen how gays and lesbians treat marriage., i.e. Anthony Weiner” Weiner is gay???

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 4:42 pm – June 15, 2011

    Nope, just someone whose behavior is defended and supported by gays and lesbians as being perfectly normal.

    When one considers that gays and lesbians consider Weiner, McGreevey, Bill Clinton, and others to be examples, though, you can understand why they think a) all heterosexuals are promiscuous and b) therefore promiscuity is normal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:07 pm - June 15, 2011

  60. I always hear the argument for same sex marriage presented in terms of status and benefits, never in terms of commitment and fidelity.

    “Equality” only seems to apply to the benefits, not the responsibilities.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 5:12 pm - June 15, 2011

  61. The funny part is how Dooms and his fellow Obama supporters coddle and protect those who illegally possess guns if they have the right skin color or minority status.

    Then again, we shouldn’t be surprised; the Barack Obama base openly supports and endorses rapists and cop-killers who use illegal handguns to kill others.

    This is what makes the rantings of liberals like Dooms so hilarious. They want to take away the right to own guns if you are white and law-abiding, but protect, shield, and support minority members who use illegal guns to kill people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - June 15, 2011

  62. Northy, did you not read the comment I made directly before that one or are you just picking and choosing what you listen too?

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:18 pm - June 15, 2011

  63. ND30, did you not read comment #55?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 5:27 pm - June 15, 2011

  64. Northy why don’t you just come right out and say “I need guns because evil brown people have them”

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:33 pm - June 15, 2011

  65. Why yes, Dooms, I did read the comment directly before that one.

    Kherpi. It doesn’t matter to Dooms, he doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Don’t you see? you only get to use Dooms approved methods of self defense. Clearly Dooms supported the laws keeping blacks from having guns in the post-reconstruction south. Because if you *gasp* have a weapon to defend yourself ‘those people’ might try to scare you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 3:41 pm – June 15, 2011

    Truer words were never spoken.

    And that leads us to Vinci, who still hasn’t banned himself despite his admitted regular violations of the policy he’s cited.

    Again, classic examples of how liberals — and especially liberal gays and lesbians — are hypocrites who lack integrity and refuse to apply the same rules to themselves that they demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:35 pm - June 15, 2011

  66. #51 John Lott’s research would disagree with you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 5:35 pm - June 15, 2011

  67. Northy why don’t you just come right out and say “I need guns because evil brown people have them”

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:33 pm – June 15, 2011

    Because I am not a racist who believes criminals only come in one color.

    You, however, Dooms, ARE a racist who believes that anyone who is brown or non-white does not have to follow the laws.

    Now, explain why liberals and Obama supporters like yourself oppose and refuse to arrest black and brown people who illegally possess weapons, yet want to deprive law-abiding white people of the right to have theirs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:37 pm - June 15, 2011

  68. Northy you should probably take your meds. You are spouting off nonsense again. Like you are literally just making things up as you go.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:39 pm - June 15, 2011

  69. #64 Dooms,

    You’ve already conceeded it’s fine to keep the guns from ‘evil brown people’ because of what they might do.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 5:39 pm - June 15, 2011

  70. Northy….stop making things up please, you are embarrassing yourself.

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:46 pm - June 15, 2011

  71. Oh wait that was livewire, my bad :)

    Comment by Dooms — June 15, 2011 @ 5:46 pm - June 15, 2011

  72. See Dooms,

    See Dooms run from his own words. Run, racist, run!

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - June 15, 2011

  73. ND30, did you not read comment #55? …

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 5:51 pm - June 15, 2011

  74. Yup, run Dooms run, right over to the other thread where he’s squealing and bawling about how badly people treat him.

    LOL.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - June 15, 2011

  75. @V the K religious gays that are opposed to gays getting married always confuse me. Religious gays that banter stupid stereotypes insisting that all gays are promiscuous while ignoring identical behavior in straights are really just ignorant. Plenty of gays and straights are in monogamous relationships. Many of both aren’t. Should all heteros lose out on marriage because weiner, Senator Essign, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and countless others can’t keep it in their pants? My grandmothers advice to me was to keep it in my pants because her brothers were the town gigolos this is hardly a problem or issue confined to gays or even our time.

    Comment by Tim — June 15, 2011 @ 5:55 pm - June 15, 2011

  76. No, Tim, you see gay men are more promiscuous than straights because they first spread the AIDS in America, have parades with scantily dressed men promoting sexual liberation and have spokespeople like (I’m not even going to say his name because it’s going to unnecessarily inspire a certain poster on here to leave page long rants about him on this thread, along with pointless links), ahem, a certain well-known liberal gay man who insists that people should hop into bed with whomever they want whenever they want for however long they want. Therefore, they reflect more on gay values than transgressing straights do reflect on “traditional” values. And, oh, yeah, “traditional” types hold themselves to a higher standard, so when they transgress, it isn’t as bad. And when a gay man like myself holds himself to high morals, they don’t count because I don’t blog about it, nor do I base them on “morally consistent biblical texts.”

    /sarcasm

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 6:05 pm - June 15, 2011

  77. Timmeh, as it has been explained to you countless times, it’s not that all gays are promiscuous, it’s that promiscuity is a dominant and defining feature of gay culture, as any quick read of mainstream gay media will confirm. Infidelity exists among married straight folk, yes, but it is treated … rightly so… as an aberration, and usually a cause for shame and disgrace. Again, rightly so.

    And for the record, I think straight couples should forfeit any social benefits of marriage if they can’t handle commitment and fidelity, especially when there are children to consider.

    But when you have gay people like Dan Savage presenting themselves as model gays while insisting that “monogamy is over-rated” and infidelity is good, it’s imnpossible to make the case that gay culture holds out commitment and fidelity as an ideal to be strived for.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - June 15, 2011

  78. The funny part is how Vinnie has to use a /sarc tag after expressing a cogent and reasonable comment. Interesting that.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 6:21 pm - June 15, 2011

  79. Therefore, they reflect more on gay values than transgressing straights do reflect on “traditional” values.

    Ironically, Vinci brings up the point.

