Homophobia is Sweeping the Country

This post might eventually end up being switched to the Politics/Religion/War forum. It does not specifically qualify right now but could swing in that direction very easily. Anyhow - I will start it here for now.

Homophobia seems to be sweeping the USA and the pace is showing a marked acceleration. The fact that it is an election year and the incumbant is a right wing Evangelical homophobe certainly does not help things.

The great strides that the gay movement has taken since the Stonewall riot and the subsequent success of acceptance could very easily be eroded and we could find ourselves back in the 60s again.

I would be interested in hearing if any other members feel that this is a time of uncertainty for us and if so what are the reasons.

It appears that the gay marriage issue is the prime motivating factor. For some reason the one word "marriage" seems to scare the bejesus out of them. Would we not be better served if we changed the word to something else that would not threaten their beliefs but would still give us all the rights that we know should be ours. Perhaps if we called it a "union" it would be more palatable. After all - what's in a word, right?

I sometimes think we are our worst enemies. "Gay Pride" is something that we should all be proud of and supportive of. But the mental image that many straight people have of gays, from watching Gay Pride parades and events are of nearly naked men, cavorting down city streets, or outrageous drag queens making a spectacle out of themselves. How does this serve our purpose? Do these spectacles fill you with pride? They don't do it for me. I cringe when I see them and realise that that is how I am being judged by the vast majority of those watching.

What do we have to do as gay people to regain the ground we have lost and, more importantly, to keep from losing even more.

If we are not able to turn the tide - if Bush gets his 4 more years and appoints the judges he wants to the supreme court, our landscape will be changed for many years to come. The "Phelps and Co." scenes could become much more prevelant and gay bashing become the spectator sport de jour.

You may find my use of the word "our" to be puzzleing, given that I am Canadian, not American. But somehow I identify with my brothers to the south and wish them only good things. What I see happening today could not be described as "good things" and I fear that they will get worse before they get better.

Zipper,I feel that "we"have become the target of a smoke and mirror policy(that also includes the "war"on terror(what a fucking joke that is)so that the powers that be,and this ranges from parents up to the highest office of the land do not have to face up to the hard work that goes into running a decent civil society.

Parents,unable or unwilling to parent their young properly,have fallen into a mass(media fueled)paranoia regarding their childrens safty,and this includes the fear of being"recruited"by homosexuals.

The politicos-well it is such a cheap and easy way of getting attention.You really cannot put out racist policy without lots of window dressing(althogh it is done ALL the time-we are still terafied that a black guy,a mexican illegal immigrant,a "arab"terrorist is going to rape our women ,steal our jobs and corrupt our youth)but queers-well we our fair game!

I am disgusted with the powers that be,and with the the rich,white fatcats who promote this hysteria so they can be secure in the status quo.

>The politicos-well it is such a cheap and easy way of getting

>attention.You really cannot put out racist policy without lots

>of window dressing(althogh it is done ALL the time-we are

>still terafied that a black guy,a mexican illegal immigrant,a

>"arab"terrorist is going to rape our women ,steal our jobs and

>corrupt our youth)but queers-well we our fair game!

>I am disgusted with the powers that be,and with the the

>rich,white fatcats who promote this hysteria so they can be

>secure in the status quo.

Interesting take - I hadn't really considered it that way before but it does have merit.

>This post might eventually end up being switched to the

>Politics/Religion/War forum. It does not specifically qualify

>right now but could swing in that direction very easily.

>Anyhow - I will start it here for now.

>

>Homophobia seems to be sweeping the USA and the pace is

>showing a marked acceleration. The fact that it is an election

>year and the incumbant is a right wing Evangelical homophobe

>certainly does not help things.

>

>The great strides that the gay movement has taken since the

>Stonewall riot and the subsequent success of acceptance could

>very easily be eroded and we could find ourselves back in the

>60s again.

>

>I would be interested in hearing if any other members feel

>that this is a time of uncertainty for us and if so what are

>the reasons.

Zip, I think the problem is that right now the anti-gay bigots are getting so much air time and press. I don't think that the situation is getting worse for us at all. I think that we are still making progress, but the bigots are on TV more right now. It was like last year when there was media hysteria over abducted children, and someone looked at the actual statistics and found out that in fact fewer children were being abducted, but the media was making a much bigger deal about the few that were.

