I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
To say that "the Republican party went from pandering to the Christian Right to being mostly taken over by them" just shows how stupid you are, and how little you really know about the Christian right!!!
We welcome Andrew Sullivan to the fold, and are heartened by his "we now know the truth." Better late than too late.
Zeke, care to back up that assertion with some examples?
One million closet cases. I personally do not know of one openly gay/lesbian rethug. Still, one million closet cases is a lot.
This Constitutional amendment is certainly the biggest threat to human rights in America since the days of slavery...almost 150 years ago...and it is happening in our modern day and age, it is just shocking.
I always thought that facile comparisons between REpublicans and Nazis were cheap shots, but now I wonder if this is what it would have felt like to have been a Jew in Germany as the Nuremburg laws were put into place.
This is akin to Clayton Bigsby finally figuring out he's black:
http://journalscape.com/kenny/20...004-02-02-10:
21
Latest FaBlog:"You realize of course that this means war."
Power glutes!
[ ! ]
I know a couple of gay Republicans.
What I couldn't find, even before today, was a gay Republican who thinks Bush has done a good job on any of the OTHER things one votes Republican for.
I posted this question on the other thread. Heterosexually speaking (as The General might say) can anyone explain to me how anyone who is gay can be a Republican, when the GOP is so obviously dominated by the fundies who HATE gays? I don't get it. Is it like one of those "if you hurt me it just proves you love me" things?
Didn't the Log Cabin Republicans threaten to out any closeted member of Congress who actually votes for this atrocity?
I'm guessing that Andy's current gigs are secure enough that he can bite the hand that fed.
Either that, or he's hit the Token Gay Glass Ceiling in the conservative media, and knows he can never make the "A" list of GOP luminaries. If he had the millions -- and the connections -- of an Arthur Finkelstein, he wouldn't be upset because he'd know he was insulated.
Gary F: The REAL Christian right did not support the invasion of Iraq. Bush didn't seem to consider us then.
See what I mean! Just too stupid!
Aw, come on: You know junior doesn't mean it. He just wants to win. Once he does that he'll put all this behind him. After all, Jeb's boy is gay.
I know three openly gay Republicans who voted for BushCo. (I know a lot more openly gay people, but they did not vote for Chimpy). Two are journalists, one a nurse. Hope they're happy.
PS: Andrew Sullivan has no right to cry foul now. He's too much of a cheerleader for Chimpy. "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."
What about how the Democrats treat heterosexuals!!!!!
Oh....never mind.
Squish-- you're kidding, right?
Zeke, who is the "REAL" Christian Right that you're talking about?
Robertson and Falwell, the two most prominent figures of the Christian Right as it's conventionally pictured, supported the aggression against Iraq without any reservations.
Gary F: The REAL Christian right did not support the invasion of Iraq. Bush didn't seem to consider us then.
Yeah, remember all of that video tape on the news when Falwell, Bauer and Roberts were out there getting cracked over the head by the cops to prevent the war from breaking out?
Hey, David Brock has already crossed over.
I've always believed gay Republicans (or "Loggers" as my partner and I call them), are basically people who put money ahead of their rights...
Not our favorite kinds of people regardless of sexuality, race, gender or anything else you've got.
Hey all, my brother was on posting as me for some time this morning. He is somewhat of a bitter former Deaniebaby and leaning painfully close to voting Nader. Ah, the optimism of youth!
Anyhow, it will be fun seeing what Andy means by declaring war on W. I am not sure what cave he has been living in though - to come to the SUDDEN realization that Bush and Co. just don't like "his kind"
I have taken a sadistic glee in
watching Sully squirm on the hook
of Republican bigotry. I agree that
it remains to be seen whether he will
actually become an anti-Bush partisan.
Perhaps he can arrive at the position
that ex-Tresury Secretary O'Neil did:
become an anti-Bush concervative.
I'd say the "real Christian right" wasn't very vocal in opposing the Iraqi Frolic and Detour, unless it is comprised only of zeke.
Didn't the Log Cabin Republicans threaten to out any closeted member of Congress who actually votes for this atrocity?
If they did, I'd have a lot more respect for them than I do now.
C'mon, LCRs. Are you honorable -- or Kapos?
Your silence will not protect you.
Better late than never from Sullivan. I think this move is the death knell of Bush's Administration. This is not a popular Amendment and once people read the fine print, it will become even less popular. Moreover, this is a generational issue more than any other. People aged 18-40 run the gamut of the political spectrum, but on issues of gay rights they are far more tolerant than older voters, even liberal older voters. If an issue will galvanize younger voters to get out and vote it will be this one. And not just 18-26, but 26-40 who do actually vote. This was a terrible political move to salve the goalpost-moving "Christian" extremists that will backfire by alienating the entire middle.
Yeah, remember all of that video tape on the news when Falwell, Bauer and Roberts were out there getting cracked over the head by the cops to prevent the war from breaking out?
*spews Diet Coke*
Elrod: Yup.
And if the LCRs do pull a Flynt, then all bets are off. It would be the single most noble thing they could do.
I hear that some of the House Impeachment Managers were/are among the closeted crowd.
The Log Cabin Republicans know where the Santorum is buried.
Just to be on the safe side, I checked all my closets.
Still no comment from Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas.
zeke, thanks for the funny posts!
Walter Cronkite has a column thats available on the web (sorry but I can't remember where, you'll need to Google it) in which he says that churches have a right to decide who they will unite in matrimony, and who they won't. He sees the proposed constitutional amendment as interfering with religion by taking that right away. Interesting perspective. Glad to know he's still keeping up and trying to have an influence.
There's something almost exhilirating about this. By pursing this course of action, Bush is adding clarity to the political landscape, and in a way that's something we ought to thank him for. No longer do we have to waste time arguing with people who think the religious right is just a fringe of the Republican party. No longer do we have to go to the effort of convincing people that yes, he really does want to discriminate against homosexuals. No longer do we have to listen to people tell us that the GOP is the party of inclusion. (And I have to disagree with Atrios on this... I think the human capacity for self-delusion is quite great, and I think it was very easy for a lot of people to tell themselves that they weren't _really_ hurting the cause of gay/lesbian equality by voting for Bush.)
