GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/09/26/defining-a-political-party-by-the-boorish-behavior-on-an-anonymous-isolated-individual/trackback/

  1. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends

    Yes Dan. . . there was probably only one, maybe a couple of folk in the audience that were tossing out boos and jeers and yet there still remains the question about whether they were booing the soldier or the DADT policy.

    What is disturbing is that Santorum failed to address the soldier and extend his gratitude for his service, and the additional issue that none of the other candidates thanked the soldier nor did they make any comments about the disruptive boos. Huntsman and Johnson have made comments post debate. . .

    And then you have the out-standing number of the R’s that voted for the repeal of DADT.

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 6:51 pm - September 26, 2011

  2. Rusty, I agree that it is indeed disturbing if Santorum heard the boos and failed to fault the lout.

    The issue here is not Santorum (whom I have already criticized), but the attempt of the media to define an entire party by at most a handful of boors.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 26, 2011 @ 6:56 pm - September 26, 2011

  3. The boors fit the narrative, that’s why.

    Comment by Az Mo in NYC — September 26, 2011 @ 7:05 pm - September 26, 2011

  4. Personally, I’ll gladly criticize a candidate for not speaking out against a boorish lout just as soon as I hear a sitting President criticize a violent union chief.

    But that’s just how I roll.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — September 26, 2011 @ 7:05 pm - September 26, 2011

  5. Eric, that very issue came up in the Facebook thread (commenting on the image I include above). A liberal very active in the thread refused to condemn Hoffa’s remark–even after I provided a link showing Hoffa’s refusal to apologize.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 26, 2011 @ 7:10 pm - September 26, 2011

  6. Dan. . .and the additional issue that none of the other candidates thanked the soldier nor did they make any comments about the disruptive boos.

    Plus the record on R support for the DADT repeal.

    and then the issue of some of the candidate’s calls for a repeal of the repeal.

    Like you have stated, Santorum in inconsequential. What isn’t inconsequential is how the rest of the candidates on stage displayed such reluctance to answer/ repsond to the valid question of Stephen Hill. and to extend their gratitude by thanking him for his service during a televised/online event.

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 7:19 pm - September 26, 2011

  7. Actually, rusty, it’s unfair to fault the other candidates given that, at least according to the transcript, the moderators asked different questions of them.

    Yeah, they’re wrong to call for repeal of repeal, but the issue here is the attempt, even by the president, to smear all Republicans for the rudeness of one boor.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 26, 2011 @ 7:21 pm - September 26, 2011

  8. Oh please. How can you possibly write this without calling out your fans, most notoriously ND30, who does exactly what you are criticizing to anyone who disagrees with right wing talking points?

    Comment by Brendan — September 26, 2011 @ 7:26 pm - September 26, 2011

  9. I note one of our regular commenters seems to be perpetuating the idea that it as a “crowd” rather than a single person who booed.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 7:29 pm - September 26, 2011

  10. Oh please. How can you possibly write this without calling out your fans, most notoriously ND30, who does exactly what you are criticizing to anyone who disagrees with right wing talking points?

    Because nobody with a functioning brain is attributing ND30′s words to everyone here. Do try to pay attention, Brendan.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — September 26, 2011 @ 7:31 pm - September 26, 2011

  11. If left-wing gays who behave obnoxiously were rebuked by others in the community, NDT would not have a point. The fellow who booed at the debate was immediately rebuked by others in attendance. Has anyone rebuked the jerk who went off on Bristol Palin? Quite the contrary, it’s been a publicity boon for him.

    It’s a fairy tale that both sides are equally guilty of this.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 7:37 pm - September 26, 2011

  12. [sonicfrog] seems to be perpetuating the [false] idea that it as a “crowd” rather than a single person who booed.

    Well V, he does caveat his blog, “Exposing my faulty thought processes… one post at a time!” Maybe it applies here :-)

    I listened to the Republican debate clip in his post, and it seems clear to me that the “second-level” boos are not booing the gay soldier… they are booing the one jerk who had just been lame enough to boo the gay soldier. I guess we’ll never know the truth. Except, oh yeah, that Hinderaker was there in person and only a few rows away, so yeah we do know.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 26, 2011 @ 7:41 pm - September 26, 2011

  13. Yes Dan the debate format limited the respones to questions, but an acknowledgment of thanks and gratitude would be, oh, 10 seconds, just to slip in.
    Huntsman and Johnson have followed up with post debate comments.

    But never want to piss off or put folk off with waning donations

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 7:45 pm - September 26, 2011

  14. It occurs to me that there once was a Democrat who didn’t like soldiers very much. He accused American soldiers of committing atrocities, for which there was no evidence. He said our forces in Iraq were made up of those who were too stupid to avail themselves of a proper education.