I was very active in the gay marriage debate in Massachusetts. That debate sure brought out the bigots, however my experieince, and polling also showed that the more the general public were educated about gay marriage, the more accepting they became. Sure, the bigots will never change, and sometimes they are very vocal, but reasoned Americans can understand us better when they know us, and the work we have done since Stonewall has helped. In a place like Massachusetts which has had gay congressmen and mayors and policiticians, it is not such a novelty like it would be in the Dakotas or something. The mayor of Boston made it a point to publicly perform gay marriages the first day it was legal. Our former Republican Govenor (Weld) attended the gay marriage of his former college room mate and chief of staff. The more we are out and in the community, the less other folks fear us, or allowed to beleive the crazy stuff the bigots spew. At least where I live, folks are not interested in denying rights to their son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, friend, co-worker, teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc., etc. Polling still shows that the Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would not pass. And even if it did, that amendment gaurantees Civil Unions with full rights of marriage (its not what we want, but the second choice is better than other options in other states.)

>

>It appears that the gay marriage issue is the prime motivating

>factor. For some reason the one word "marriage" seems to scare

>the bejesus out of them. Would we not be better served if we

>changed the word to something else that would not threaten

>their beliefs but would still give us all the rights that we

>know should be ours. Perhaps if we called it a "union" it

>would be more palatable. After all - what's in a word, right?

>

Yeah, except that really implies that the discriminataion is OK, and that we are not really equal. It would be like asking Rosa Parks if she would be satisfied with sitting in the middle of the bus. We only get full equal rights by demanding them and working for them. If you go into the battle willing to accept second class status, than that is the best you will ever get. Its time that we stood up for our rights and fought for them.

>I sometimes think we are our worst enemies. "Gay Pride" is

>something that we should all be proud of and supportive of.

>But the mental image that many straight people have of gays,

>from watching Gay Pride parades and events are of nearly naked

>men, cavorting down city streets, or outrageous drag queens

>making a spectacle out of themselves. How does this serve our

>purpose? Do these spectacles fill you with pride? They don't

>do it for me. I cringe when I see them and realise that that

>is how I am being judged by the vast majority of those

>watching.

Actually I think this again is a perception of the media. I can attend a gay pride parade and see PFLAG, church groups, professional groups, sports groups, dance groups, gay parents, and a whole rainbow of gay people. The TV and newspapar will only show the semi-naked dancing hunk or the harnessed leather guys. Everyone else is ignored. A couple of years ago in Boston the press went wild over two semi-clad lesbians simulating sex on a rolling bed. They were not even a formal part of the parade, but they got all of the press. The other 100,000 were ignored. We need to work for more balanced press coverage, we don't need to be censoring ourselves to please others (who are probably bigoted anyway).

>

>What do we have to do as gay people to regain the ground we

>have lost and, more importantly, to keep from losing even

>more.

I disagree, I think that we are gaining ground. Do you think that gay marriage would have even been discussed at political conventions 4, 8 or 20 years ago. Did you ever think that you would see the Republican Vice President endorse gay relationships? (OK, it was a weak endorsement, but we never got that from Dan Quayle.) I think the bigots are more scared this year, because they see that we really are making progress.

The key to any discrimination is that the discriminating group has a desparate need to feel superior to some other group, because they are very insecure in their own identity. Folks who are comfortable with who they are don't need to discriminate, because they don't need to diminish someone else to establish their own self-worth. The anti-gay bigots are more scared now because if they can't discriminate against gays, who are they better than. (Of course they are better than no one, but they just can't accept that, and thier identity is too wrapped up in being superior to some other group, whether is be gays, immigrants, another religius group, etc. It just kills them to realize that they really are equal.)

>

>If we are not able to turn the tide - if Bush gets his 4 more

>years and appoints the judges he wants to the supreme court,

>our landscape will be changed for many years to come. The

>"Phelps and Co." scenes could become much more prevelant and

>gay bashing become the spectator sport de jour.

You are correct here. The thought of a second Bush term, and what he might do with judicial appointments scares me greatly. I pray for the good health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg every night.

>

>You may find my use of the word "our" to be puzzleing, given

>that I am Canadian, not American. But somehow I identify with

>my brothers to the south and wish them only good things. What

>I see happening today could not be described as "good things"

>and I fear that they will get worse before they get better.

I think that we are continuing to make progress in both countries.