Bush has drawn his line in the sand. He's erased all doubt about where he stands. And he has my gratitude for that.
And now it really is a war. Good.
So Andy is OK with everything else Bush has done but this one issue now makes Bush the enemy.
It sounds like he may have been looking for a way off the sinking ship. Time to pander to a new audience, becuae its cool to hate Bush.
Just in case anyone asks, Bush draws his lines in sand through urination.
Remember George, if you shake more than twice then it's onanism.
I am sure their are alot of them out there.
www.witnessreport.com
I am sure their are alot of them out there.
www.witnessreport.com
Check out CNN's homepage. There is a poll question regarding this.
As long as we're all ruminating on whether it's best to do what's politically-expedient, or to do what's morally right, let me invite you all to join the only political party that stands IN FAVOR of allowing gay marriage. No, it's not the Democrats.
It's the Green Party.
You can still register Green and vote for Kerry, friends.
Or, alternately, you can say "fuck the Greens," and do what's politically-expedient, even if it's not standing up for what's right. Beware facing yourself in the mirror, however.
I'm tired of hearing about pandering. Let's borrow from our gay brothers' lexicon:
How about Panda Bearing?
nechiaev: maybe it's internalized homophobia. as in sulley, norah vincent, drudge, tammy bruce, etc. there's a lot of it going around.
Goto:
http://wwww.cnn.com/
Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages?
Yes
No
George Costanza: "George Peppard is gay?"
Or, alternately, you can say "fuck the Greens," and do what's politically-expedient, even if it's not standing up for what's right.
This kind of self-righteous drivel is exactly what turns me off from the Green Party.
Maybe Andy is just sick of dating the other two gay Bush supporters over again?
I posted part of this LATimes story on another thread, but this part shows the total hypocrisy of Bush's platform for the upcoming election:
At the heart of Bush's speech at a Republican fundraiser was a determined effort to frame the 2004 election as a stark choice between more government and more individual freedom — the same contrast he used with success against Gore in the final two months of their razor-tight race.
[...]
Even so, Reed and many other Democrats are optimistic that Bush will have a more difficult time than in 2000 framing the election as a choice between his commitment to individual freedom and Democratic loyalty to big government.
[...]
"These things are very much the subject of pendulum swings," said Garin, arguing that the arguments Bush used in 2000 will be "substantially less powerful" this year.
That conclusion may be premature. What's clear from Bush's opening salvos Monday is that when it comes to the role of government, he is willing to bet most Americans still believe less is more.
He says one thing, but does the absolute opposite. His brand of government is unbelievably invasive and limits, not protects, the rights of Americans.
He has gone too far and must be stopped.
I know a fair number of gay Republicans in NYC. A couple of them are in my beach house group. They do seem to get upset when I refer to them as Jews for Hitler, which I do at every possible opportunity. I have the same reaction to their indignation as Bill Clinton did when the head of the Bush/Cheney 04 in CA announced that he was offended by Bill's remarks at some meeting: "Good!"
Why are they Republicans? Some of them believe strongly in the Republicans' economic royalism agenda and trust that the Republicans, for all their ranting, don't pose a serious practical threat to gay rights. Or at least to their gay rights. Some of them have been Rockefeller Republicans since Rockefeller, and they simply refuse to accept the fact that their party is controlled by drooling inbred Southern fundamentalist gun nuts (they appreciate that phrase too). But increasingly, I'm finding that even the gay people who call themselves Republicans can't bring themselves to vote for an actual, real live Republican. Let's hope this trend continues.
Leave it to wÒÓ† to furnish a link to a page devoted to animal buttocks.
I think a lot of gay Republicans are not going to vote for Bush this time around -- but so are a lot of other Republicans. 9/11 and Bush's actions afterward made a lot of people Democrats, but they also made a lot of people Republicans. It's going to be interesting.
If Log Cabin endorses Bush, they will lose all my respect. All of it.
too bad queers. another 4 more years of crushing some serious arab skull - outta the way pussies!
We should form a welcoming committee for Andy. A very tactful person with a strong stomach and a weak memory.
We can't afford to dis the SOB -- he controls a key 0.01% of the vote. That's a bigger bloc than the Armenian artichoke growers and the Ukrainian Reformed Doukhobors all put together.
another 4 more years
Another children more left behind.
It will be difficult for Ehrenstein and Signorile to put their differences with Sullivan on hold, but they should. In fact, ALL of them, including Signorile, Paglia, Vincent, Ehrenstein, Goldstein, Brock, etc. should get together and issue a statement that despite their ideological differences they will be united to fight against this sickening amendment tooth and nail.
Or, alternately, you can say "fuck the Greens," and do what's politically-expedient, even if it's not standing up for what's right. Beware facing yourself in the mirror, however.
I've got no real problem with the Greens, other than they're idiots for allowing an egomaniac to be their standardbearer in 2000.
I've often said that as a registered Democrat, I'm all for working with the Greens on a broad variety of issues. We have much in common.
However, in order fo this to happen, the Greens need to offer a gift.
The head of Ratfuck Ralph on a platter.
"Jews for Hitler". Brutal, but historically true--there were documented cases of Jewish men who desperately tried to prove their loyalty to Nazi Germany by joining the Wehrmacht. Some even succeeded.
I won't believe he's truly had a change of heart until he recognizes that his hero Arnie the Eagle has also come out, as it were, firmly and repeatedly against full civil rights for homosexuals.
Separate but equal, boys and girls.
I know one semi-closeted gay man who is a public high school teacher, long time teacher. He and his partner have been together for 20 years. The interesting thing about Mr. P, (as the kids call him) is that his "kids", his students all know. He also recently overheard some of the seniors say to the others: "we don't talk about Mr. P and SP". He and I have really gotten into it on some social/political issues from time to time. His partner, on the other hand, is anything but closeted. He's a wonderful, talented, exuberant, comfortable with himself, human being. I love them both dearly. I get to work with them once a year on the high school musical which Mr. P directs and I do musical direction.