    Promiscuous straights are “transgressing”, promiscuous gays and lesbians are normal.

    Furthermore, trying to argue that married people cheat rather blows a hole in the argument being pushed that gays and lesbians will become less promiscuous with marriage.

    And, oh, yeah, “traditional” types hold themselves to a higher standard, so when they transgress, it isn’t as bad.

    Of course. It is always better to have standards and occasionally fail than it is to have no standards at all, such as is common for gays and lesbians.

    Meanwhile, in reference to HIV/AIDS, even the CDC acknowledges that gay men have HIV at over 40 times the rate of heterosexuals. Since the rate of occurrence of HIV in a population has directly been linked to the average number of sexual partners typical in said population and the predominance of irresponsible and unprotected sex, it should be quite obvious that promiscuity and irresponsibility are rampant in the gay community.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 6:38 pm - June 15, 2011

  80. I notice that progs do this thing a lot, where they sarcastically cite conservative positions as though they are self-evidently wrong, without ever supplying any reason why they are wrong.

    We’re opposed to promiscuity. If you’re going to ridicule us for that position, you better provide an argument for why promiscuity is good.

    We point out that gay culture and media promote, or at least accept, promiscuity as a norm. If you disagree, don’t just say, “No, it doesn’t,” show us evidence that the stronger message in the gay community is for commitment and monogamy.

    Can you do that?

    Can you?

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 6:58 pm - June 15, 2011

  81. Mehlman’s 30-second elevator pitch:

    “I would argue that they should support it first because it’s consistent with the principles that we as Republicans believe, which include maximizing freedom, which include encouraging strong families, and which include following the golden rule and I would also encourage them to support it because their constituents support it…and that number is increasing exponentially with time and with demographic change.”

    Making the case in “Republican terms”:

    “We’re celebrating marriage. What we’re doing is, the marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t change. What we’re doing is we’re recognizing the wonderful civil relationship that exists between two people who commit to one another and want to spend their lives together and recognizing the stability that provides, the societal benefit that provides, recognizing the dignity it provides to the two people involved, and the benefit it provides to other families out to encourage us to provide it to other people.”

    Has the gay wedge lost its edge in 2012?

    “There is no question if you look at the data and you look at the data across the country and you look at the data by political affiliation, almost every measure you can look at indicates there is increased support for the right to marry and for gay rights generally. You certainly saw last year one out of five Republican senators support the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, so there are precedents for Republicans supporting efforts to ensure that there is equality and freedom, and I hope you see more of that going forward.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/08/239269/interview-ken-mehlmans-case-for-marriage-equality-in-republican-terms/

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2011 @ 7:14 pm - June 15, 2011

  82. “Lori >> Perhaps, you should be “celebrating” more and being “less defensive,” non?”

    As a woman who lives alone in a big city, I find it odd that a man would lecture me for being too “defensive” simply because I own a handgun and am trained to know how to defend myself. As opposed to what…being a nice little victim to anybody who chooses to harm me?

    Funny that this thread should be going on today. Only last night, my little dog alerted me to the presence of a man on my front patio at 1:30 A.M. I turned on the porch light, displayed my Lady Smith .357 magnum through the window, and he ran.

    Had I been unarmed and he had broken in, I doubt I would have had very much to “celebrate” about.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 15, 2011 @ 7:33 pm - June 15, 2011

  83. Bland platitudes from a washed up politician fail to impress.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - June 15, 2011

  84. Q. Mr. Mehlman, why should the federal government be putting billions into helping low income people with bad credit histories to take out mortgages?

    A. “We’re celebrating home ownership. What we’re doing is we’re recognizing the recognizing the stability that home ownership provides, the societal benefit that provides, recognizing the benefit to communities that comes from home ownership, the dignity it provides to thehome owner, and the benefit it provides to other lower income people to buy homes and establish roots in their communities.”

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 7:40 pm - June 15, 2011

  85. “We’re celebrating marriage. What we’re doing is, the marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t change. What we’re doing is we’re recognizing the wonderful civil relationship that exists between two people who commit to one another and want to spend their lives together and recognizing the stability that provides, the societal benefit that provides, recognizing the dignity it provides to the two people involved, and the benefit it provides to other families out to encourage us to provide it to other people.”

    Of course, the amusement value there is that you need not limit it to gay-sex marriage; you can use it for incestuous and child marriage, and with the elimination of “two”, you can use it for plural relationships.

    Bluntly put, Mehlman’s argument is that, “Marriage is super-awesome, so we should let everyone who wants to marry.”

    And since I doubt Mehlman could define what changes in “the marriage between a man and a woman” when you extend marriage to children, siblings, animals, and multiple partners, by his own logic, there’s no reason to oppose marriage to any of those.

    The equalitarian view is that no one should be allowed to marry, since it invariably creates a have and have-not situation. The practical view is that allowing marriage can be justified by the benefits it provides to society, i.e. opposite-sex marriage supports the necessary procreation and childraising that is necessary to sustain a functional society.