Homophobia never left

I guess I view America from a slightly different perspective. Yes, attitudes toward gays have become significantly better over the past 35 years. However, a majority of Americans (albeit a slight one) still view us as being wrong, bad, immoral, sick, etc., even if they don't want us persecuted or prosecuted. People may TOLERATE gay men and lesbians, but it doesn't mean they ACCEPT or LIKE us. Also, in this era of political correctness, people may be tolerant to your face, but their underlying attitude toward gay men and women is still unfavorable. They fear expressing their negative attitudes because of what might happen to them. Don't be misled by the vocal, welcome support at Pride parades and such. They are wonderful, but a majority they ain't.

We've come a long, long way, but we're still not even halfway up the hill.

Zipper,

I have to say I tend to agree with you, I am also from Boston and watched the debates on the gay marriage amendment. I however, wasn't as involved as PaulR, but I spoke to quite a few people on the subject. I saw the opposite, so much hate and disgust. I would say about 50% of the people I work with are Republican, it is almost a cult with these people. To them George Bush is intelligent and can actually string words together to create a sentence (Yeah in Bizzaro world). They would follow him no matter what he said and thought!

Even more moderate and progressive thinkers I spoke with are against gay marriage. I believe that progress and change scares so many people, I can tell you they feel as though it is "Give them an inch they will take a mile". The theme I heard was that we should be happy with civil unions, why do we want what straight people have? I completely believe that we should be striving for "Marriage". Just to show how paranoid and prejudice people are, our great Govenor the Morman is making sure that a 1913 law to keep people from from getting married in MA, from states that do not allow this is being enforced. This law was originally created to keep bi-racial couple from getting married if their state did not allow it.

I am afraid of Bush! And what will happen, however, I sadly must say I believe he will win the election (I will try whatever possible to keep him from it though). However, an up and coming Republican is our own Mitt Romney! Now that guy really scares me! Cause not only is he very conservative probably more than Bush, but he is good looking and intelligent! Be Afraid! I have a whole theory why some people hate so much but this post is long enough :-)

That it is. This is a direct result of the rise of the Republican party and its takeover by the Religious Right Wrong.

For example:

Keyes slams Cheney daughter

New York, NY, Sep. 1 (UPI) -- Illinois Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Alan Keyes reportedly had tough words for vice presidential daughter Mary Cheney because she is a lesbian.

In an interview with SIRUS satellite radio, the Internet's Drudge Report said Wednesday, Keyes called Mary Cheney "a 'selfish hedonist' because she is a lesbian."

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Keyes took to the airwaves again Wednesday to try and put the remark in context. WBBM-AM, Chicago, reported he denied the comment was meant to slam Mary Cheney and blamed the media for taking a generalization and making it personal. Keyes said if he had a lesbian daughter he would love her but tell her she was sinning.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040901-093347-1067r.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the last duly elected President put it best:

In other words, they (Republicans) need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. - Bill Clinton, July 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------

>I think the last duly elected President put it best:

>

>In other words, they (Republicans) need a divided America. But

>Americans long to be united. - Bill Clinton, July 2004

Ah yes, what a brilliant choice to quote the president who signed DOMA. Now THAT was a great piece of "unifying" legislation, wasn't it?

Apolitically yours,

FFF

>Ah yes, what a brilliant choice to quote the president who

>signed DOMA. Now THAT was a great piece of "unifying"

>legislation, wasn't it?

Clinton was SUCH a pro-gay President. That's why he signed into law the single most anti-gay piece of federal legislation ever.

And here's what his lovely wife - heroine to gay people around the world and the Democratic Senator from New York - had to say about why she is opposed to gay marriage:

"Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman."

John Kerry, John Edwards and Bill Clinton have all said the same thing in opposing gay marriage.

How come none of these people wringing their hands about "homophobia" -- which is now defined as opposing gay marriage - ever call these people homophobes?

And how come the same gay people who worry so much about homophobia, and who call any gay person who disagrees with them politically "self-hating," keep voting for politicians like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton & Clinton - who advocate their own inequality?

Doesn't it seem kind of self-hating of gay people who worship politicans like Kerry, Edwards and the Clintons as the Beacons of Equality even as these very same politicians tell them to their face that they think their relationships aren't good enough to be called "marriage"?

How bizarre.

>That it is. This is a direct result of the rise of the

>Republican party and its takeover by the Religious

>Right Wrong.