    Was the contempt he displayed toward soldiers a reflection of his party as a whole? Considering he was their nominee for president in 2004, I would venture… yes.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 7:54 pm - September 26, 2011

  15. While listening to my favorite talk radio host tonight, Mark Levine, he made a convincing case showing that the soldier was not booed and instead it was the DADT policy that was booed.

    Comment by Richard Bell — September 26, 2011 @ 8:20 pm - September 26, 2011

  16. “While listening to my favorite talk radio host tonight, Mark Levine, he made a convincing case showing that the soldier was not booed and instead it was the DADT policy that was booed.”

    With this comment, we really have entered Alice in Wonderland world!

    And Eric, can I assume you have distanced yourself from ND30 with this comment?: “Because nobody with a functioning brain is attributing ND30′s words to everyone here. Do try to pay attention, Brendan.”

    Comment by Brendan — September 26, 2011 @ 8:32 pm - September 26, 2011

  17. With this comment, we really have entered Alice in Wonderland world!

    Do you have an intelligent refutation of Levin’s argument, or are you simply rejecting it because it contradicts your narrative?

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 8:36 pm - September 26, 2011

  18. What none of you seem to be addressing is the fact that the crowed CHEERED Santorum’s idea of reinstating DADT in a future administration. His idea got a rapturous applause from the conservative audience – these are YOUR PEOPLE folks, and they are more than happy to shove you back in the closet. Who gives a crap that one, two, or three morons booed the gay soldier – the fact remains that the hundreds in the audience also disrespected him by cheering the idea that he should be shoved back in the closet and made to live in constant fear of being outed and discharged just to serve his country. Yeah, some friends in the GOP and Tea Party you guys got there!

    Comment by Senatus — September 26, 2011 @ 8:54 pm - September 26, 2011

  19. In other words, Senatus, they were responding to a policy, not to the soldier. Thank you for conceding the point.

    You may be unfamiliar with the concept that people can disagree over policy without holding animus toward individuals or groups; perhaps because you are incapable of doing so yourself.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 9:23 pm - September 26, 2011

  20. I consider it more than a mere policy disagreement when someone (or a group in this case) finds my sexuality so odious that I must be banned from even the possibility of serving my nation. The response of the crowd sure sounded like “holding animus toward individuals or groups” – i.e., the VAST majority of your fellow conservatives hold WHO YOU ARE in such contempt that they would ban you from military service for that reason alone. But, you know, no hard feelings – we just “disagree over policy”.

    Comment by Senatus — September 26, 2011 @ 9:34 pm - September 26, 2011

  21. Senatus, go back and review the video. You’ll find the cheers not for reinstating DADT but for his bromides about military effectiveness.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 26, 2011 @ 9:40 pm - September 26, 2011

  22. But, you know, no hard feelings – we just “disagree over policy”.

    Infantile sarcasm aside, Senatus, perhaps you could tell me just why the sex of the person you reach orgasm with has a damned thing to do with your job.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — September 26, 2011 @ 9:40 pm - September 26, 2011

  23. Well, “the sex of the person [I] reach orgasm with has a damned thing to do with [my] job” when I have to live in constant fear of getting fired if the wrong person accidentally finds out. I can only image how stressful and humiliating it must be for a soldier (lets assume it’s a male) to constant make sure he lies and refers to his boyfriend as a “girlfriend” or refers to him as a “her”. Why should he be obliged to hear all about the wives and girlfriends of his straight peers, but be cast out of the military if he dares to mention he has a boyfriend? The mere fact that he’s wired to “reach orgasm” with his own sex is enough to end his career – that’s why it has “a damned thing to do with [his] job”.

    Comment by Senatus — September 26, 2011 @ 9:55 pm - September 26, 2011

  24. I can only image how stressful and humiliating it must be for a soldier

    I guess I think our soldiers aren’t little pansies who get all upset over having to exercise a modicum of discretion.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 10:00 pm - September 26, 2011

  25. Poor Senatus make the precise point why the military excluded gays.

    What poor Senatus can not do is explain what fantastic qualifications gays have that would improve the military mission. Since gays are a teeny tiny itsy bitsy part of the population, they must have some super powerful attribute for the military to put aside the confusion they bring to military order that would cause the military to establish all the rules and regs for folding them in with the general military population.

    But, perhaps, gays in the military is a social justice sort of thing and whatever burden it places on the military is justified by moving toward a more progressive point of view. This, of course, should lead to gay military bars and gay living quarters and some sort of gay military olympics.