There are also many students who trust my friend with their coming out issues often. Recently a fifteen year old boy came out to him, and happened to mention that he also got his blood test back. He's HIV positive.
All of this makes my heart ache. This could be and is "anybody's kids". The masquerade of the Feds and the US mythology of "equality" makes me retch.
Skip Perry said: "9/11 and Bush's actions afterward made a lot of people Democrats, but they also made a lot of people Republicans. It's going to be interesting."
I read yesterday that Bush's camp is planning new ad campaigns for this spring and have invested a few ($100) million. The first ads will focus on Bush's "steady leadership in changing and dangerous times".
Today I saw this:
"The British newspaper, The Sunday Express, reported Sunday that Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of northwestern Pakistan, on the border with Afghanistan."
It's going to be a long summer!
a
Oh cool, another thread where I can remind everyone that conservatives hate faggots.
Perhaps he can arrive at the position that ex-Tresury Secretary O'Neil did: become an anti-Bush concervative.
Anti-Bush Conservative Republicans are apparently become quite a big tent of their own.
But, for my tastes, I'd like to wish ex-Judge Roy Moore all the best for his proposed Presidental run. America needs Roy Moore now.
Now would be a good time to "Moby" some right/libertarian/pro bush sites with something like:
"Bush has lost my vote. How can he be in favor of freedom for Iraqis but opposed to freedom for his own people? I'm staying home in November..."
LL58: So, Log Cabin Republicans used to be Rock-a-fella Republicans?
I guess it makes sense. "Those Democrats are going to, are going to,...." What the hell are they talking about? They talk like Democrats are going to put them on foodstamps.
It's like something a gay rich kid would say.
Me: "Or, alternately, you can say "fuck the Greens," and do what's politically-expedient, even if it's not standing up for what's right."
Old Hat: "This kind of self-righteous drivel is exactly what turns me off from the Green Party."
See, Old Hat? When it's Democrats chiding Log Cabin Republicans for being in a party that opposes gay marriage, it's fine. When it's a Green chiding Democrats for being in a party that REFUSES TO SUPPORT gay marriages (or voting for a candidate--Kerry--who opposes gay marriage), it's obnoxious self-righteous drivel.
Someone, ANYONE please tell me what the difference is!
Is it really as simple as Old Hat being upset 'cause it's HIS/HER ox being gored?
Donna, can I help with costumes?
another 4 more years of crushing denial of reality.
A.
being in a party that REFUSES TO SUPPORT gay marriages
Gavin Newsom. Democrat. Not Matt Gonzales. Gavin Newsom.
TYPING IN CAPS MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE A SCREAMER.
this is a shot across the bow to both Edwards and Kerry. we can be sure that Rove and company are going to use this as a major campaign issue if wither one of them stands up for what's right.
the opportunity exists for a Dem to take a principled stance. reframing this as a political stunt, and focusing on the abuse of the constitutional amendment process to institutionalize discrimination may garner more voter support than weasel words or going along. we'll see. this is much bigger than a gay issue, and hopefully that will become clear in the near future..
another 4 more years of little cowards who let other people fight their battles
All of them Miserable Failures like their loser president...
I think Andrew Sullivan's website is down...STAY AWAY FROM LIGHT AIRCRAFT ANDY!
Patrick: the difference is the 2000 election. The Dems didn't want the Reps. in power. They didn't want us to be where we are now.
But you guys DID.
You guys SAID it "had to get worse to get better."
You rooted and worked FOR it.
Remember?
The sanctity of marriage, courtesy of the bible:
Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that. (1 Corinthians 7:27-2
The Dems didn't want the Reps. in power. They didn't want us to be where we are now. But you guys DID. You guys SAID it "had to get worse to get better." You rooted and worked FOR it. Remember?
No! No no no! No no no no no no no no!
Not true! Never happened!
La-la-la-la-la!
Sully scares me.
Staying home in November is exactly what one shouldn't do *regardless* of how one feels.
I too am glad Bush finally shat, now he needs to get off the pot. He's dove too far into the religious right realm, and hopefully will lose some middle-of-the-road undecideds in so doing. Of course, Kerry is flaky on the issue too. But I don't think he's said he's in favor of the fed. marriage amendment, yet; just that he's opposed to gay marriage.
Anonymous, reminds me of an Oscar Wilde throwaway from "Portrait of Dorian Grey".
"Everyone loves secrets. That's why marriage is so popular, it requires the keeping of secrets."
What I really want is for Andy to keep saying over and over that he is a Bush supporter, this will be a big help to bring people to our side, thank you 
.
bush kicks ass! if i were gay (and most here seem to be so they know what i'm talking about), i would be all over him!
4 more! 4 more! 4 more!
CNN has a poll in its home site:
scroll down
Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages?
no is slighly ahead.
CNN
OT, well maybe not OT:
More on Gov. Perry.
ME: "...being in a party that REFUSES TO SUPPORT gay marriages..."
Old Hat: "Gavin Newsom. Democrat. Not Matt Gonzales. Gavin Newsom."
Your point being?
Fine:
Gavin Newsom: Democrat who supports gay marriage.
Matt Gonzalez: Green who supports gay marriage.
Andrew Sullivan: Republican who supports gay marriage.
Democratic Party: does not support gay marriage.
Republican Party: actively opposes gay marriage.
Green Party: actively supports gay marriage.
Understand?
Old Hat, my question remains. Please, please answer it this time:
Why's it okay to be a Democrat chiding Log Cabin Republicans for being in a party that opposes gay marriage, but it's self-righteous drivel to be a Green chiding Democrats for being in a party that REFUSES TO SUPPORT gay marriages (or supporting a Democratic candidate who opposes gay marriage).
Please just answer the question. No ad hominim this time, okay?
Still waiting for that 'hat' retard to post "Sully: 84, Atrios: 1".
Come on hat, Sully posted twice!
FWIW:
Not a "Radio Factor" fan but was giving it a listen today. As one might expect, the bulk of O'Reilly's listeners are against gay marriage, however, almost ALL callers think a constitutional amendment is a bad, bad idea.