The Republican National Committee issued a statement strongly condmening Alan Keyes' remarks. When is the last time the DNC issued a statement condemning the remarks of a Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate? I believe that would be never.

I love how all you hear today is how Zell Miller is a racist hater who is basically Lester Maddox. But for the last 20 years, Zell Miller has been embraced by the DNC, chosen by Bill Clinton to be his keynote speaker at the 1992 Democratic Convention, and given tons of money by national Democratic fund-raising groups to help him get elected again and again.

How come the Democrats embraced such a racist, segregationist hater for so long? Maybe Sen. Robert Byrd needed some company while he played around in his white hood.

Yes, the Democratic Party - so free of hatred. No Democrat would ever say anything as mean and as personally insulting about George Bush as the Republicans have been saying about John Kerry.

I mean - all we've been hearing from liberals is that George Bush is a murderer, the next Hitler, a liar, a deserter, how he sends people to their deaths for economic gain, and on and on. But it's really wrong for political candidates to be attacked personally with angry rhetoric. That's what I heard Democrats saying last night after Miller and Cheney's speeches.

The Democrats saying that it's wrong to attack politicians personally with mean, nasty rhetoric - after spending the last 2 years depicting Bush as worse than Satan. Do they think nobody is going to notice that?

You can't spew venom and fire and brimstone and then suddenly talk about how much you hate hatred - at least not without appearing incredibly stupid.

John Kerry was against and did not sign the DOMA. You conveniently never bring that up.

“I sometimes think we are our worst enemies. "Gay Pride" is something that we should all be proud of and supportive of. But the mental image that many straight people have of gays, from watching Gay Pride parades and events are of nearly naked men, cavorting down city streets, or outrageous drag queens making a spectacle out of themselves. How does this serve our purpose? Do these spectacles fill you with pride? They don't do it for me. I cringe when I see them and realise that that is how I am being judged by the vast majority of those watching.

That image is the product of the modern American media, that only goes for what is outrageous and sensational, as that is what attracts viewers, and ignoring anything of real substance and news worthiness. One only needs to look at the proliferation so-called reality shows to verify that.

Even so, I as an out gay man for many years, love the freeness of expression by the leather and drag queen crowds at the Gay Pride events, as these two “fringes” inspire pride in me!!! The very flamboyant drag queens you rail about were the impetus of the Stonewall riots that is acknowledged as the beginning of the gay rights movement in this country. Together with the leather community, they have probably raised more funds for the advancement of gay rights in all areas than any other groups in America.

I can’t imagine anyone, except some closeted gay, “cringing” at their presence in celebrating Gay Pride, as without them there would be no Gay Pride parades. Nothing wrong with being in the closet, as long as doing so affects the coat hanger alone. But there is nothing that fills me with disgust, more than some gay hiding in the closet and advocating the abrogation of gay rights, in order to remain a hanger in the closet, for his his own personal advancement, financially, politically or otherwise. McGreevey and Schrock being only the latest examples of this, as there have been others before them.

As far as your general post goes, NO, I don’t see any backsliding whatsoever. The fact that gay marriage is even being debated by the general public, with support by non-gays is an advancement, the defeat of the proposed anti gay marriage amendment is a victory, the very fact that gay marriage rights are being won on a step by step basis via each individual state is truly progressive and the fact that the military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is being debated is indeed progress. I realize that these are painstaking little baby steps but, as the old adage goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”!

>That image is the product of the modern American media, that

>only goes for what is outrageous and sensational, as that is

>what attracts viewers, and ignoring anything of real substance

>and news worthiness. One only needs to look at the

>proliferation so-called reality shows to verify that.

Agreed - todays media are #### - only interested in presenting the sensational side of the news as that's what brings them the big bucks!

>I can’t imagine anyone, except some closeted gay, “cringing”

>at their presence in celebrating Gay Pride, as without them

>there would be no Gay Pride parades.

For the record - I am not in the closet - I am out and have been for many years. I enjoy seeing half naked leather men and outrageous drag queens as much as the next gay man (maybe even moreso) but I believe there is a time and a place for everything and to put on this display for the media to circulate to the public does us no good at all. It only fuels the arguments for those who would see us stoned.