    But there is no societal benefit to gay-sex marriage, just as there is no societal benefit to plural marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage, or sibling marriage. All that is happening is that gays and lesbians are demanding the benefits without any of the responsibilities or value-add to society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2011 @ 7:50 pm - June 15, 2011

  86. VTK >> Pop Luck Club

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 8:02 pm - June 15, 2011

  87. Lori >> Glad you’re safe! But, honestly, “If you try to make it for every man, woman, straight or gay person in this country, I will be one of those taking to the streets to resist” … that’s great to know. But, FYI, you set up your own hypothetical scenario, so you could threaten my beliefs. Just wanted to spell out the logic there, because I’m not sure you thought about it.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 8:10 pm - June 15, 2011

  88. NDT and V. . .now in addition to Mehlman let’s see what the Red Barron had to say. . .

    Before the left accuses me of selling out the fight for marriage, let me make it clear — marriage is important and I support marriage rights for gay couples. I believe marriage is a debate worth having and a fight worth fighting. Marriage is certainly personally important to me — in March of this year, I married my partner here in Washington, D.C. That having been said, we aren’t anywhere close to marriage equality nationwide and we won’t be for a very long time. Why should immediate improvements to retirement security, tax fairness and healthcare for gay and lesbian families be ignored?

    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/GO_Proud_Marriage_or_Bust/

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2011 @ 8:28 pm - June 15, 2011

  89. Vinci, it is not my purpose to “threaten anyone’s beliefs.” People simply have a very basic, fundamental right to stop other people from killing, maiming or raping them. It doesn’t get much more fundamental than that.

    If you don’t like guns, no one on earth should force you to get one. But statists — both Left and Right — have difficulty distinguishing between what they would do in their own lives and the burning compulsion that seems to grip them about making other people do the same.

    No wonder we’re such a neurotic society, if we’re going to spend all our time obsessing about how other people live their lives. I’d rather live my own. But living it means having the right to defend it from those who would invade my personal space and take it from me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 15, 2011 @ 8:42 pm - June 15, 2011

  90. Rusty>> It sounds like he’s saying that Gay, Inc., is putting all of their eggs in one basket, focusing on the long-term while neglecting immediate, pressing short-terms concerns. That the changing social tide indicates gay marriage will inevitably become legal on a national and any other scale, so rather than invest their money and time into an outcome that will happen by default, they can spend their assets more wisely and efficiently by helping people today with concerns that won’t be an issue in the future.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 8:48 pm - June 15, 2011

  91. Oh, you were addressing VTK, not me. Sorry. Misunderstood.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 9:02 pm - June 15, 2011

  92. Why should immediate improvements to retirement security, tax fairness and healthcare for gay and lesbian families be ignored?

    I think all those issues are not just issues for GLBT families. . .
    Those are issues affecting Americans far and wide.

    Mehlman is advocating more support from Republicans to support SSM.
    Barron already supports SSM and has even taken his ‘partner’ to the alter.

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2011 @ 9:10 pm - June 15, 2011

  93. I know, I’ve no room to talk, but does Melman really really want to alter his partner? :P

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - June 15, 2011

  94. Barron wisked his partner Shawn to the Alter. :)

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2011 @ 9:27 pm - June 15, 2011

  95. Then I misread it.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 9:28 pm - June 15, 2011

  96. Why should immediate improvements to retirement security, tax fairness and healthcare for gay and lesbian families be ignored?

    i.e. Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! We demand benefits! (But don’t you dare ask us for anything in return! We’re victims!)

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 9:29 pm - June 15, 2011

  97. Um, VTK, that was Chris Barron.

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2011 @ 9:38 pm - June 15, 2011

  98. So?

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2011 @ 10:13 pm - June 15, 2011

  99. ummmm…….why does this bill specifically allow for carrying a concealed weapon in the Capital, but not in places like courthouses and police stations?

    Comment by Kevin — June 15, 2011 @ 10:16 pm - June 15, 2011

  100. This is a victory for gay rights? How? Unless there was a law forbidding gays from carrying or even owning guns, and this bill overturned it, I don’t see in any way how this is a gay rights issue, let alone victory.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 15, 2011 @ 10:58 pm - June 15, 2011

  101. “But statists — both Left and Right — have difficulty distinguishing between what they would do in their own lives and the burning compulsion that seems to grip them about making other people do the same.”

    So let’s see, Lori. You wouldn’t marry multiple partners but you’re not against other people doing so because you’re blessedly free from that “burning compulsion” to make others live as you do. Yeah, right.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 15, 2011 @ 11:04 pm - June 15, 2011

  102. Seane-Anna, you need to take a pill. Better yet, get a life of your own. Your own personal life must resemble a riot scene by Picasso, considering how much of the time you spend sniffing around others’.

    You slobber all over yourself about what other people do in their bedrooms, whom they do it with, whom (or how many) they might marry, etc., ad infinitum. All you really manage to do is reveal your own considerable, pathological frustrations.

    If you’re a bitter old maid, I don’t care. If you’re a closet case, I don’t care either. Whatever your problem is, you clearly have one.

    By the way, next time you want to put words in my mouth about what I supposedly do or do not believe, you’d better be sure you back it up WITH ACTUAL QUOTES BY ME. Not only that, but with real, working links to the places I have been recorded as saying these things.

    You won’t do that, because you are a chronic and incurable liar.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 15, 2011 @ 11:15 pm - June 15, 2011

  103. LW should have been ‘whisked up to the altar’. In using ‘alter’ I usually am referring to NDT’s transition to his alter, Miss Rita Beads.

    Comment by rusty — June 16, 2011 @ 12:03 am - June 16, 2011

  104. “By the way, next time you want to put words in my mouth about what I supposedly do or do not believe, you’d better be sure you back it up WITH ACTUAL QUOTES BY ME. Not only that, but with real, working links to the places I have been recorded as saying these things.

    You won’t do that, because you are a chronic and incurable liar.”

    Oh, please! Try looking at the dang thread, nimrod. If you did you’d see that I quoted very accurately from your comment at #89. Now, unless the Lorie Heine at #89 is a different person from the Lori Heine at #102, you owe me an apology, sweetie. “…chronic and incurable liar”? Try looking in the mirror, chicka.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 16, 2011 @ 12:04 am - June 16, 2011

  105. Seane-Anna, you really are insane. I stand by everything I said in that quote. That doesn’t mean it can be twisted into meaning what you tried to make it mean. Get professional help, because you truly need it.