    Comment by Heliotrope — September 26, 2011 @ 10:08 pm - September 26, 2011

  26. I certainly do not think US servicemen are “little pansies”. What I find galling is the double standard – conservatives expect gay and lesbian members of the military to exercise a “modicum of discretion” and constantly hide a major part of their identity while their straight counterparts are allowed to blab all they want about what their wife is up to or about the latest letter from their girlfriend. I wouldn’t care if you were just consistent and enforced the same draconian code of silence regarding relationships on ALL service members.

    Comment by Senatus — September 26, 2011 @ 10:12 pm - September 26, 2011

  27. “What poor Heliotrope can not do is explain what fantastic qualifications Jews have that would improve the military mission. Since Jews are a teeny tiny itsy bitsy part of the population…”

    Wow, it’s so much fun deciding the worth of a particular class of people based on their proportion of the population, I mean Jews only represent about 2% of the American population so screw them! If a few people find them icky we should just ban them so they don’t make anyone uncomfortable. A**hole.

    Comment by Senatus — September 26, 2011 @ 10:17 pm - September 26, 2011

  28. Senatus, I do believe you’re missing the point in all of this, in favor of screaming at those you disagree with…

    DADT has been repealed. Period. You have no intention of voting for anyone with an (R) after their name anyway, so why you’re insisting upon throwing a tantrum here is beyond me.

    You fear Republicans so much? Fine. Go campaign against them. But do everyone a favor and step away from your righteous indignation for a moment and quit bitching about a law that no longer exists. You might also be good enough to knock off the “you’re all a bunch of self-loathing ignoramuses” nonsense while you’re at it.

    I’m sure you don’t advocate going out and stomping the crap out of Tea Partiers, or think that you love NYC, especially without the WTC, but you don’t hear anyone here claiming that the entire DNC is to be held accountable because some unhinged douchebags have no sense of decency.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — September 26, 2011 @ 10:20 pm - September 26, 2011

  29. Believe it or not, for a lot of people, it *isn’t” a major part of one’s identity. Not everyone centers their entire self-image around which group of people they prefer to snog with. And there are many people, straight and gay, who prefer to keep their personal and professional lives separate.

    Frankly, I always thought this, “not being able to discuss your private anywhere at any time is a horrible form of oppression,” was whiny little girl stuff. There may be legitimate arguments against barring open homosexuals from serving in the military, but that isn’t one of them.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 10:20 pm - September 26, 2011

  30. Frankly, I always thought this, “not being able to discuss your private anywhere at any time is a horrible form of oppression,” was whiny little girl stuff. says the man hiding behind the moniker.

    jus’ sayin’ (does your closet have a deadbolt)

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 10:44 pm - September 26, 2011

  31. sorry James, couldn’t resist that little poke. big kisses

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 10:45 pm - September 26, 2011

  32. The difference is not in the choice to keep one’s personal and professional lives separate; the difference is in whether one decides to become a whiny little emo bitch about it.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2011 @ 10:49 pm - September 26, 2011

  33. The difference is not in the choice to keep one’s personal and professional lives separate; the difference is in whether one decides to become a whiny little emo bitch about it.

    Yeah. . .like Gus
    http://ben-cohen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=201&Itemid=106

    Comment by rusty — September 26, 2011 @ 11:07 pm - September 26, 2011

  34. Let it go already.

    The slogan is quite honest if you ask me. There is a gay soldier who fights for your freedom, and that gay soldier was booed by the GOP, regardless how many did so, regardless how many imaginary counter booings were made at the booers, a gay soldier was booed by a member(s) of the GOP. That is clear cut and no amount of excusing from gay tea baggers is going to erase that.

    Quite your whining already, geez.

    Comment by JS — September 26, 2011 @ 11:32 pm - September 26, 2011

  35. BTW, polls suggest that a huge majority of republican conservatives are opposed to gays in the military.

    So in the end the conservative teabagging base of the GOP booing at innocent gay soldiers is not quite a far fetch idea. Leaving one to wonder what other animus and malice would ensue by the teabaggers against innocent gay soldiers. The thing is I wouldn’t even be surprised if a gay soldier ends up being violently attacked by one of these angry teabaggers.

    That’s my honest opinion on this.

    Comment by JS — September 26, 2011 @ 11:40 pm - September 26, 2011

  36. Conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans will NEVER get a fair shake in the lamestream media. They have gone from actually looking into stories into slanting stories. The 1960s and Watergate forever changed the print and TV folks into a bunch of lefties that aren’t that fond of America.

    So we can whine about the treatment or we fight back harder and harder. It’s our choice.

