Homophobia is Sweeping the Country

>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?

As you will recall, at the time you were claiming incorrectly that the RNC had issued a condemnation, the only question you were asking was:

>When is the last time the DNC issued a statement condemning the >remarks of a Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate?

Perhaps there would be more interest in answering your questions, if they weren't such a moving target.

>In other words, the Republican National Committee did NOT

>issue a statement strongly condemning Alan Keyes' remarks.

OH MY GOD....must be another vast right wing conspiracy! :o

GET A LIFE

Bush and many resposible politicians from all parties have endorsed civil unions.

If homophobia is spreading its because IMO of those in our community who want nothing less than MARRIAGE. After so many gains this seems like the wrong battle.

x(

>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."

I suppose your point is idiotic and borderline unintelligible. The person who condemned Keyes' remarks is the official spokesperson of the Bush/Cheney campaign. By definition, when he condemns remarks, the campaign has done so, given that his job is to speak on behalf of the campaign, which is why he's called the "Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman."

You and people like you just can't comprehend that Republicans don't want to string up gay people and gas them. So when something like this happens - when anti-gay remarks are condemned by these Republicans - your brain starts to smoke and get all confused, so all you can do is either deny facts or try to distract attention from them (i.e., "it's not the RNC who did it - it's only the Bush/Cheney campaign!").

If you don't fight against facts, life will be a lot more pleasant - and clear.

>Bush and many resposible politicians from all parties have

>endorsed civil unions.

The text of the recent proposed constitutional amendment, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm :

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

See the part about "the legal incidents thereof"? That's there to thwart the effectiveness of civil unions.

Fact: Dick Cheney said he loves both his daughters.

Fact: Dick Cheney said the gay marriage issue should be left to the states.

Fact: When it came time for the First and Second Families to appear together on stage, Mary, who WAS there, was not invited to appear on stage and was in fact left to sit at the back of the bus far side of the Garden so as not to offend the homophobic hypocrites (ala Alan Keyes) who comprise the base of Shrubya's support.

Dick Cheney paid lip service to his daughter but then could not find the moral courage to bring her on stage where she should have been. All the condemnations don't amount to squat when the actions belie the hollowness of the words.

The new Log Cabin motto: Lick Bush, Don't Tell.

The better answer is that homophobic and racist remarks would be less likely to be made by a Democrat than a Republican. Perhaps Doug could cite an example of something that should have been condemned? Something current too.

Gays are often their own worst enemy as so many want to judge the behavior or dress of their fellow gays. As a Christian, and a gay man, I have learned that many will not accept me; some are straight who don't like gay, others are gay who don't like Christians. Judgment is a slippery thing!

What is perfectly clear is that you claimed that the RNC condemned Keyes' remarks, but when you were asked for evidence for your claim, all you could come up with was some personal opinions offered by a few individual Republicans, not a statement by the RNC, which is a very different ballgame. I do not demonize Republicans at all, but your attempt to characterize me as someone who does is a typical tactic of someone who has been caught in a misstatement but can't bear to admit that fact.

>You and people like you just can't comprehend that Republicans

>don't want to string up gay people and gas them.

You're quite right - they do not want to string us up nor gas us either!

What they DO want to do is to insure we are relegated to be forever considered as second class citizens. And how do they propose to do that??????????

(a) Take away our rights that would apply to us if we were straight.

(b) Insure that we do not have the right to inherit from a deceased partner (can't use the word spouse as they deny us that too)

© Deny us the right to recieve our partners pension plan benifits

(d) Insure that we have no legal status to make medical decisions on behalf of our terminally ill partners.

(e) Give hospitals the right to forbid that we can even visit said partners.

(f) Deny us equality in taxation

(g) Deny us the right to adopt children

(h)Insure that the laws omit "sexual orientation" from hate crimes rulings

BUT......... regardless of all of the above we shoud be so fucking grateful that they don't want to string us up and gas us???????

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS - MARCHING ON TO WAR

>ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS - MARCHING ON TO WAR

Actually, it's "Marching AS to war ...."

I recently came across this quotation, which has some relevance to the debate between moderates and radicals in the gay-rights movement:

"I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. ...Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;--but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD." -- William Lloyd Garrison, age 25, in 1831, when he started publishing the abolitionist newsletter "The Liberator"

RE: Reason why Democrats lose

>Fact: When it came time for the First and Second Families to

>appear together on stage, Mary, who WAS there, was not invited

>to appear on stage and was in fact left to sit at the

>back of the bus far side of the Garden so as

>not to offend the homophobic hypocrites (ala Alan Keyes) who

>comprise the base of Shrubya's support.