    You are obsessed with sex — and the farther out-there the better. You have a dirty, guilty, filthy little mind.

    We do not have a problem in this country with polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or whatever the hell else apparently occupies your every waking thought. Your mind must be a strange, creepy, cramped little place.

    Try taking your hand out of your pants and doing something more constructive than breathing heavily while you type out fevered screeds demanding answers to your crazed questions.

    You are sick.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 16, 2011 @ 2:06 am - June 16, 2011

  106. Rusty >> Doesn’t transition and alter suggest some kind of change from one to another? Don’t get me wrong, I love the name. But, from my experience, all I’ve seen is one personality in him. Is there another?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 16, 2011 @ 2:07 am - June 16, 2011

  107. Wow, Lori, you know how to cut a bitch. As I’m still waiting for GP to decide to either amend its unenforced comment policy or actually enforce it. If it ends up being the former, I’m hoping I can capture 1/10th of your bite. Seriously.

    *bowing*

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 16, 2011 @ 2:11 am - June 16, 2011

  108. And, I agree, me thinks Seane doth protest too much.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 16, 2011 @ 2:12 am - June 16, 2011

  109. Only two posters addressed this topic. The rest have little of import to bring to the argument. I for one am pleased that my own state representative introduced a bill to ban concealed carry, which legislation has passed the Assembly. I look forward to its being passed by the Senate. I am sure the NRA will sue to stop the legislation if only to further their ridiculous agenda which no longer represents gun owners like me and my other club friends. The bill is supported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the California Police Chiefs Association. The real concern is the safety of our public, and not, as the NRA and others would have it, a Constitutional right to bear arms.

    Comment by Bryan — June 16, 2011 @ 2:38 am - June 16, 2011

  110. GUNS R GOOD! Packing concealed weapons, uh, not a big deal since Wisconsin, and it neighbor that starts with an I, are the last two hold outs. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

    and VTK & NDT

    more, can you believe it, more. . .

    22.Conservatives are right to value marriage as the world’s most powerful social institution. The marital bond provides a nongovernmental social safety net, whereby individuals care for one another and anchor civil society in self-sufficiency.

    But to deny one class of citizens the freedom to marry based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory – anathema to the great tradition of freedom and equal opportunity upon which the Republican Party was founded. Civil unions are an inadequate substitute. We’ve seen in America that separate is never equal.

    Limited-government conservatives believe in maximum individual freedom consistent with law and order. We do not believe that the state should have the power to confer rights upon some law-abiding citizens while discriminating against others.

    Nor should the government be in the business of telling churches, synagogues or mosques whom they can and cannot marry. That’s why the bill in New York includes protections for religious liberties that ensure no religious leader or institution will have to solemnize marriages for same-sex couples.

    New York Republicans should seize this opportunity to convince a rising generation of voters across America that the Republican Party is still the party of individual freedom. These young voters are deeply distrustful of what they perceive as the hypocrisy of a Republican Party that proclaims its support for individual freedom in economic policies but not in social polices.

    It is time for Republicans to reaffirm the fundamental principle best expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney: “Freedom means freedom for everyone.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/06/15/2011-06-15_the_conservative_case_for_gay_marriage_gop_is_not_the_party_of_intolerance.html

    Margaret Hoover, GoPROUD supporter and Fox News commentator
    http://www.goproud.org/board-of-directors-advisory-council/

    and yes this was already posted up in the Christie Civil Union thread.

    Comment by rusty — June 16, 2011 @ 4:02 am - June 16, 2011

  111. Vinci, sorry you missed out on NDT’s alter Miss Rita Beads.

    Don’t Make Me Read Your Beads

    It’s been almost 30 years and despite challenges from thousands of hilarious contenders, Rita Beads remains my all time favorite drag name. Rita was a hairy chested, butch mustached, roller-skating, pregnant nun sort of drag queen, back in late 70′s Orlando.

    The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness.

    “Don’t make me read your beads, bitch!” JMG

    Comment by rusty — June 16, 2011 @ 4:04 am - June 16, 2011

  112. The real concern is the safety of our public,

    The same underlying reason given for rounding up the Jews, gays, Gypsies etc. and sending them off to “happy camps” or for the “Great Purge”. Tyrants usually disarm the populace and rid them of Thought Criminals on the basis of “the safety of our public”. History has shown that efforts made “For the Common Good” usually leads to failure for the commoners.

    Comment by TGC — June 16, 2011 @ 4:13 am - June 16, 2011

  113. This is a victory for gay rights? How? Unless there was a law forbidding gays from carrying or even owning guns, and this bill overturned it, I don’t see in any way how this is a gay rights issue, let alone victory.

    Seane-Anna, this is a victor for the rights of all people. Thus a defcto victory for gay rights. Just like it is for Appalachian rights.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2011 @ 7:31 am - June 16, 2011

  114. Interesting quote:

    We’re all liberals until the front garden is threatened. – Crown Proseuctor Service Director George Castle, Law & Order: UK

    Comment by TGC — June 16, 2011 @ 7:43 am - June 16, 2011

  115. And thus, Bryan, in the name of “safety”, let’s go ahead and ban gun ownership by you and your fellow club members.

    After all, since your logic is that gun owners cannot be trusted, even if they go through the additional bureaucratic tangle and level of scrutiny by the government to obtain a concealed-carry license, why then would gun owners like yourself, who receive LESS scrutiny, not be even less safe? Your argument is akin to stating that unlicensed drivers are less safe than licensed ones.

    Also, could you and your allies please provide statistics on the number of people killed by those holding concealed-carry permits, versus those who don’t?

    Something tells me this is where your lack of data and safety bullshit collapses.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2011 @ 9:43 am - June 16, 2011

  116. Oops…..that should be, “unlicensed drivers are safer than licensed ones”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2011 @ 9:48 am - June 16, 2011

  117. I’m sure Ms. Hoover is a very nice person, but I think she’s slid right down the gay-sex liberal ladder on that one.