    Comment by davinci — September 26, 2011 @ 11:49 pm - September 26, 2011

  37. To JS:

    I see you’ve already subscribed to the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Media Matters in its entirety. Congratulations!

    Comment by davinci — September 26, 2011 @ 11:51 pm - September 26, 2011

  38. Hey, when Hoffa called out the tea party, Carney said it’s nothing, when an idiot boos at the GOP debate, Carney is up front and center claiming this is the face of the GOP. We can only win in the ballot box, the media is lost.

    Comment by Leah — September 27, 2011 @ 12:51 am - September 27, 2011

  39. JS, as per your comment in #34, if one liberal calls a soldier a baby-killer, he speaks for all liberals? Yeah, I acknowledge there are bad apples among our (the conservative) movement as there are bad apples in all movements. (Where do you see any of us trying to “erase that” (as you put it)?) This fact that you point out defines maybe a handful of Republicans at that debate. And many in the media, particularly the gay media, have sought to make it appear that the booing defined the response to the gay soldier’s question. And that misrepresentation prompted this post.

    Interesting that instead of engaging us, you chose to usual a sexual slur to insult some of my defenders.

    Why do you feel compelled to dismiss a dynamic political movement with such a slur?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 27, 2011 @ 1:10 am - September 27, 2011

  40. #35: “The thing is I wouldn’t even be surprised if a gay soldier ends up being violently attacked by one of these angry teabaggers. That’s my honest opinion on this.”

    Of course that is JS’s “honest opinion” because like all leftist progs, facts are irrelevant to the formation of his opinions. For a couple of years now, the liberals have been constantly warning us about imminent outbreaks of “teabagger” violence that NEVER occur. In contrast, there have been dozens of incidents of left-wing violence (usually involving unions) that have been ignored by the MSM. Such violence is either excused and ignored by the Left, or worse, PRAISED and ADVOCATED by the Left as “American” & “Patriotic”:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/ilwu-strike_b_955734.html

    If some unidentified yahoo screeching something at a debate can be used by the Left to “define” the Right, surely the unapologetic statements of an official HuffPo columnist can be used to define the Left.

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2011 @ 1:54 am - September 27, 2011

  41. As JS proved this weekend, he’s not interested in facts; only in promoting a left-wing narrative.

    I figure that lying about Republicans being hateful and evil is something lefties have to do to make themselves feel better about the fact that the people they support are destroying the economy and driving the country to bankruptcy.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 5:44 am - September 27, 2011

  42. You’ll have to forgive JS…

    His party is losing elections left and right, getting it’s ass kicked wherever it rears it’s ugly head, and is in the process of being flushed down the proverbial toilet.

    Heck, what petulant child wouldn’t throw a tantrum over that?

    Comment by Eric Olsen — September 27, 2011 @ 6:46 am - September 27, 2011

  43. Actually I’ll go one better.

    Since JS is clearly part of the liberal left, we can safely call him a terrorist, as he feels Bill Ayers and Bernadene Dohrn speak for him.

    What’s wrong JS, don’t like being judged by the actions of your terrorist peers? Why do you hate America JS?

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 27, 2011 @ 7:39 am - September 27, 2011

  44. Senatus:

    Gas were barred from the military and then accepted with a wink and a nod under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Be specific, in answering this question: Why did the military ban gays and later accepts people who might be gay on the basis that the might be gay person keep his orientation totally to himself?

    Second question: What parallel do you see between sexual preference and Jews?

    Comment by Heliotrope — September 27, 2011 @ 9:47 am - September 27, 2011

  45. There was an incident, yesterday, I believe, when a man at an Obama rally denounced Obama as the Anti-Christ.

    a bearded young man standing in the front row closest to the stage began shouting, completely disrupting the event: “Christian God is the one and only true living God, the creator of Heaven and the Universe.”

    Obama just stopped speaking and smiled uncomfortably at him as the crowd booed loudly to drown him out. Eventually, police and Secret Service dragged the man through the crowd and out of the theater.

    Using JS and Senatus logic, we could say that the Democrats booed a Christian, and thereby demonstrated their party’s widespread contempt for Christians. I mean, it stands to reason: someone in an audience boos a member of a group, therefore the audience hates that group. QED.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 10:15 am - September 27, 2011

  46. It’s also funny that when Obama is revealed as the Anti-Christ, the response of the Democrat crowd is to chant “Four more years!”