Very intereting I would say.
Lets see teachers are terrorists, Gays will be constitutionally erased, Vietnam veterans arent the real deal, natl guards are.
What else has the bush admin done recently?
cheney_usa: Donna, can I help with costumes?
LOL! 
Any other time I'd say, "you got it", but they have this one covered. We're doing Willy Russell's Blood Brothers. We did it six years ago. We open in ten days. This group of kids is outrageously talented. It will be a smash, and that's particularly cool because it addresses so much that people in the US are squeamish about ... particularly the issue of "class".
So i was trying to see if there was anything in the comment above that Jeb Bush's son was gay. Didn't find anything-yet. But all of Jeb Bush's kids HAVE been picked up by the cops.
We all know about Noelle's four car wrecks, arrests for shoplifting and being arrested for prescription fraud. But did you know that her dad (the Governer) covered up his three other prescription fraud incidents.
Gee, interesting maybe Jeb learned those coverup tricks from his Dad. G.H.W. Bush when he was covering up G.W. Bush's cocaine bust. (Alleged cocaine bust.)
http://www.hereinreality.com/gon...m/
gonewild.html href="http://www.hereinreality.com/gonewild.html">Bush crime family info. Bushes gone Wild!
http://www.hereinreality.com/gon...m/
gonewild.html
Ryan: "Patrick: the difference is the 2000 election. The Dems didn't want the Reps. in power. They didn't want us to be where we are now."
Ryan, that DOESN'T answer the question. Please, please answer the question:
Is it not just political expediency to support a party that refuses to support gay marriage (unless that's what you happen to believe)? Isn't it that same political expediency to support a candidate who actively opposes gay marriage (again, unless that's what you happen to believe)?
The answer is yes, right? If not, how is it not?
If yes, then I'm wondering how the LCR's expediency is worthy of chiding, but yours is fine?
you know, Cronkite has a REALLY good POV that I'm ashamed to say did not occur to me:
If I'm a Unitarian pastor and I want to marry gays and my church says it's OK to marry gays, wouldn't a DoMA conflict with my 1st Amendment freedom of worship rights?
Let's get going on this, Unitarians or any other church that wants to pursue it...
">Bushes gone Wild!
Oops. Messed up the html
So Andy is OK with everything else Bush has done but this one issue now makes Bush the enemy.
Dictionary, it's when it's THEIR skin on the line that gay conservative's wake up.
I'm not depending on them. There are whole rainbows and spectra of minorities that I'll stand with before I'll depend in LCRs.
Patrick -
Again, because the Greens WANTED the Reps. in power. They did NOT support gay rights.
They wanted the anti-gay-rights bigots in power, and they worked to put them there.
The Greens turned their backs on gay rights because they thought Gore was boring.
Well, they got what they wanted. Things got a hell of a lot worse. But, lo and behold!, Nader's promised backlash hasn't happened.
Things AREN'T getting better.
Wow. Who woulda thunk it?
WE woulda thunk it, just like we did in 2000 .
If he was Black, Andrew Sullivan would have joined Negroes for Wallace in 1968.
"Wait- you mean he was SERIOUS about all that segregation stuff? I thought it was about 'state's rights'?!"
He is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, to discover that the quality he says he admires so much about Bush- he does what he says he is going to do- turns out to not have a big benefit for him.
I went to vote in the CNN poll on amending the Constitution, but as there was no "FUCK NO" option, I settled for a Colmeslike "no".
But, it's currently 55-45 on the Side of Good.
Note also the Nat'l Governors Association didn't want to get all hot and heavy with this issue- no one cares deeply about banning Gay Marriage except hysterical Freepers.
Mars is to January as Gay marriage is to February.
This will be buried in the drawer alongside the Right-To-Life, Balanced Budget, and Term Limits Amendments.
A real question- why does Bush spend 100% of his time sucking up to people who are going to absolutely vote for him anyway?
I meant HER three other prescription fraud incidents.
John "Jebby" Bush was caught by the police, literally, with his pants down in a parking lot, having sex with a teen-age girl.
spocko regrets the error
Patrick:
First of all, in response to your invitation: Fuck the Greens
Second, in response to the following
Why's it okay to be a Democrat chiding Log Cabin Republicans for being in a party that opposes gay marriage, but it's self-righteous drivel to be a Green chiding Democrats for being in a party that REFUSES TO SUPPORT gay marriages (or supporting a Democratic candidate who opposes gay marriage).
While the Democratic party establishment may be incapable of taking a stand on gay marriage today, there is a pretty good chance that it will at some point.
The Republican party not only do not support gay marriage, they actually want to criminalize it.
It's astonishing to me that you need someone to actually spell this out.
If there's anything else you need help with, I'm Ilya, just ask for me
BTW did I mention Fuck the Greens?
Thank you
I.
I support gay marriages of democrats to republicans. Greens, get over yourselves. You act as tho you "come to save us all". Where were the "greens" during slavery and lynching? Some of us have been fighting for 100s of years. I don't like "johhny come lately's' whether they be R, D or G.
Or put it this way Patrick:
1. Reps - against gay rights
2. Dems - mixed.
3. Greens - backing Reps over Dems.
It's pretty clear cut, my friend.
And if Andy won’t fess up that he is a Repug and a Bush supporter, whenever he is on, the anchor should make it clear, you are a Repug and a Bush supporter, right?
Please, please, please. .
.....
Don't bother me with facts! I know for a fact that even though the Green party is whiter than a Klan rally and more bouregois than a BMW dealership, the Democratic party is EVIL and BUSH is ultimately GOOD because THINGS HAVE TO GET WORSE BEFORE THEY GET BETTER!
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR BUSH! GREEN PARTY 2004!
Or put it this way Patrick:
1. Reps - against gay rights
2. Dems - mixed.
3. Greens - backing Reps over Dems.
It's pretty clear cut, my friend.
ryan b | Email | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 2:11 pm | #
Good one, ryan, rock on! .
.....
I'll second that...
Fuck the Greens.