    First problem:

    We do not believe that the state should have the power to confer rights upon some law-abiding citizens while discriminating against others.

    Fundamental problem: states do not “confer” rights. That is essentially stating that you only have the rights that the government chooses to give you — which is fundamentally opposite to the concept of limited government and individual freedoms that Ms. Hoover invokes.

    Second problem: you set up a complete inconsistency next.

    Limited-government conservatives believe in maximum individual freedom consistent with law and order.

    And how is “freedom” defined?

    But to deny one class of citizens the freedom to marry based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory – anathema to the great tradition of freedom and equal opportunity upon which the Republican Party was founded.

    So in order to maximize individual freedom, we must allow people to marry to whomever they are sexually attracted, as Ms. Hoover makes clear in her use of sexual orientation.

    Ms. Hoover is thus making the case that pedophiles, incest practitioners, bestialists, and plural marriage practitioners must be allowed to marry in the name of “freedom”.

    Furthermore, Ms. Hoover fatally undercuts the concept of “law and order” when she states that laws that prevent you from marrying to whomever you are sexually attracted are discriminatory and wrong.

    In addition, Ms. Hoover states that it is discrimination and against freedom for people to not receive the benefits of marriage; how, then, can she justify limiting the benefits of marriage to only those who marry? After all, what gives her the right to prevent people who choose to exercise their freedom and not marry from receiving the same benefits as those who do?

    For the umpteenth time, marriage is not a right; it is a privilege extended by the government in the name of societal interest. It is at a theoretical level no different than tax credits for hybrid cars — something done to incent you to do something that the government considers it desirable that you do.

    Marriage is indeed “the world’s most powerful social institution” and “provides a nongovernmental social safety net, whereby individuals care for one another and anchor civil society in self-sufficiency”. However, the primary reason for marriage, and for government to take on the additional costs and consideration of supporting it is to enhance care and support for those who are least able to be self-sufficient — children. In contrast, there is no need for the government to facilitate this for adults, because adults are supposed to be self-sufficient. Since gay and lesbian couplings will never produce children, there is no need for the government to subsidize what should be two fully self-sufficient adults.

    Finally, to Chris’s point, tax laws, Social Security eligibility, health insurance whatnot, and other such things are perfectly changeable without touching marriage. As an example, in 2006, the Pension Protection Act, via a change in tax laws, made it possible to designate a primary beneficiary with the capability to accept a pension or defined-contribution retirement plan as a bequest without taxation, regardless of marital status. This benefited not only gays and lesbians, but other situations where people wanted to bequeath a retirement account to a non-spousal beneficiary, i.e. a widow to a son or a daughter, without having to pay taxes.

    You want to be able to grant Social Security survivor benefits? Fine, price out and build in an option within Social Security for a person to designate a beneficiary within limits. Health insurance premiums paid by employers without imputed income? It’s about three lines in the tax code. Estate tax? Done — indeed, the overwhelming majority of Republicans would vote to repeal it instantly.

    Ms. Hoover and GOProud do no one any favors when they employ the misleading language of gay-sex liberals AND when they take a “marriage or bust” attitude to problems that can be solved in a method that is simpler, more beneficial, and more consistent with conservative values. Furthermore, she demonstrates that, despite GOProud’s claim that it is not trying to force gay-sex marriage through, that it is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2011 @ 11:53 am - June 16, 2011

  118. @ NDT

    Since you addressed my comment, I will reply- for I would normally not do so.

    And, since you don’t know me personally, you really can’t say with any certainty that I subscribe to the notions you suggest.

    Some persons and groups feel, whether they actually own a firearm, that ANY attempt to circumscribe gun ownership is ipso facto a diminution of the Second Amendment provision. Not making extreme generalizations as your comments are wont to indicate, I prefer to trust MOST- but not all- gun owners IF they have received proper training in the classroom and on the range. To use your own analogy, I would add the essential “sine qua non”: no operator of a car should be without three items, i.e., driver’s education, a valid license, and an automotive insurance policy. Those who drive without such items are not to be trusted: I agree with that point actually. And I see no valid reason for any gun owner to be exempted from similar items.

    The problem comes from groups like the NRA and some fringe “gun nuts” who wish unrestricted access to any and all firearms. I simply do not feel the permission of concealed-carry is desirable for a civil society. I notice you ignore the support of the California Police Chiefs Association for this California legislation. I have no issue with those who wish to open-carry for then all persons (including officers of the law) can see the firearm. Other than misguided machismo, there is no utility for the concept of concealed-carry, which basically favors handguns.

    My preference on the subject of U.S. gun ownership is biased towards hunters who actually eat what they kill, rather than mere sportsmen who collect moldering trophies. My father took me as a ten-year old to hunt quail, and I enjoyed it enough to repeat the experience until that area of northern San Diego County was “tract-homed.” You might read “For an Handful of Feathers” by Guy de la Vadene as it speaks to my own sentiments. Anyway, I enjoy traps much better.

    I don’t belong to the NRA. Indeed, my father resigned his long-time membership at a club where joining became a new requirement. Many clubs require membership, as is their right as a private, members-only club. The NRA does not need my money, and, as I noted, it does not represent my views. If one has been to Washington, D.C., one can hardly ignore the NRA’s immensly tall white marble edifice. Perhaps when this lobbying organization ceases to be a dogmatic rule-maker, and recognizes that even gun owners and peace officers maintain different views, then it will achieve a moderating effect on gun violence in the U.S.