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 10:53 am - September 27, 2011

  47. I see a lot of Obama bashing, Dem bashing etc. But I never hear much from this site about what (if anything) gay conservatives are doing within the Republican Party. Or perhaps you think things are just fine. Fair enough. Whatever the case, getting 15 GOP votes in the House for DADT repeal and 8 in the Senate is pretty pathetic. And for those here who celebrated the repeal (I know that’s not everyone), I hope you realize, as most other gay people do, that without Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid, that policy would still be in place today. And indeed, it may be in place again if it’s left up to a Republican president, Speaker Boehner, and Sen. McConnell.

    To pick up off an earlier thread, I often disagree with the Democratic Party in my urban area. And I’m probably the kind of gay person that most people would guess to be a Republican. I don’t go in for a lot of activism particularly. And yet, the debate the other night made me doubt whether I even want to cast my vote for the lone Republican I’m considering voting for next fall (it’a a state office). The interesting part of your previous thread is that I think your assumption is correct: while there are a lot of gay Democrats, that fact is not necessarily based on a love of the Democratic Party. However, you don’t take it to the next step, and admit that it IS based on the extremely negative perception of the GOP.

    That debate the other night, whether it was 1 person or the whole crowd booing, didn’t help things. In politics, perception is reality, whether fair or not.

    Comment by Mike — September 27, 2011 @ 11:19 am - September 27, 2011

  48. So, in the end, Mike, you happily vote for the party that will bankrupt the country and destroy the economy because Republicans won’t pander to your need for self-esteem.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 11:47 am - September 27, 2011

  49. “I hope you realize, as most other gay people do, that without Pres. Clinton, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid, that policy would not have been enacted.”

    Fixed that for you.

    As for ‘what did Gay Republicans do?’ while I disagreed with them, I’d point you to Log Cabin.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 27, 2011 @ 11:50 am - September 27, 2011

  50. I hope you realize that without Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid, the national debt would be $5 Trillion lower than it is today.

    FIFY

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 11:56 am - September 27, 2011

  51. So, in the end, Mike, you happily vote for the party that will bankrupt the country and destroy the economy because Republicans won’t pander to your need for self-esteem.

    Or put differently, V the K, Mike doesn’t care about anything other than his sexual orientation. He has no interest in taxes, spending, government waste, regulatory cost, the economy, or national defense; all he cares about, the sole thing on which he judges anyone, is based on how they pander to his sexual orientation.

    And that nicely demonstrates why so many Republicans don’t think gays should be put in the military or that gays should be required to put their duty ahead of their sexual orientation (as DADT requires); they are aware that gays like Mike make decisions based, not on what is best for the troops or the situation, but solely on what is best for their sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 2:29 pm - September 27, 2011

  52. That’s pretty much the shape of it, NDT. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous recognized same-sex marriage rights.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - September 27, 2011

  53. #52: “That’s pretty much the shape of it, NDT. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous recognized same-sex marriage rights.”

    Actually, V the K, they’re not even THAT principled. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous’ belief that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman is “evolving.”

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - September 27, 2011

  54. To pick up off an earlier thread, I often disagree with the Democratic Party in my urban area.

    But of course, none of that matters, because there’s no chance in hell you’ll ever vote against them because you hate Republicans so much.

    We understand what a bigot you are, Mike. And that’s also what the Republican Party understands — that gays like yourself are helpless, brain-dead bigots who will rationalize anything, including booing, harassing, and attacking troops and paying terrorists to kill them, as long as the group/party involved endorses “gay rights”.

    That’s what makes this funny. Gays like you didn’t give a rat’s ass about gay soldiers being booed when it was your Obama Party doing it. In fact, you openly supported calling gay soldiers “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in their own country. Your Pelosi supported it, your Reid supported it, and your Barack Obama especially supported it.

    You think we don’t recognize that? You think you can just lie? Or more precisely, do you even think at all, or do you just blindly and mindlessly repeat your Obama Party talking points?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 3:01 pm - September 27, 2011

  55. Lindsay Miller writes
    http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/weve-always-been-serving-why-repeal-of-dadt-matters-anyway/245628/

    I’ve noted with interest that many of the news stories covering the repeal find room to mention that the military’s rules of conduct regarding public displays of affection — they’re forbidden while a soldier is in uniform — remain unchanged. When so many reporters bring up something that should go without saying, I suspect that it’s indicative of an underlying anxiety. In this case, the elephant in the room is the pervasive belief in our society that being homosexual or bisexual is somehow much more sexual than being straight. This leads to other bizarre assumptions, like that gay soldiers won’t be able to control themselves around their same-gendered colleagues, or that only the specter of unemployment can keep LGB people from spontaneously making out with each other on street corners.