Every single news report and statement from anyone who would know (as opposed to people who will spew up gossip and innuendo without having any idea if it's true, like you), said that Mary Cheney (who did sit in the family box) was not on the stage becasue SHE MADE THE DECISION NOT TO BE, likely because she did not want to be used as some prop by people like you or be the lurid distraction to her father's nomination which people in the media would make her.

I also heard Laura Bush, the following day, when asked about this, say as clearly as she could that it was Mary Cheney's decision not to be on the stage, but that she - Laura - sincerely hopes that Mary will change her mind and be on the stage with the President and Dick Cheney that night, after the President's speech.

I know that despite all of these facts, you will claim that all of this is a lie, and you will insist that Mary Cheney was barred from the stage, not that she chose not to be there - as though Dick Cheney would allow his daughter, whom he just last week described as being openly gay and said how proud he was of her, to be "barred." You will just assert it even though you have no evidence for it.

But not having evidence never stops you from screaming something out - you are more than happy to assert things with no basis whatsoever (e.g., Dick Cheney caused Paul Wellstone's plane to come down; Joe Scarborough murdered an aide; Bush is planning to cause a terrorist attack if he isn't going to win, etc. etc.).

As I've been telling you for a year now, and as the evidence is beginning to make conclusively clear, people like you are George Bush's best friend and will ensure his re-election. That's because no matter how pervasive the dissastisfaction is with Bush - no matter how many reasons there are to vote against him (and there are so many) - people will see how vile and dishonest and shrill and depraved his opponents are, and will vote for him despite their grave doubts about his competence.

Here's some nice proof of that this morning, from TIME Magainze:

Friday, Sep. 03, 2004

"New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6."

At some point, you need to take some responsibility for the damage you and people like you are doing to your own cause.

>What is perfectly clear is that you claimed that the RNC

>condemned Keyes' remarks, but when you were asked for evidence

>for your claim, all you could come up with was some personal

>opinions offered by a few individual Republicans, . . .

One more time for the clinically retarded section: the people I quoted condemning Keyes' remarks were not "some personal opionions offered by a few individual Republicans." They were official statements of the spokesman for the Bush/Cheney campaign as well as the statement of the Chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party." Do you think that if you just deny those facts enough times they will cease to be facts?

>statement by the RNC, which is a very different ballgame. I do

>not demonize Republicans at all, but your attempt to

>characterize me as someone who does is a typical tactic of

>someone who has been caught in a misstatement but can't bear

>to admit that fact.

In the second post I wrote, I expressly made clear that I had mistakenly recollected that the statement I heard read was from the RNC, when in fact, it was from the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Illinois (rather than the National) Republican Party. That hardly sounds like someone who "can't admit" an error.

But what you and your equally dense ideoloical comarades can't comprehend is that the error did not alter the point. To the contrary, saying that the condemnation came from the Bush/Cheney campiagn or the Illinois Republican Party would have STRENGTHENED my point; had I recollected the source correctly, I would have happily made that point.

I think what's going on in this thread is a great microcosm of what's going on in the election. Liberals like you are so frustrated and angry that you're losing - even when you think that it's so obvious that you should win - that you just begin looking for something, anything, to try to cling to ("he said it was the RNC when it was really the Bush/Cheney campaign!!!"). It's like Kerry talking about Dick Cheney's draft deferments 30 years ago after 4 days of him bein depicted as an indecisive, flip-flopping, weak-on-defense Senator who isn't enough of a bold leader to fight the war against Muslim radicals. It's a totally negligible, petty nonsequitor - just like your idiocy in this thread.

If you would like to know the results of this type of behavior, look no further than here, courtesy of TIME Magazine:

Friday, Sep. 03, 2004

"New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

>>You and people like you just can't comprehend that

>Republicans

>>don't want to string up gay people and gas them.

>

>You're quite right - they do not want to string us up nor gas

>us either!

But many people who are your ideological comrades believe that they do want to do this. They think concentration camps are being planned for gay people in Bush's second term and they are even pitifully talking about their plans to flee the country in fear (the only emotion they know) if Bush wins. Ask Trilingual about how he keeps his suitcase under his bed at his mommy and daddy's house and how he plans to flee permanently to a bathhouse in Rio if Bush wins, so that he can avoid the concentration camps.

I was addressing those people - the ones who, in this thread,said that it was the GOP that was spreading "hatred" for gay people. I wasn't saying that you should be grateful that the GOP doesn't want to slaughter gay people. I was just saying that those who claim that they do are simply puking up slanderous accusations which are not true.