    You can peruse the NRA website for such “statistics” and “data” as you might need to bolster support for concealed-carry. I find such your request as useful as quoting Biblical scripture against homosexuality…or Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book in support of anything artistic, economic, or political. Such “impartial evidence” serves only to strengthen the illusions of the already converted. I also do not see a inherent correlation between concealed-carry and the murder rate in the U.S., and therefore as a cause of murder. Our philosophical differences here are quite distant.

    I met Daniel earlier this year at an L.A. meet-up. Your name came up, and he noted you live in the Bay Area. There are a couple of websites showing the gun clubs/facilities throughout California. You would find that there are more in NorCal than in SoCal, most likely for the greater wooded areas up north. Go haunt a few: it’s a blast.

    Comment by Bryan — June 16, 2011 @ 8:06 pm - June 16, 2011

  119. #5 – “Haven’t you folks ever heard of the Pink Pistols?”

    Yes, Dottie, I used to be a member. When I’m employed again, I hope to rejoin. Several friends from church belong to the local chapter, and I’m still on the email list. Right now they’re promoting something called the “Shooter’s World Blow-out,” which sounds interesting.

    #107-108 – Vinci, I agree. I have no clue what Seane-Anna’s major problem is. It seems that in cyberspace, any nut can attach him- or herself to a website and try to suck the life out of it. She seems determined to hijack every thread.

    She can thank the liberals she thinks she detests. The mentally ill used to be kept in facilities that could care for them, but now — due to Leftist “compassion” — they roam the streets. And the Internet.

    She may not be ready to climb a water tower in a clown suit with an assault rifle, but she has some very definite issues. Thanks to her, we all have to hear continally about her pet obsessions: man-on-dog, woman-on-dead person, an America overcome by harems. And of course, she MUST protect the children.

    But who will protect them from her?

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 17, 2011 @ 1:33 am - June 17, 2011

  120. Well, whoopy do! Gay people are not allowed to marry; not allowed to serve in the military; not allowed to adopt children or foster children; can be fired for being gay; are driven to suicide by “ex-gay” fraud and anti-gay activists posing as “Christians”; and can be beat senseless for holding hands in public. But by God, they will be able to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin! All our problems are solved!

    Comment by Michael — June 17, 2011 @ 4:06 am - June 17, 2011

  121. Not allowed to marry, Michael? You mean, gay people who get married are being arrested? And if those who would beat us senseless knew (or feared) we were packing, they would be less likely to try. You might understand that had you taken the time to understand the post to which you attach your comment.

    Oh, and, please tell me where I said this new legislation serves to solve all our problems. Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 17, 2011 @ 4:15 am - June 17, 2011

  122. Michael’s not Granny Goodness is she? That rant was as fact free as one of Granny’s finest.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 17, 2011 @ 7:40 am - June 17, 2011

  123. And this was hilarious:

    are driven to suicide by “ex-gay” fraud and anti-gay activists posing as “Christians”

    So what Michael is saying is that gays and lesbians like himself will kill themselves unless Christians and anyone who would dare criticize gay people are suppressed and punished.

    This is the latest trick of the welfare-addled left: give us exactly what we want or we kill ourselves. Unless you let us use the government to shut everyone else up and give us freebies, we commit suicide.

    I think it becomes what is known as a self-correcting problem. The more we practice our freedoms, the more those who oppose them like Michael will remove themselves from the picture.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - June 17, 2011

  124. Wow, Lori! I can definitely feel the hate. Keep it up, girl! Keep showing that you REALLY BELIEVE that spewing vicious invectives is a reasoned response to criticism. Keep showing who’s the real closet leftist here.

    But know this, chicka. You’re not going to intimidate me into silence, nor will you stop the arguments I make from being seen and heard. Because, cupcake, I’m not the only person on this site who’s making those arguments, although I am the only one you hate with a passion (selective outrage, another hallmark of the left). Others here are making the same arguments and raising the same concerns as I am. And they will keep on doing so despite your apoplectic outbursts.

    Lori, your foaming-at-the-mouth rants just show that you have the reasoning capacity of an amoeba. You can’t refute my arguments nor those of the others here, so you collapse into temper tantrums whose sole purpose is to discredit, and maybe even destroy, the person who dared to openly state a truth you don’t like. Hmmmm, the politics of personal destruction, another leftist hallmark. Three out of three. I got your number, chicka.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 17, 2011 @ 10:35 pm - June 17, 2011

  125. Seane-Anna, I see no point in continuing to even respond to you. Telling you that you are mentally ill and in dire need of professional help is not “hating.” It is simply giving you advice apparently nobody in your actual life (if you have one) has the gumption to do.

    As far as the other people who comment here, whom you imagine agree with you, there is a crucial difference between them and you. They seem to be sane, and you do not.

    “I got your number, chicka.” You have no one’s number, and that is precisely your problem. Your line has evidently been disconnected for years.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 18, 2011 @ 1:34 am - June 18, 2011

  126. Once again Lori, thanks for showing that you have no capacity whatsoever for reasoned responses to criticism or to someone simply stating an opinion different from yours.

    I mean, really. Do you really expect me to believe you’re not full of hate when you call me mentally ill just for disagreeing with you and exposing the grave weaknesses in your pro-SSM logic? Are you kidding me? You’re the one who needs professional help if you expect me to buy that.

    And as for me imagining other people here sharing the same viewpoint on SSM as I do. Well, did I imagine that The_Livewire wrote that the arguments used to support gay marriage can be used for any other relationship? That’s basically the same argument I’ve been making on this blog, just very succinctly stated. So, if The_Livewire makes the same argument I’ve made, doesn’t that mean he and I are in agreement, at least on that point?

    Or when ND30 lists the arguments gays use to support SSM, and then asks why those arguments aren’t valid for other sexual outsiders, is it my imagination that he’s making the same point I’ve made?