Take your trust-fund liberal guilt and walk, kiddo.
Donna, I am not familiar with that play but will look it up.
As long as you do not put on that lesbian apologizing, ant-McCarthiest play by Lillian Hellman (second time I mentioned her today, that's odd) "The Children's Hour".
Log Cabin's are bottoms who like to think of themselves as tops...
Just like Chimpy and friends...
Take your trust-fund liberal guilt and walk, kiddo.
I think that is unfair. Lots are just pot-heads.
I also know lots of former Dean supporters who claim his Meet-Ups were an awesome place to get laid. I wonder if they will go for Nader as I doubt ANYONE is getting laid at a Kerry Meet-Up.
I, for one, don't want Sullivan in the Democratic Party. He's already in the Republican Party, and that's where idiots like Sullivan belong. Over there, not mucking things up for us over here.
He's a muddy, stupid thinker who makes Republicans look (more) like asses--I'm sure he'd offer the exact same service for the Democrats.
No - 55%
Yes - 45%
On the CNN poll...
Well, unfortunately my question isn't getting answered by anyone, except for by Ilya (thanks Ilya), who said this:
"While the Democratic party establishment may be incapable of taking a stand on gay marriage today, there is a pretty good chance that it will at some point."
Ilya, I'm afraid you might be deluding yourself just a bit, here. The DNC isn't "incapable" of taking a stand on gay marriage. They choose not to. 'Cause they don't find it politically-expedient. Taking a stand on reproductive rights: polically-expedient. Taking a stand on gay marriage rights: not politically-expedient (at least not yet).
You hope that they will take that stand on some point. So do I. But I doubt it'll ever happen without freaks like me (and maybe some of you) rattling their walls and demanding it. It's a hard gig, and there's a ton of scapegoating involved [as any reader of the above can see for him/herself]. But it's the only way social change can occur.
Power concedes nothing without a demand, guys. Frederick Douglass said that. We should all ask ourselves, truthfully, IF we are making these demands. And HOW we're going about doing so.
Anyway, I didn't mean to start a fight, here. I can see many people here are very angry... the way I was angry after my Democratic Senator voted in favor of the war. But I can't turn my back on all Democrats, 'cause I'm still angry at Feinstein. I hope some of you can find a way to work with us Greens, even though you're still angry at Nader.
Peace to all. Bye.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," said Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and will oppose the amendment if it reaches the Senate floor. Bush is "looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.
The Massachusetts Democrat says he prefers civil unions and rejects any federal or state legislation that could be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.
Sounds good to me!
Holy shit, but some peolpe have serious issues with Greens. The first thing Patrick said was you can register as Green but still vote Democrat. Then he asked a simple question and all he got was "fuck you" and "la la la la we can't hear you".
Nader &neq; Green, and Nader shafted the Greens too, btw.
Old Hat: "Take your trust-fund liberal guilt and walk, kiddo."
Abhorsen: "I think that is unfair. Lots are just pot-heads."
Okay, I WAS gonna go (and still am), but c'mon, guys. I grew up in a double-wide, in a trailer park. And I've never smoked pot (or so much as a cigarette) in my entire life.
Can't we please move on from all that crap? If, for no other reason, than that we're all human beings? Please?
I doubt ANYONE is getting laid at a Kerry Meet-Up.
Well, I heard this one African intern was... oh, never mind :P
Oops, that's Nader ≠ Green.
(and people not peolpe)
Here is a question:
If gay Republicans came to you and said, "I'm sorry, I want to work with the Democrats now", would you say, "OK", or would you laugh at them and tell them to go away?
My guess is most of the people here would do the latter. And then bitch about how it's all the fault of gay Republicans. Moral superiority doesn't get you votes, believe it or not.
There were gay Republicans (Dale Carpenter, and a few guys I know who used to work in LCR in the 90's) who didn't even vote for Bush. They voted for Gore because they knew Bush was a fraud. Are they also self-hating fags and Jews for Hitler?
I wasn't aware that there are any Kerry Meetups. In my area, there are only 2 signed up, vs. the over 120 signed up for Dean (and the 30+ who regularly attended). You have to have at least 10 people to have a Meetup. So it would stand to reason that no, no one's getting laid at Kerry Meetups. Then again, there wasn't any hooking up going on at the Dean Meetups here, either.
While I'm not in the "fuck the Greens" camp, I am in the "fuck the Greens' preachy moral superiority to those who want to see things get better" camp. I don't recall Nader running on a platform of gay rights in 2000 for a very good reason - he didn't. He ran on a platform of "Gore is the same as Bush." So fuck Nader. But as for the Greens, go out and build your party - from the ground up, the only way you'll ever have a real party. Learn to walk before you try to run. When you've done the grunt work of really building a party, instead of just running spoiler campaigns for president and preaching to all the rest of us that we're "sellouts" because we won't throw our votes away on a candidate with no chance of winning, then come back and convince us why the Greens are the party most deserving of our support. Until you've actually built a party, you're just engaging in mental - and moral - masturbation.
There were gay Republicans (Dale Carpenter, and a few guys I know who used to work in LCR in the 90's) who didn't even vote for Bush. They voted for Gore because they knew Bush was a fraud. Are they also self-hating fags and Jews for Hitler?
I think people are referring to those that still back Bush when there is no doubt as to who he really is and what he really stands for.
Personally, I like some Republicans. Its the Bush supporters that make no sense to me.
then come back and convince us why the Greens are the party most deserving of our support. Until you've actually built a party, you're just engaging in mental - and moral - masturbation.
Jennifer
Right on, Jennifer. The Greens I know strike me as the kind of people who like a band until they become popular - then accuse them of being sell-outs.
"Here is a question:
If gay Republicans came to you and said, "I'm sorry, I want to work with the Democrats now", would you say, "OK", or would you laugh at them and tell them to go away?
My guess is most of the people here would do the latter."
Wrong guess, fuckwit. Try thinking next time.
McClellan said the president (sic) thinks its important to have clarity. Well...now we have clarity alright.