>What they DO want to do is to insure we are relegated to be

>forever considered as second class citizens.

When you say that what "they" want to do is "insure that we are relegated" to second-class citizenship, are you talking about Bill Clinton, who signed that vile Defense of Marriage Act into law with the support of most Democratic Senators; or are you talking about John Kerry, who wants to amend the Mass. State Constitution to overturn the decision of the Mass. Judicial Council and provide that marriage is between a man and a woman only; or are you talking about John Edwards and Hillary Clinton and virtually every other elected Democratic official of any significance who has also said that marriage is between a man and a woman only?

Are we supposed to just overlook their advocacy of treating our relationships unequally and just be grateful - like a dog with a panting tongue happy to get table scraps - that they don't favor our execution or incarceration or the denial of all rights?

>"I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as

>justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or

>write with moderation. . . . I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE

>HEARD." -- William Lloyd Garrison, age 25, in 1831, when he

>started publishing the abolitionist newsletter "The

>Liberator"

That is so powerful. Do you think he would support for President a man who advocated that his relationship wasn't good enough to allow him to marry? Do you think he would support a political party which endorsed, and a President who signed into law, the single most bigoted piece of federal legislation against his group ever?

I WILL NOT EQUIVOCATE - I WILL NOT RETREAT A SINGLE INCH - I WILL BE AS UNCOMPROMISING AS JUSTICE.

That doesn't exactly sound to me like gay Democrats who are voting for John Kerry, even though he favors an anti-gay amendment to the Mass. Constitution and both he and his running mate are expressly opposed to allowing gay people to marry.

Nor does it sound to me like gay Democrats who worshipped and worship Bill Clinton even after he signed into law the uniquely bigoted Defense of Marriage Act, which to this day causes gay citizens with a foreign spouse to have to choose between reamining together or remaining in this country.

It sounds to me like there's a whole lot of compromising and excusing going on - not just giving away an inch but whole fucking miles and miles and miles - just to get a pathetic pat on the head.

How ironic that you quote a sentiment which is exactly that which is what you do not do.

>>ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS - MARCHING ON TO WAR

>

>

>Actually, it's "Marching AS to war ...."

Yes I know. I had originally typed AS but changed it to ON as I thought it better expressed my sentiments.

>That doesn't exactly sound to me like gay Democrats who are

>voting for John Kerry, even though he favors an anti-gay

>amendment to the Mass. Constitution and both he and his

>running mate are expressly opposed to allowing gay people to

>marry.

If Kerry is elected, it is totally unrealistic to expect him to advocate gay marriage. Why? Because he is a practising Catholic and will never go against his religious leader's dictates. If K is in the white house the P is perched on his shoulder, and that scares the shit out of me too.

>>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.

Don't bank on it. A lot of Germans voted for Hitler in the 1930s thinking his anti-Semitic ranting was just electoral fodder and that he'd forget about it once in office. Obviously, they were wrong.

Bush isn't Hitler (before Dougie and FFF start ranting that I said he is) but he shares with Hitler a certain kind of rigidity of mind combined with rank opportunism and a lack of moral compass. If Bush is elected in November, he'll still need to ride the anti-marriage horse to maintain the support of his political base so he can ram through his real agenda of rolling the U.S. back to unrestrained 19th century robber-baron capitalism and undoing every progressive piece of social legislation passed in the 20th century. If that means screwing over yet another minority group (gays) he won't blink about doing it, nor will his hard core supporters, because they have their eyes on the multi-billion dollar prize: everything for the rich, bubkes for anyone else. He won't have any problems throwing some bones to the religious conservatives (who by and large aren't rich) because it's just a means to an end. Once Bush and his cronies get their way, it won't matter much what they've given to the religious conservatives, because the vast majority of them will be crushed into poverty along with all the other non-rich Americans and will be worrying about basic survival issues instead of controlling the private lives of their fellow Americans. And people like Dougie and FFF can stand wheezing and shivering in the shadow of the new dark Satanic mills (because there won't be any more incovenient liberal environmental laws) while waving worshipfully at their heroes as they helicopter over the masses on their way to their fortified enclaves in Newport and Palm Beach. . .

>If Kerry is elected, it is totally unrealistic to expect him

>to advocate gay marriage. Why? Because he is a practising

>Catholic and will never go against his religious leader's

>dictates.

If what you say is true - that John Kerry will follow his Catholicism and deny gay people equal rights to marry - then how can gay people support him?