    When, from time to time, American Elephant, V the K, Heliotrope, and a few others have asked the same questions, voiced the same concerns, exposed the same weaknesses, and/or raised the same issues as I have, I’m supposed to believe that that really didn’t happen? That it was all in my imagination? Sorry, chicka, but your hateful yet amateurish effort at gaslighting is a flop. Try it on somebody who doesn’t have your number.

    And just so you don’t misunderstand–although I know you will purposely choose to–when I say other people here agree with me I don’t mean that it’s planned or that I view them as my followers, or that we’re part of some organized group. No, it’s purely coincendental that we have the same outlook–generally speaking–on certain issues and express that outlook here. The_Livewire, ND30, American Elephant, Heliotrope, and myself have voiced different, even opposing, opinions here, too. We just don’t stoop to the hateful low of calling each other mentally ill for doing so. Instead, we engage in sometimes heated, but always reasoned debate, which is something, chicka, you know nothing about.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 18, 2011 @ 7:44 pm - June 18, 2011

  127. Seane-Anna, you seem incapable of making an argument and standing by it simply because it is your argument. You have the emotional maturity of a very small, and not-terribly-well-adjusted, child.

    I call you mentally ill because I quite honestly believe that you are. You have no logical reason to be haunting a blog whose very premise you disagree with. You take every opportunity to call the bloggers liars and hypocrites and insult the people who comment here. But then, like a pathetic, fawning, cringing, ass-licking little poodle, you whimper profound thank-you’s for the support of anybody you can get — whether they really understood themselves to be supporting you or not.

    You are the most deeply disturbed individual I have ever encountered in cyberspace. And that is saying a lot.

    We never know which Seane-Anna we’re going to get. Will it be two-year-old, petulant Seane-Anna, fourteen-year-old, bitch-slappin’ Seane-Anna (“I got your number, chicka”) or dowdy-old-grandma Moses-the-lawgiver Seane-Anna? One can never be sure from one rambling, spluttering comment to the next.

    If I disagree with you, why the hell do you care so much? I dared to stand up to you (surely you can’t believe that you can glide through life with EVERYBODY taking your crap), and now you fly into toy-poodle attack mode every time I make a comment. Even when it does not address you. Even when it does not address your favorite subject — the one to which you must always inevitably return — totally depraved and far-out gutter sex.

    You are one creepy little individual. And you do need help. I have just given the reasons why I think so, so don’t bother yapping and screeching anymore about how I’m out to get you. I’ve made a damn good case, and if you had anything between your ears besides scrambled filth, you’d recognize that.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 18, 2011 @ 10:54 pm - June 18, 2011

  128. “…you seem incapable of making an argument”

    Stop describing yourself, Lori.

    “You have the emotional maturity of a very small, and not-terribly-well-adjusted, child.”

    I said stop describing yourself, Lori.

    “You have no logical reason to be haunting a blog whose very premise you disagree with.”

    So now you’re in charge of who can “haunt” which blogs and who can’t? Heliotrope is a straight man who comments here regularly and has a few of the same viewpoints that I do. I suppose you’re going to unleash shrill screeds against him to keep him in his place, too? Didn’t think so.

    “If I disagree with you, why the hell do you care so much?”

    The very thing I’ve been wondering about you.

    “…you fly into toy-poodle attack mode every time I make a comment.”

    Projection.

    “You are one creepy little individual.”

    Finally looked at yourself in the mirror?

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 19, 2011 @ 12:02 am - June 19, 2011

  129. Seane-Anna, do you really want to go on making such a colossal fool of yourself here? You sound like a five-year-old. You’re going to mimic everything I say.

    Kindergarten was nice, but for most people it eventually ends. Too bad for you it never has. Go play with yourself — I’m sure that over the years, you’ve gotten quite good at it — and leave blog commentary to the adults.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 19, 2011 @ 3:02 am - June 19, 2011

  130. LOL, ND30. Do you think people actually *read* half the sh!t you day?

    Spare your fingers.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:31 am - June 19, 2011

  131. you say?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:31 am - June 19, 2011

  132. Seane-Anna, do us all a favor and instead of bending that King James Bible together and sliding it into your vagina every night to produce your 1/10th of an ounce of cream that is all you’re capable of … shove it in your mouth and STFU! (and I say that lovingly)

    You and your non-rock-throwing, non-divorcing, non-shell-fish-eating, ear-sore of a mouth. Cuz guess what?

    I can say what the f*ck I wanna on this site!

    And you can just suck my cock!

    Cuz GP has no standards, so why should I?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:37 am - June 19, 2011

  133. Vinci and Lori, thank you so much for revealing the virulent hatred that resides in your gaping chest holes where most people have hearts.

    Vinci, I especially thank you for revealing not only your hatred of me but also your rabid anti-Christian bigotry. Being the good leftie that you are, I know you’d never talk about the Koran in such abusive and lewd terms, but the Bible is fair game. And Lori, where are you on this, since you claim to be a Christian?

    And thanks, too, for exposing that the real goal of all of your rabid, invective filled rants is to try and silence me. STFU? No, Vinci and Lori, that’s the one thing I will not do. I will not submit to the threats of mental midgets who think that spewing incoherent, lewd, and rabidly malicious personal attacks is the equivalent of adult commentary. And I will not submit to Stalin wannabes who’s only answer to criticism or opposition is to try and silence it. Uncle Joe is dead, but it’s pretty clear that his ghost is possessing the two of you. Go find an exorcist before he consumes you completely. Oh, wait, he’s done that already.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 19, 2011 @ 11:03 am - June 19, 2011

  134. Seane-Anna, go back to kindergarten and stay there. You try to turn every commentary thread into Romper-Room, and the complexity of the adult world is plainly too much for you.

    Vinci and Lori are two different people. He said one thing, I said another. I know that’s too much for your poor little, infantile brain to compute, but there it is.

    All gays do not think the same things, any more than all straights do. Nor do we all vote the same way, live the same “lifestyle” or anything else that would make it easy for you to categorize us. You wish there were a Cliff’s Note version of living on earth with other human beings, but unfortunately for you, there isn’t.