You know that if this starts breaking against them, they'll keep yammering that the proposed amendment doesn't prevent states from enacting civil unions, or other legal benefits on their own. It does of course, but they'll keep insisting it doesn't. The idea being to give people who want it, an excuse to look the other way.
Patrick,
I'm not myself trying to make it personal in the least. I hope Greens vote for the side of right this time around.
But I will never forget that at the turn of the millenium a supposedly "progressive" Green party nominated a self-righteous spotlight seeker who himself didn't even endorse the Green party platform.
They nominated this non-Green guy for President of the United fricking States. When we had a chance to elect the Greenest presidential candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, and on the Democratic ticket to boot!
Not to mention the fact that that Democratic candidate's running mate would have been the first non-Christian to be elected to so high an office in this country.
Which would have meant a lot.
Nor the fact that that candidate's defeat, which the Green party endorsed and worked for, constituted a de facto endorsement of the scorched-earth moral warfare that the Republicans used to defeat Bill Clinton.
Which DID mean a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT.
It's no accident that the moralizers are ascendant. Their tactics WON, and the Greens gave em an all-important (literally) assist.
What I'm trying to point out is that the Green Party turned away from progressive causes at precisely the moment it mattered most, and the result was forseeable - and FORSEEN - by the Green Party apparatus itself.
To then add insult to injury, those of us who are demanding (and getting, slow but sure) progressive change within the Democratic party are routinely lectured to by so-called Greens who tell us we should just walk away.
If we do that we concede all of the power to the other side.
We're just trying to get back to where we were 4 or even 8 years ago. It's going to take another 15 years to do so.
Look at the economy. Look at the state of public health in this country.
So you'll have to forgive us if we take criticism from the Green Party with a grain of salt.
Abhorsen - I loved those books - great nick. Thanks for reminding me. I need to get the 2d half of Lirael (sp - been awhile) I liked it even better than Sabriel.
I wish the LCRs would go ahead and out Rick Perry already. Or somebody would - RR heads would explode all over Texas. (ewww, not a nice thought in some ways.)
Let me say this to any Log Cabin Republicans:
If you want to toss Bush out of office, welcome to the cause. There was a time when Republicans stood for fiscal conservancy and social liberalism (or at least staying the hell out of people's private lives). There were days when the GOP was the party of environmental conservation and racial equality, but they're over, too. You can fight your fight with the fundamentalist southern strain that has taken over your party on your own time and terms. That's up to you, and I wish you the best in your fight.
But the first step is toward reforming the GOP is to sever from those whom the fundamentalists have installed into the Executive Branch.
So, yeah. I wish Andrew Sullivan (and the rest of you) had wised up four years ago, but dreams die hard. You're not the only GOP members who are appalled and ashamed of the Texans. (Even John Kerry didn't believe Bush could fuck Iraq up badly enough to make Kerry regret his vote on that issue, so you might be forgiven for not realizing the rich potential Bush had to fuck up your lives, too.) Better late than never. You're welcome allies as far as I'm concerned.
hey cheney, if you can stop smelling your own ass crack long enough to look at some of the comments in this thread, you'll see that people are much happier believing that all gay Republicans will vote for Bush no matter what than they are at the idea of any of these gay Republicans actually voting for Democrats.
I have known people who stopped voting GOP and started voting for Democrats. And that was in spite of some of the smug and self-righteous judgment that saints such as yourself pissed all over them. Maybe it's safer and less confusing for people to believe that any homo who votes GOP is a filthy rich sellout whore who will never change his mind even as he's led to the oven. If so, then just go ahead and admit you don't want these people in your party to begin with. At least be honest about it.
If gay Republicans came to you and said, "I'm sorry, I want to work with the Democrats now", would you say, "OK", or would you laugh at them and tell them to go away?
If a random gay Republican came up to me and apologized and wanted to work with me and my party to defeat George Bush, I'd shake his hand and say glad to have you, all is forgiven.
However, if Andrew Sullivan came up to me and wanted to apologize, I'd tell him to go fuck himself.
Some people you can't just forgive. If Sullivan's really sorry he backed Bush, he'll have to prove it to me.
ryan b - and look at the environment, too. No difference between the two parties? The air, water and trees would beg to differ. I've seen the difference, and it is enough to break one's heart. Al Gore would have been a very environmentally conscious and active president, based on his own words. Instead, look at what we are dealing with. The environmental degredation is more widespread than I would have thought possible in so short a time. But Bush signalled his feelings clearly by repealing Clinton's executive order that closed wilderness to new roads. It was one of Bush's first acts as prez.
Our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents stood up to a great evil 60 years ago. If our country had acted a few years earlier, millions of atrocities and crimes might have been prevented, and many lives could have been saved.
If we can learn anything from the Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, it is that evil starts small and slow. It creeps and claws its way along, until it has the strength to stand up on its own. We as a country have had a few opportunities in these past three years to destroy this evil, and each time we have failed. We failed because there weren't enough of us who recognized what was going on, or there weren't enough with the strength or courage to speak out.
We now have another chance to crush this seed of hate, before it can spread and poison the whole nation. Before this year is out, the world will know whether America is any longer a country worth preserving, whether the ideals that have been a light for the rest of the planet still survive here.
No matter how this goes, I will not sit quietly by and wait for them to put me on a train. We already know the price of complacency, the price of indifference, the terrible price of inaction. Never again can we allow evil to grow, because good people do nothing. Never again.
"It is true that the other major wing of the Republican party - the corporatists - probably don't agree with them on much, but nor do they really give a shit."
Damn, that is the same line for the Democratic party.
Or, alternately, you can say "fuck the Greens," and do what's politically-expedient, even if it's not standing up for what's right.
This kind of self-righteous drivel is exactly what turns me off from the Green Party.
Old Hat
So you are going the "politically-expedient" route then?
Atrios links to Sullivan declaring "war" on the Republican party. Sullivan wibbles on about how he saw this coming; Didn't stop your hyper-partizan support for Bush though did it, Andy? Right up until he stopped floating the idea through back channels, and slapped your pavlovian nodding head in person with it.