>As far as your general post goes, NO, I don’t see any

>backsliding whatsoever. The fact that gay marriage is even

>being debated by the general public, with support by non-gays

>is an advancement, the defeat of the proposed anti gay

>marriage amendment is a victory, the very fact that gay

>marriage rights are being won on a step by step basis via each

>individual state is truly progressive and the fact that the

>military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is being debated is

>indeed progress. I realize that these are painstaking little

>baby steps but, as the old adage goes, “Rome wasn’t built in

>a day”!

Well let's just see how another 4 years of Bush will change the landscape. You say the anti gay marriage amendment has been defeated. For now, yes. Do you think he is going to let this rest?

And the "marriage rights that are being won, state by state" well I fail to see that as a march. The domino theory isn't going to work here.

But as has been stated in previous posts, if that idiot is able to appoint more of his kind to the supreme court - which is a lifetime appointment - there is no telling the harm that will do. I think it's easy for us to fool ourselves that progress is on out side. Personally, I'm not able to buy into this rationale. It should be that way - and hopefully will be that way in the future, but for today, I just can't see it.

>The Republican National Committee issued a statement strongly

>condmening Alan Keyes' remarks.

They did, did they?

Perhaps you could quote it for us.

>John Kerry was against and did not sign the DOMA. You

>conveniently never bring that up.

So let's bring that up now because it's a perfect illustration of how Kerry tries to have it both ways.

You are absolutely correct, he did not vote for DOMA.

So, logically, one would then assume he's for gay marriage.

oops, here's where it gets "nuanced" - actually, he's not for gay marriage.

While he's against legislation "protecting" marriage he's also against legislation that would allow gays to marry, because, as he's said recently, he is against gay marriage.

hmmm, he's against the "gay haters" yet at the same time he supports their anti-gay marriage agenda.

You'd think that fence he stradles all the time would get a little uncomfortable after a while, wouldn't you?

I guess he's developed calluses after all these years.

Unwaveringly yours,

FFF

>>The Republican National Committee issued a statement

>strongly

>>condmening Alan Keyes' remarks.

>

>They did, did they?

>

>Perhaps you could quote it for us.

Certianly. Here is what numerous Republicans, including the Illinois Republican Committee Chairwoman and the Bush/Cheney campaign said in attacking the homophobic comments by GOP Candidate Alan Keyes:

________________________

Former Republican Gov. James Thompson went even farther in his criticism. Today he vowed he would not vote for Keyes in November.

"It certainly seems like the party made a mistake, didn't it?" Thompson said during a state delegate breakfast.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/conventions/rnc/chi-030902keyes,1,2952781.story

______________________________________

The Maryland native also butted heads with state party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka, spending more time doing interviews with the national media than chatting up state delegates.

Keyes should follow former President Reagan's admonition, "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican," Topinka suggested.

Thompson called the candidate's remarks "extreme" and "offensive." Topinka called them "nasty" and "idiotic." Even Keyes' supporters in the Illinois delegation said they wished he had not made the statements.

_____________________________________

When informed of Keyes' comments about Mary Cheney, Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt offered a terse reply Tuesday.

"It was inappropriate," he said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040831illinois,1,6577738.story

________________________________________

"I think those views are not only extreme but offensive," former Gov. James Thompson told reporters during a state delegation breakfast today.

"I think the people of Illinois will find those remarks offensive," Thompson said, "and I think it's an offense to the political process that we have to suffer a candidate on our ticket who says things like that."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/conventions/rnc/chi-040901keyes,1,3214925.story

_________________________________

"It's a pity that we have gotten away from the substance of the campaign and instead have gotten into personalities and things that are personal and name-calling," Topinka said. "Since this is amongst Republicans, it really needs to stop and get on course."

When informed of Keyes' comments about Mary Cheney, Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt offered a terse reply Tuesday.

"It was inappropriate," he said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040831illinois,1,6577738.story

_____________________________

Again - when is the last time the DNC or a Democratic Presidential Camapign condemned a Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate. As demonstrated, the Democratic Party is chock full of haters - why, Zell Miller himself was a very prominent Democrat for decades, even running for and winning the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia - and yet you never heard Democrats condemn their candidates this way. Only the Republicans do so, and how ironic and deflating for your myths that they did so so strongly to condemn anti-gay remarks.

Wow, you really quite skilled in the art of Bushit, aren't you?

"The Republican National Committee issued a statement strongly condmening Alan Keyes' remarks."