    Vinci is obviously sick of you. I wouldn’t tell you the same things he did, though I can certainly understand why he’s had enough. But his outburst did indeed accomplish one important thing. It led to a response from you that illustrated, more clearly than any of the gazillion that went before, that you have cogitational difficulties distinguishing between individuals.

    It’s a common malady for phony-baloneys who pose as conservatives when they’re not. As is deliberately twisting what libertarians believe, and confusing them with leftists.

    Whatever your deep-seated, raging mental problem is concerning gays, get help somewhere. And leave blog commentary for the grownups.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 19, 2011 @ 1:03 pm - June 19, 2011

  135. Cuz GP has no standards, so why should I?

    Actually, it does have standards. They are, however, not issued by a mandate from on high, but are community standards, evolved by those who regularly comment here and have developed an understanding about how they interact with each other.

    It seems that, having failed to shut people up by demanding one-sided policy enforcement, you’ve decided to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and try to be as abusive as you possibly can — perhaps with the hope that you’ll be banned and be able to go running back to Queerty, Towleroad, and other places about how awful GayPatriot is and how it’s “going in the wrong direction”.

    Frankly, I doubt Dan or Bruce would bother. And from my perspective, there’s no need for them to do so, either; the issue is correcting itself quite nicely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 19, 2011

  136. And now, for some entertainment value.

    And you can just suck my cock!

    Cuz GP has no standards, so why should I?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:37 am – June 19, 2011

    How things change.

    It doesn’t matter who subjects me to what from which political side, that gives me no justification for altering my behavior. I, “stay the course” so to speak. For a site with so many commenters who insist on moral biblical consistency, I find the “they do it, so can we argument” irreconcilable with that mindset.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 5:15 pm – June 15, 2011

    But there is just too much on this site that clouds up what’s most significant. And part of that is the uncivil tone, language and manner in which goes on in these debates. My feeling is that if GP can weed out the miscreants and those who feel they can only make their points by sinking to a base level of conduct (on the right and the left), then perhaps it will raise the level of debate and what’s most important will become part of the discussion.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 15, 2011 @ 7:09 pm – June 15, 2011

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 19, 2011 @ 7:03 pm - June 19, 2011

  137. Lori, I’m well aware that you and Vinci are two different people, that’s why I addressed my comment to Vinci AND Lori. The only way you could’ve missed that is that you don’t know what the function and meaning of the word “and” is, and that shows that the person here with “cogitational difficulties” is you.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 19, 2011 @ 8:57 pm - June 19, 2011

  138. Seane-Anna, I am not interested in nursery-school-playground mudball fights. No one else wants to read them, and they’re a waste of my time. I don’t care what your opinion is, and I do not care that you don’t agree with me. That you have to insult me is a badge of honor. If someone like you dislikes me, then I must be doing something right.

    My comments henceforth will not be addressed to you. You can just sit there and babble all you please. You are an attention-whore, and once again you have managed to totally hijack a thread. Why you are permitted to get away with this, I have no idea.

    Go to hell.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 19, 2011 @ 9:31 pm - June 19, 2011

  139. Go to hell? Oh man, I bet you thought you were really letting me have it with that one. Made you feel really proud of yourself, huh, Lori? I bet you didn’t wait to text your two friends the great news: “Look on GayPatriot! I just told Seane-Anna to go to hell! What a body blow that was!” Trouble is, your small, warped mind probably really does believe that your infantile finale was a brilliant and devastating coup de grace on me. Not so much.

    The truth, Lori, is that your trashy little kiss off just shows what a pathetic, mean-spirited, malicious, hateful, intolerant, and morally and intellectually bankrupt waste of DNA you really are. You are a useless breather who’s life energy is composed entirely of hatred for your critics. You contribute nothing but raging bile to any discussion you slither into, yet your warped mind believes your vitrolic outbursts are the gold standard of reasoned, adult commentary.

    Lori, you are a Stalin wannabe whose frustration over not being able to silence dissenters has devolved into paranoia and hysterics. I would suggest that you take your own advice and get help, but I wouldn’t wish you on any therapist. Psychologists and psychiatrists have enough on their hands without having to deal with your virulent and self-serving strain of political illness.

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 20, 2011 @ 1:22 am - June 20, 2011

  140. “…waste of DNA…” “…useless breather…” “… Stalin wannabe…”

    Thanks so much for showing us that, on the other hand you are the Sapphic love-child of Miss Manners and Emily Post.

    “Silence dissenters?” You are not rational enough to qualify as a “dissenter.” And if you confuse disgust with your inability to be reasoned with as a wish to “silence” you, you are only further proving my case.

    Rant on. And on, and on and on. You serve no legitimate purpose at all except to crap on others. Including the bloggers themselves. When others try to reason with you, they get counter-argument to the effect of “I know you are, but what am I?” or “yeah, and you’re two of ‘em!”

    Show us some more how reasoned and mature you are. Oh, wait…you can’t do that.

    Insults from a nasty, vicious, filthy little creep like you, again, are a badge of honor.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 20, 2011 @ 1:26 pm - June 20, 2011

  141. And to any latecomer who may actually read this blog post and CARE that the topic was the right of gays and lesbians to defend themselves by exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms, see once again how this little freak managed to hijack it.

    Of course she did come in to whine that she couldn’t understand what gun rights had to do with gay rights. Further proving that we’re not human beings to her. Had she bothered to read the post, she would have seen what one set of rights have to do with the other.

    Gun rights = gay rights. The issue must not be derailed. Not by any spawn of hell who would come in here and change the subject. This isn’t about those horrible queers and their “lifestyle.” It’s about the very basic, fundamental right of each and every human being to self-defense.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 20, 2011 @ 1:34 pm - June 20, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.