So now we get lots of angry rhetoric about how the Republican Party is divisive blah blah blah. Ha, now it's your turn to assume the position, it's ok to get angry is it? Feh, it's just irrational Bush Hatred if you ask me.
But wait... what's that post directly after this decleration of war? Why, it's a claim that it's the European Left that is divisive and blah blah blah. What kind of moron thinks Andrew Sullivan has any credibility at all when he can put such obvious double think right next to each other on his blog for comparison?! But let's express this in a way even morons can understand, shall we?
Contitutional Ammendments Proposed Against:
Atrios 0, Sullivan 1
It's worth noting at this point also that were it not for Bush's pandering to the right and refusing money from the Log Cabin Republicans, then Rod Paige wouldn't be Sec of Ed today. Diane Ravitch, herself a lesbian (though the quiet kind) was slotted for that position - and though her writing has declined over time, she had the guts to walk out on Bush when he turned his back on the LCR's $$$.
Al Gore would have been a very environmentally conscious and active president
Tena
Muffin, unless you can see into alternative universes, you can't say that for a fact.
Nice piece of magical thinking though.
Okay so if this shit reaches the senate floor, Kerry/Edwards will be given a chance to draw their own line in the sand.
Please oh please oh please let them be on the side of good . The GOP is a lost cause; they already believe gays are sick and immoral (or pay lip service to that idea). But the Democrats don't believe that, and if they throw us overboard for the same of political expediency to hope this issue goes away, they're more repugnant than the repugs.
the vote is very close
http://www.cnn.com
At the last Pride parade, there were about 8 or 9 gay thugs representing the Log Cabin Club, about 7 white boys, one black man and one older white chick who wore oxblood penny loafers with no socks. The crowd hissed. It was fun.
Ridnik,
Agreed, except on the Sullivan part. Sure, his hypocrisy pisses me off, but he's obviously sincere on this particular score, and if this gets him to switch teams, fine by me.
Maybe one of his readers will come along too. Or two. Maybe.
Anyway, the more the merrier in the war against hate, says I, even if it means allying with self-important british expats
Patrick: (if you're still around)
Ilya, I'm afraid you might be deluding yourself just a bit, here.
I don't think I am actually. It's unlikely anything will change in time for this election cycle, but I believe it will come.
I don't want to fight with you either, we're on the same side after all, but really, stating problems and solutions in absolutist terms, and then denigrating others who aren't true believers is no way to build and maintain unity.
We've all had enough of this "With us or agin us crap" from the Squatter, we don't need it from well meaning but misguided types on the Left.
Vampire - relax. Both Kerry and Edwards have already issued very strong statements opposing FMA.
Jennifer:
instead of just running spoiler campaigns for president and preaching to all the rest of us that we're "sellouts" because we won't throw our votes away on a candidate with no chance of winning
Exactly! Very well said.
Let's call them what they are - self-hating, deranged apologists for people who would rather see GLBT persons dead.
If there is a more f**cked-up group, please tell me - there are psychologists, anthropologists and others who study such things.
Following the theory of evolution, Log Cabin-ers, Missy Sullivans and their fellow travelers will soon disappear -
retarded monkeys that loved to frolic with hyenas just didn't last.
Pissed, considering how many go to pride parades just cause they think they can see hot lesbians with their tits hanging out (or hot hunks with their dicks hanging out), I wouldn't brag about the crowd's great taste and fiber.
Jon, I scorn LCRs here but here's what I would do IRL:
1) In a social situation with an LCR: Ask them why they're a Republican.
2) Approached by LCR who wants to help defeat Bush : Welcome him.
3) Approached by Andy Sullivan who wants to help defeat Bush: Laugh at him and tell him to go to Hell.
capish?
Gay Republican. What am I missing?
Is there some sort of image the Republicans project that the Democrats don't which would cause even one self-respecting gay person to be a Republican?
Oh wait, I just answered my own question.
And does anybody think that, if Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a Republican?
Seraphiel - your comment that begins "Our parents, grandparents..." is beautiful. It brought tears to my eyes. It really did.
Thanks
[a
in *ADORABLE* pseudo-Old Hat voice]
for Zizka, Dombrowski, Shays, Rigault!
Pitchforks forward! Light torches! Set dogs to sniff trust funds and houses in the south of France!
NO MERCY FOR THE MERCILESS!
[/a]
Most people aren't as naive as Andy pretends to be - they knew what they were voting for.
This last sentence of Atrios' post is so good! Just to watch Sullivan on tv is to see him as naive -- his wide-eyed, "look at me, I'm a gay republican and it's good and I've got lots of friends there" demeanor is "fabulous"!
Atrios says that money insulates you from the effects of bigotry. But I'm not so sure. If your partner was sick in the hospital and you couldn't visit, money wouldn't necessarily help that much. If you can't leave your wealth to your loved one (something we know is imporant to wealth-hoarding conservatives), that would bother wealthy gay republicans more than anyone. So I'm not sure this matrix really works logically on the issue of rich gays and marriage. It seems to me that the decision to be gay and republican, in other words, is even more irrational than Atrios gives it credit for being.
Don't blame the Log Cabin or Bull Moose (progressive/liberal) Republicans for the virulent strain of creationist fundamentalism that has infected their party, until you disinfect the democratic party of the likes of Zig Zag Zell Miller and his knuckle dragging ilk. My advice be a big tent and plan a million drag queen march in DC to protest this stupid amendment.
I have no problem supporting individual Greens at the local level (e.g., Matt Gonzalez). I even agree with most of the Party's positions. My priorities and overall view of geopolitics may vary, and it does.
Maybe it's just my local Mixed Greens, but I see a little too much anarchy/libertarianism in the salad bowl to sit well on my stomach. Then there's the people who tell me my cat should eat vegetables. I always say that she *prefers* chicken, and who am I to impose cultural values upon her? Like, that would be sooo hegemonic, man.