    This creates a double standard wherein same-sex relationships are inappropriate in a way that straight relationships are not. No reasonable person would be offended by a man putting a photo of his wife on his desk, but if the photo is of his husband, suddenly a pall of tawdriness covers the whole scene. A picture of a heterosexual partner suggests commitment, monogamy, evenings spent in front of the television with Vietnamese take-out; a picture of a homosexual partner suggests gay sex. And to a certain breed of homophobe, the only thing worse than having gay sex is causing someone else to think about gay sex. This is why they’re uncomfortable allowing anyone to mention homosexuality in the military — or school, or church, or in front of their grandparents: because they can’t separate the everyday, innocuous content of LGB relationships from the disconcerting possibility of sexual deviance.

    For the hundreds or thousands of gays and lesbians forced to hide their partners’ existence for the past 18 years, the secrets they kept had less to do with uncontrolled sexuality than with the many small domestic joys that make up a long-term relationship. Reading the testimony of one lesbian military couple who were afraid even to go to the grocery store together, I felt tears come to my eyes. It’s all too easy for me to imagine being the invisible partner in such an arrangement, and the thought breaks my heart. To force LGB service members to hide such an essential part of themselves is simply cruel — there’s no other word for it. Allowing that cruelty to come to an end need not threaten anyone’s peace of mind, as long as they understand that the relationships which came to light last Tuesday are fundamentally the same as those which straight soldiers enjoy. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers are not demanding the right to wave their sex lives in anyone’s faces. Like the rest of us, they simply want to take their partners grocery shopping without fear.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - September 27, 2011

  56. GOP gay rights group fights against gay troop ban

    Patrick Guerriero, who was Log Cabin’s president from 2003 to 2006 and is now registered as an independent, recalled how it wasn’t just liberal gay activists who objected. Fellow Republicans also were upset by “a lawsuit against the U.S. military, against Bush’s Department of Defense.”

    Guerriero said the group was compelled to act after receiving letters, calls and e-mails from gay service members in Iraq discussing the difficulty of having to be pretend to be who they weren’t.

    At the time, Republicans were debating whether to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

    “People forget the climate we were in. There was no legislative road map,” he said. “We thought it was important to have it be nonpartisan and even have a Republican angle to it, that that would send a more powerful message to the courts and perhaps Congress.”

    Cooper, who became president of the group two months before the trial began this summer before Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., said he was always optimistic. “There’s been a general cultural shift that’s been helpful to us,” he said.

    Cooper said the fight shows Republicans are not always the enemy. “I’m not going to deny the fact that there have been years and times when the Republican party has not been friendly to the gay voter,” he said, “but that’s changing.”

    He said he has shared his secret with his closest Army friends and keeps it quiet around others whom he feels do not need to know. And he pointed out that President George W. Bush knew his sexual orientation when the 39-year-old Army captain served under him.

    “I don’t think I’ve been protected,” he said in a telephone interview from his Washington D.C. office.

    The Florida native, who says generations of his family have served in the military, continues to serve untouched, and has been speaking out about his experience across the country.

    Cooper said fellow service members have been discharged after having their e-mails searched, their diaries read and letters analyzed. He knows of others who are also openly gay and serving in some capacity.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-10-21-gays-in-military_N.htm

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - September 27, 2011

  57. This leads to other bizarre assumptions, like that gay soldiers won’t be able to control themselves around their same-gendered colleagues, or that only the specter of unemployment can keep LGB people from spontaneously making out with each other on street corners.

    Mainly because people are quite familiar with how LGBT people insist that sexually harassing their coworkers is perfectly normal and how being fired for doing so is homophobic.

    That is public information. I fail to see how one can state it is “bizarre” when you have clear, documented, photographic proof of how gays and lesbians and their Obama Party handlers agitate and scream that sexual harassment is normal behavior for gays.
    To force LGB service members to hide such an essential part of themselves is simply cruel — there’s no other word for it.

    Nice try, but since we have an all-volunteer military, there’s nothing cruel about it.

    No one forced them to live under those circumstances. No one forced them to serve. They made that choice to do so, and now they’re whining and crying about the consequences of their choice.

    And this was particularly hilarious.

    Lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers are not demanding the right to wave their sex lives in anyone’s faces.

    Except for the ones demanding Pride parades and whatnot for them to wave their sex lives in everyone else’s face.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 5:21 pm - September 27, 2011

  58. Oh, Miss Rita, you certainly on a roll. . .funny how you miss this from Miller in the Atlantic article

    >> And to a certain breed of homophobe, the only thing worse than having gay sex is causing someone else to think about gay sex.<<

    Dan, so glad you find so much humor. It is good to laugh.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - September 27, 2011

  59. and now Miss Rita Beads, aka NDT

    Statement on the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    For Immediate Release
    September 20, 2011
    Statement on the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    Statement of Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director

    (Washington, D.C.) – “Today marks the end of the failed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Lost in the shuffle of self-congratulating by the politicians and the activist class are the men and women really responsible for this day: the brave gay and lesbian service members.