But what you say just happens to be completely absurd. John Kerry is completely pro-choice, including partial birth abortions. If you're trying to say - as you are - that Kerry will only take political positions which don't defy Church teachings, how do you explain that? There are Bishops who have announced that they will deny communion to Kerry based on his abortion position, so what are you talking about?

>If W is in the white house the P is perched on his

>shoulder, and that scares the shit out of me too.

What is the "P" perched on his Bush's shoulder? Are you referring to the Pope? Are you under the impression that Bush is Catholic?

It's typical of wild-eyed zealots to characterize anyone who disagrees with them as (fill in the blank). Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am an "ideological liberal"? In fact, I am an independent who has often voted for Republicans when I considered them the most competent candidates--a category in which I do NOT include the Bush/Cheney team. (OK, I'll anticipate your challenge to name one time when I have operated on that principle: last year in the Philadelphia mayoral election I voted for a white Republican businessman against the black Democratic incumbent, because I felt he had better ideas about how to run the city.) And I still think an official statement from the RNC is more significant than the personal opinion expressed by Jim Thompson or a representative of the Bush/Cheney campaign, no matter how much it seems to mean to you.

>They were

>official statements of the spokesman for the Bush/Cheney

>campaign

Or, to be accurate (but who cares about that?) A spokesman for the Bush/Cheney campaign. A quick Google search will turn up the names of at least a dozen spokespeople -- for example, Terry Holt, Danny Diaz, Reed Dickens, John Sanchez, Scott Stanzel.

And what was it that the guy said, anyway? That Keyes' remark was "inappropriate" ? The religious-right gaybashers who provide tbe backbone of the Bush beast could read this to mean, "Keyes should have been stronger in his condemnation -- after all, she is going to fry in Hell."

>But what you say just happens to be completely absurd.

>John Kerry is completely pro-choice, including partial

>birth abortions. If you're trying to say - as you are -

>that Kerry will only take political positions which don't defy

>Church teachings, how do you explain that? There are Bishops

>who have announced that they will deny communion to Kerry

>based on his abortion position, so what are you talking

>about?

Yes that's true - but when push comes to shove and the Pope leans on his servant in Washington, who can be sure that Kerry won't cave?

On an interesting sidenote - it is being reported today that the Pope is attempting to interfere with Canada's stance on gay marriage by leaning on Canadian ambassadors.

>>If W is in the white house the P is perched on his

>>shoulder, and that scares the shit out of me too.

>

>What is the "P" perched on his Bush's shoulder? Are you

>referring to the Pope? Are you under the impression that Bush

>is Catholic?

No of course not, I typed W instead of K - my error. I tend to do that sometimes when I'm in a typing frenzy at 2:00 a.m.

RE: Reason why Democrats lose

>Every single news report and statement from anyone who would

>know (as opposed to people who will spew up gossip and

>innuendo without having any idea if it's true, like you), said

>that Mary Cheney (who did sit in the family box) was not on

>the stage becasue SHE MADE THE DECISION NOT TO BE, likely

>because she did not want to be used as some prop by people

>like you or be the lurid distraction to her father's

>nomination which people in the media would make her.

This is what happens when you get your facts from Sean Hannity or R_xush Limbaugh. You end up making no sense whatsoever. Let's assume for a moment that Mary did make this decision. It would not have been to placate Cheney's detractors or because of the "liberal" media. It would have been because of the heat that would have come from the Bush/Cheney base of supprt, also known as the Religious Right, also known as the reason for the rise of homophobia in this country. Cheney might be the most pwerful man in the free world, but even he can't rule without support. I applauded Cheney for having the courage tos tand up for his daughter. Too bad he didn't have the courage to stand beside his daughter.

>I also heard Laura Bush, the following day, when asked about

>this, say as clearly as she could that it was Mary Cheney's

>decision not to be on the stage, but that she - Laura -

>sincerely hopes that Mary will change her mind and be on the

>stage with the President and Dick Cheney that night, after the

>President's speech.

I believe that Laura was probably sincere in that wish, but how sad is it to send out the Stepford Wife and hide behind the National Guard her.

>But not having evidence never stops you from screaming

>something out - you are more than happy to assert things with

>no basis whatsoever (e.g., Dick Cheney caused Paul Wellstone's

>plane to come down; Joe Scarborough murdered an aide; Bush is

>planning to cause a terrorist attack if he isn't going to win,

>etc. etc.).

Scarborough didn't murder his aide, Condit didn't murder Shandra, OJ didnt kill Nicole and Teddy didn't kill Mary Jo (and Doug is not a shill for the GOP).