You quoted a few decent Republicans, the Illinois state RNC, and even a tepid comment from the Bush/Cheney spokesman, but where is that statement from the RNC?

Perhaps you've forgotten that they have made the Consitutional Amendment banning gay marriage a part of their platform?

I'll be interested to see that statement from the RNC.

>Wow, you really quite skilled in the art of Bushit, aren't

>you?

>

>"The Republican National Committee issued a statement strongly

>condmening Alan Keyes' remarks."

>

>You quoted a few decent Republicans, the Illinois state RNC,

>and even a tepid comment from the Bush/Cheney spokesman, but

>where is that statement from the RNC?

LOL!!!!! So the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Illinois Republican State Committee condemned these remarks and you're here to say: BUT THE RNC DIDN'T!! Wow, what a critcial distinction. I will acknowledge my error in my initial post; I mistkenly recollected that the statement I heard being read from the ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE was one from the RNC. And that's why I then went and found the quotes and provided the proper attribution.

But that hardly changes the point, which you can't address, which is why you had to focus on the insignficant error: Both the Illinois State Republican Committee - which is DOMINATED by right-wingers, which is why they picked Keyes in the first place - as well as the BUSH/CHENEY CAMPIAGN, condemend these remarks - something which disproves that they are "peddling hatred" and is something that the Democrats don't ever do and will never do.

Maybe there is a misspelled word here that you can pick out and write a post about in order to avoid that point again.

The real difference

If John Edwards had two daughters, one straight and one lesbian, they both would have been on stage with him at the DNC.

Cheney wouldn't bring his lesbian daughter on stage with him at the RNC.

That's the real difference.

The difference, Doug, is that I mean what I say. In your post, you tried to pull a little slight of hand and got caught. It still doesn't change the fact that the rise of homophobia in this country is due to the legitimacy afforded it through the Religious Right's domination of the GOP.

>>>The Republican National Committee issued a statement

>>strongly

>>>condmening Alan Keyes' remarks.

>>

>>They did, did they?

>>

>>Perhaps you could quote it for us.

>

>Certianly. Here is what numerous Republicans, including the

>Illinois Republican Committee Chairwoman and the Bush/Cheney

>campaign said in attacking the homophobic comments by GOP

>Candidate Alan Keyes

In other words, the Republican National Committee did NOT issue a statement strongly condemning Alan Keyes' remarks.

>>Certianly. Here is what numerous Republicans, including the

>>Illinois Republican Committee Chairwoman and the Bush/Cheney

>>campaign said in attacking the homophobic comments by GOP

>>Candidate Alan Keyes

>

>In other words, the Republican National Committee did NOT

>issue a statement strongly condemning Alan Keyes' remarks.

If all you can do in response to these points is say that it was only the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Illinois Republican Committee, but not the RNC, which issued the statements condemning Keyes' anti-gay remarks, that's a pretty clear indicator that you have nothing to say about the substance of the point that Republicans condemn - rather than foment and support - "anti-gay hatred."

It's just like when someone responds to a substantive post by picking out a spelling error and writing a post about nothing but the spelling error - such a person proves they have nothing to say because all they can do is harp on a meaningless error. I think it makes the point MORE POWERFULLY, not less, that it was the Bush/Cheney campiagn and the Illinois Republican Party (dominated by right-wingers), rather than the RNC, which issued the statements I heard. Because you can't answer that point, you will jump up and down about my having mistakenly recollected that it was the RNC which issued the statement. Feel free - that you are fixated on that point speaks more potently about your impotence than anything I can say.

Speaking of your impotence, I notice there is no answer to the question I asked you - one which you refused to answer and never will: when is the last time an official Democratic committee or a national Democratic presidential campaign condemend the remarks of a Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, the way that Republicans condemned the anti-gay remarks by Alan Keyes. Would that be never?

And how can the Republicans be accused of fomenting anti-gay hatred if both the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Illinois State Republican Party (dominated by right-wingers) both condemned the anti-gay remarks by their own Senate candidate?

Actually, I suspect that if Bush wins the election, he will drop the anti-gay marriage amendment, because he will no longer need to ride that horse.

>Actually, I suspect that if Bush wins the election, he will

>drop the anti-gay marriage amendment, because he will no

>longer need to ride that horse.

I agree.

I suppose if Lynne Cheney protested to an interviewer about Keyes comments on her daughter, you would say that "the Bush administration condemned Keyes' remarks."