Ryan B: As near as I can tell Sullivan still thinks the war in Iraq was a great idea, still thinks that anyone who opposes it is a "fifth columnist", still supports the upward redistribution of wealth through cutting taxes for the wealthy while gutting social services for the poor, still supports the death penalty, still thinks we should get rid of affirmative action, and still feels the same contempt he's always felt for liberals, feminists, environmentalists and lefties of all stripes. All of which means he's no friend of mine, even if his own narrow self-interest has led him to agree with me on the subject of gay rights.
On the other hand, people like Michael Lind, Arianna Huffington and David Brock, who had sincere changes of heart about the whole fundamentalist-corporatist program, are people I'm glad to have on my side.
Let's just say that Sully has a long way to go before he gets any trust or respect from me. He spent way too many years putting his thumbs into the eyes of me and my friends for me to let bygones be bygones.
Gay Republicans?
No thank you.
I prefer old-fashioned S&M.
But RINO, thankfully Zig Zag Zell Miller is not in the ascendancy in the Democratic party, unlike the others you refer to. I like your idea of the march, tho' -- I want to be one of those people who walk on those really tall stilts.
And Bush is going to come to NYC this summer for his re-nomination? Think of the scene, where 10's of thousands of enraged gays are competing with the 9/11 families to express their outrage. It is going to be truly ugly, and is going to turn off a lot of moderate people on Bush.
Ridnik,
Well, of course. I was predicating my statement on Sullivan's having a sincere change of heart.
How long it would take me to BELIEVE that he really had is another story entirely.
I prefer old-fashioned S&M.
David, you forgot to link to the photos!
Fabulous Fablog as usual.
Kudos, Seraphiel!
If Newt itself were to "turn," I would have to say "welcome, (ulp!) brother!" I still don't have to invite him over for dinner. As I was taught during my "social action" period, one never passes up/pisses off a potential ally needlessly. John Edwards has done very well that way.
Sisi - "one never passes up/pisses off a potential ally needlessly." Well said.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Doesn't mean they'll be your friend on everything, but like they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. I've even worked with the local arm of the Christian right in opposing casino amendments to the state constitution that were antithetical to public interest. It didn't stop me from working against them when they opposed hate crimes legislation, or cause me to pull any punches, either.
Just as good people don't always agree, good people and bad people (if you will) don't always disagree.
I don't believe in road to Damascus conversions. Don't expect Sully to start posting anything pro-left. He just won't be as big of a cheerleader for chimpy.
I can kind of understand what Atrios is saying about wealth somewhat insulating rich gays from discrimination.
In my personal experience, every gay man that I have known close and personally has been Black or Hispanic and living with AIDS.
In their situations, they could never afford to compromise themselves by voting Republican.
Pablo, I fully expect in the next couple days, Sully will find a reason to hate Kerry even more than Kaus and justify his reason to vote against his own right to exist as a gay person.
That darn Sully.
The true face of Christian Right homophobia
The photo of Bush over at the CNN site is just
too funny for words.
Tena, I believe you can "see" into alternate universes. My only quibble is using "very".
And you are no anonymous poster's "muffin". Man, that stuck in my craw!
You're right, Brooklyn Girl. He looks like one of those horrid photoshopped
caricatures of himself.
If gay Republicans came to you and said, "I'm sorry, I want to work with the Democrats now", would you say, "OK", or would you laugh at them and tell them to go away?
Never heard of David Brock?
Karl is putting all the chips down on this. He's going to put his guy to the right and hope the social conservatives will come out in droves to offset the loss of the LCRs and moderate republicans.
It's a sad day for america... I hope this amendment doesn't pass so that our children and grandchildren don't have the disgusting task of erasing this awful monstrosity from our constitution when the victory for equal rights for gay and lesbian americans is finally won.
cheney_usa (& Tena) - that is the forte of this particular "anonymous" - Coulteresque viciousness married with condescending mock terms of endearment.
Isn't that right, lambchop?
John Lotts Calculator - hell, it kind of makes me wonder if we shouldn't just pull off the gloves entirely and ask people,
"Do you truly hate gay people more than you love our Constitution and the rights and freedoms it protects?"
But for what it's worth, I think he's made about the biggest tactical error I've ever witnessed in a national political campaign in my lifetime.
Because now the debate is not about gay marriage, it's about his radical attempt to debase the Constitution. At least, it should be, if our nominee has any sense. (Paging Kerry & Edwards!)
To Seraphiel -
Well put, but some of us did fight this hate already in the early 90's - State-by-state anti-gay referendums where ALL the protections of the 14th amendment would be stripped away from GLBT persons - the main battlefield was Colorado and its anti-gay Amendment 2. I worked with a group called NY Boycott Colorado that was tied directly to the Colorado-based "Boycott Colorado." Many groups – From museum retailers to religious groups to corporations cancelled conferences in Colorado of this discriminatory law.
At the 1993 March on Washington our signs drawing attention to this issue could be seen everywhere even though some gays objected to our stance. At the 1993 NYC Gay Pride Parade every block had our signs posted and many people wore our stickers.
However some other GBLT persons criticized our efforts "Why boycott a state that passed an anti-gay law?" they said. "It's divisive," they said. Well, in Colorado attacks on queer people immediately increased following the vote that passed the referendum.
It was enjoined and became a case called Evans v. Rohmer. Eventually, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the law b/c it violated the 14th Amendment equal rights protections GRANTED TO ALL Americans.
The religious right was working state-by-state on passing these laws - Oregon, Florida, Maine, California, ... the list goes on. But even this conservative Supreme Court saw that these laws were no more than a "naked attempt to discriminate" against a certain group of people.
I do not put trust in the Supreme Court to act with such enlightened jurisprudence in this highly politicized environment.
But many people, starting before Stonewall and continuing to this day, have been fighting the good fight. I proudly consider myself among this group. I will never know a fraction of the people who have been active or are active in this group. But I respect and support their efforts and I ask other people to stand up and be counted.
Jennifer - You've got it, muffin, baby cakes, sweet cheeks, cupcake. That's why I just don't see it anymore.
cheney_usa - thanks. Sorry it took me awhile to respond - I was taking some time from sitting in front of the keyboard to work out.
so is george's use of fabulous a code word to the log cabin boys?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