    “The reason Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed was because of the distinguished record of the gay and lesbian members of our Armed Services. The reality of their heroism and service stood in sharp contrast to the fear-mongering and lies of those who fought tooth and nail against this repeal. It is their sacrifices and brave service in defense of our nation that should be celebrated today.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - September 27, 2011

  60. “Yeah, they’re wrong to call for repeal of repeal,” Why, B. Daniel? What egregious human rights violation did DADT inflict on gays in and/or out of the military? No one has ever articulated that. Instead, opposition to DADT seemed to boil down to gays being “forced” to lie about their “true selves”. That, apparently, was the horror that repeal is supposed to stop. Yet, most gay soldiers were fully aware of DADT BEFORE they joined America’s ALL VOLUNTEER army. They knew about the policy, so the only people “forcing” them to lie about their “true selves” were themselves. If they didn’t like DADT they didn’t have to join the military. It’s as simple as that.

    The repeal of DADT had nothing to do with civil rights or wanting to make the military better. This was a battle in the culture war; a test by the secular progressives to see how far they’ve come in their goal to extinguish traditional, Bible-based values. And repeal revealed that not all Christophobic, libertine, iconoclastic secular progressives are liberal. Many professed conservatives are in that camp, too. And they’re fighting hard to make the entire conservative movement a conduit for that world view. And a hostile place for people like me. That’s the real goal of DADT repeal.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — September 27, 2011 @ 8:07 pm - September 27, 2011

  61. Seane-Anna, I’m not sure why you’re interpreting Dan’s disagreement with the DADT policy as Dan believing that DADT was an egregious human rights violation. But I do agree with you on one point. DADT was the policy for the past 18 years. Anyone who joined the military did so voluntarily. But we have a tradition in this country that allows people to disagree and challenge any policy. This may not be a tradition in the Bible, but it has always been so in this country.

    And a hostile place for people like me. That’s the real goal of DADT repeal.

    Maybe for you it is. Yikes, it must be an awful time to be alive for you. Well, if things get too bad for you in this country, keep in mind citizenship is voluntary as well.

    And repeal revealed that not all Christophobic, libertine, iconoclastic secular progressives are liberal.

    Interesting comment. So Dan, and other conservatives that supported repeal are Christophobes?

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 7:34 am - September 28, 2011

  62. rusty,

    Re your Jimmy LaSalva cut and paste. Why does he say it ‘failed’? Because it was repealed? Because it was unpopular?

    Sherman’s march was unpopular (to a Southerner) but it hardly failed when he stopped.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2011 @ 7:39 am - September 28, 2011

  63. LW. . . not sure why Jimmy chose his wording for the release. It wasn’t like he had a ‘rush’ job to respond to the end of DADT. But guess you have the links to GOProud and I am sure you could send Jimmy a note to request his explanation.

    Maybe it started with Bob Barr
    “As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.

    Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2007/06/former_congress.html#ixzz1ZFezDdJQ

    The issue exploded during Clinton’s first week as President, triggered by those in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill opposed to his campaign pledge to reverse an executive order barring gays and lesbians from serving. “The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status,” Clinton said at the time. “And I believe they should not.”

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-09-21/news/27075974_1_gay-soldiers-gay-bars-gay-advocates

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html#ixzz1ZFggXVCc

    And Clinton. . .
    “Do you ever regret it as a policy?” CBS News Anchor Katie Couric asked former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday, hours after a GOP filibuster prevented Democrats from advancing a defense spending bill tied to repealing the ban on openly gay soldiers serving in the military.

    “Oh, yeah,” Clinton responded. “But keep in mind, I didn’t choose this policy.”
    Clinton says he only adopted the restriction for the armed forces after it became clear both the House and Senate were going to adopt an absolute ban on gays in the military unless he put something like “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 9:08 am - September 28, 2011

  64. But don’t worry LW. . .DADT repeal won’t affect you or create

    S-A’s ‘a hostile place’
    You are safe. I am sure if SA choses not to become an ex-pat,

    she will surely find someplace off the grid in a great commune of like-mind folk.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 9:12 am - September 28, 2011

  65. But we have a tradition in this country that allows people to disagree and challenge any policy.

    Except when it’s one Pat doesn’t like, as we see with his demand here:

    Well, if things get too bad for you in this country, keep in mind citizenship is voluntary as well.

    That’s what is really hilarious about bigots like Pat. He wants absolute tolerance and acceptance of everything he does, but insists that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to do so or demand changes in policy and should leave the country instead.

    And remember, Pat, you and your fellow bigots established with your whining about Koran-burning that it is always wrong to offend religious people and that their demands should trump any demands for other peoples’ freedom or rights.

    So again, practice what you preach. Since you advocate curtailing the rights of others to avoid upsetting Muslims, curtail your own to avoid offending Christians.

    Or is the problem, again, that you simply have to rationalize why you discriminate against Christians?

    Interesting comment. So Dan, and other conservatives that supported repeal are Christophobes?

    Not necessarily. They’re just allowing themselves to be used by Christophobes.

    Such as yourself, Pat, with your demands that Christians should just shut up and leave the country. Why should anyone believe your actions are not motivated by animus towards Christians?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:03 pm - September 28, 2011

  66. 62.rusty,

    Re your Jimmy LaSalva cut and paste.

    This is an illuminating argument tactic on the part of gay leftists, Livewire.

    The reason rusty quotes this is because rusty projects onto others the fact that he, like the vast and overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian people and liberals, is incapable of disagreeing with or condemning other liberals. Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.

    This won’t be the first time that I disagree with Jimmy LaSalvia, and it certainly won’t be the last. I’ve met with him, I’ve disagreed with him to his face, and we both understand each other. That’s what being healthy and intelligent adults with opinions are.

    That concept is quite beyond rusty. He’s been indoctrinated into the necessity for absolute ideological purity and the belief that if he were to criticize or disagree with other liberals in any other way, he’d be an Uncle Tom and the equivalent of a race traitor.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:08 pm - September 28, 2011

  67. Oh NDT. . .

    >Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.<

    It will be a cold day in hell when someone like me will ever convince someone like you to shut up.

    But, I don't ever expect you to 'quiet yourself', in fact, I expect you to rattle on and on and on and on. I for the most part, find your views, opinions and observations interesting and enlightening.

    But really Miss Rita, sometimes you go beyond your painting with broad strokes in depicting folk with dissenting opinions, it almost seems you are using a firehouse to get your point across. But hey, more power to you Sistah.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:32 pm - September 28, 2011

  68. Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.

    The left is a cult, and they follow their leaders. They assume our side does the same. Also, they fail to recognize that appealing to authority is a fallacious form of argument; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

    Only a brainwashed cultist would think otherwise.

    Comment by V the K — September 28, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - September 28, 2011

  69. 63&64

    I’ll have to shoot off an e-mail when I get home.

    And, I need to add that I’m offended your post seems to accuse me of the same attitude as Seane-Anna. I will wait and see what happens, but my little brother’s main concern of the guy service beside him can shoot straight.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - September 28, 2011

  70. Was not my intention to offend at all LW, 63 was my response to your Query, 64 was more of a reflection of Pat’s comment to SA,
    My sincerest apologies since you feel offended

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - September 28, 2011

  71. NDT wrote a comment addressing Pat. I’m not sure which “Pat” he is referring to, because his comments do not reflect or address my comments. I didn’t notice another person posing as Pat. If NDT is referring to my post, it is simply another example of NDT deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreting a post as is his SOP. If you are not a regular reader, you may not be aware of that. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 3:00 pm - September 28, 2011

  72. Rather hard to do, Pat, when I quoted you directly. That’s why there are those entire sections of my post in italics.

    You told Seane-Anna if she didn’t like it to leave the country. I’m just challenging you to practice what you preach. You demand that everyone else change to accomodate you, but then you insist that people have no right to make changes and should just leave the country instead.

    All you’re doing, Pat, is demonstrating why you’re not fit for military service. And since you always blame your homosexuality for your behavior rather than your own choices, you’re demonstrating nicely why there should be a blanket ban on gays and lesbians serving.

    DADT’s great advantage was that it prevented gays and lesbians from using their sexual orientation to demand special treatment and make excuses for bad behavior. If you wanted to serve, you had to subordinate your personal choices to the military mission. Plenty of gays and lesbians made the choice to do so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - September 28, 2011

  73. 72.Rather hard to do, Pat, when I quoted you directly. That’s why there are those entire sections of my post in italics.

    Yep, you are quite adept of still misinterpreting when you quote, provide links, etc. And once again, you’re additional comments referring to me are all incorrect. Some things never change. You continue to project your own bigotries onto others. Feel free to quote and use italics when you show how off base you are. If Seane-Anna believes that I told her she should leave the country, I will address her. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - September 28, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.218 Powered by Wordpress