Leapin Lizards..... this is scary stuff
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 9:55 am | #

As a strong defender of Christian Grantham, I have to say that I agree with Rogers on this one. A service provider should pull a website with a threat like that (at least until the threat is removed).

I'm pretty sure that the courts ruled on the side of Rogers in relation to "wanted" webpages featuring doctors who performed abortions --- or they might have just ruled that in a court case on LAW & ORDER. In any case, I think we should "err on the side of life" here in regards to "wanted" pages. Besides, there are many better ways to critique than to put up a wanted poster. That's just kind of childish.

God bless Jerry Orbach.
John | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:10 am | #

A question to consider? If a liberal made such a page with similar commentary and photographs of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and the Secret Service got involved, would that be unreasonable?

That's really the crux of the situation. When does speech "cross the line" to an incitement to violence?
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:17 am | #

Case in point LGA:

http://www.internetweekly.org/ iw..._card_list.html

Take your pick.

Also be mindful of the fact that the very same image Rogers is complaining about specifically states to email him in protest of his actions.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:26 am | #

And just a point of clarification: Lavarosis was not a point of the parody, only Rogers.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:28 am | #

Yes, if a liberal made such a poster (and I consider myself to be fairly liberal), it would be fair game for the secret service to investigate.

It's my understanding that they already do investigate all potential threats to the pres. I dislike this pres intensely but free speech does not mean freedom to threaten the lives of our elected officials (no matter how awful some of them are.)
JoshS | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:39 am | #

Also be mindful of the fact that the very same image Rogers is complaining about specifically states to email him in protest of his actions.

If that is the case, I find it immensely ironic, given that all Rogers does is post pictures of people and tell others to email them.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:52 am | #

Bottom line: Rogers can't handle his own medicine, which was the entire point of what I did.

Did it come close to "the line" - yes. Did it cross it? I don't think so. Both the post and the image were quite specific, with a disclaimer in the post about being "mindful of the need for peaceful discourse."

Rogers won a round, that's all. There are other hosting providers out there that are not as easily intimidated as the generic one I am using now. If I have to, I will host site myself.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 10:59 am | #

Two down, a couple more to go. Good job Michael. Many of us are on your side.
JoshK | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:04 am | #

I think I would be doing the same thing Rogers is doing if someone was plastering (in the digital sense) pictures of me with "WANTED" around the internet. I have to say, the actions Rogers is taking with regards to the threats against him seem to make more sense to me than his actions "outing" closeted homosexuals.

If you were in Roger's shoes at this moment, would you be going about your business any differently?
Frank | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:07 am | #

Actually, no, I woulnd't be taking the same action.

Have you seen the image? Did you see the post? If not, then you really can't judge whether it was appropriate or not, can you?
Robert | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:12 am | #

Your host made the choice to shut your down, not Rogers. take the compalint up with them.
Jacquie | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:23 am | #

LOL....Frank, I walk around with a big bullseye on me every single day for daring to criticize Rogers and Aravosis. You should see some of the more-entertaining things I've been called on their blogs -- "terrorist" would be a pleasant improvement. As a gay conservative, I've been accused of everything from spitting on the Constitution to causing male-pattern baldness, with many and repeated calls to "do something" about me and "make him go away".

As I told GayPatriot in the comments on his deleted post (and as Lloydletta verified), his comments were over the top. However, if I were to react similarly to what Rogers did to every similar threat, I'd never have time to make the beds.

Aside from that, given that Rogers has no qualms about plastering his own picture all over the Internets, what exactly is his logic?
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:25 am | #

I walk around with a big bullseye on me every single day for daring to criticize Rogers and Aravosis

Nothing is more tiresome than someone with a martyr's complex.

Nothing Rogers does to you can have any real impact. Being gay is not some "deep dark secret" to "hide away from" -- and that's the worst that Mr. Rogers presently can do -- accurately target someone as gay.

In addition, it's exceedingly difficult for even a false accusation of homosexuality to be "slander" or "libel" for a public figure. Case law clearly holds that simply being called homosexual is, in and of itself, not a negative thing.

And the continued squeals of indignation over "privacy violations" from the right wing Republicans, who made the personal sexuality of millions of Americans the topic of intense and highly public debate and stereotyping are pretty laughable. The sight of privileged white guys in the corridors of power quaking over the "oppression" that such an action "entails," while simultaneously happily selling much poorer and less-well-connected gays down the river for their own political gain, only reconfirms my suspicions.

Is Rogers being partisan and hypocritical? Absolutely. He's only targeting Republicans. But the Republican protest over that is pretty laughable given their own conduct in the past three election cycles.

To quote the Bible that so many of them seem to enjoy turning into policy, "as you reap, so shall you sow." That adage has proven true in the case of Rogers, Gannon/Guckert, and other situations where the Democrats have proven that Republicans aren't the only people who can out people for political gain.

Of course, these days, "outing" only causes damage if you're affiliated with intensely anti-gay people. And in that case, I have no sympathy for a gay man who would choose to put his own career or interests in jeopardy to that degree. It's time for such folks to assume a modicum of personal responsibility for their own poor choices.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 11:46 am | #

Was it just a "wanted" poster or a "wanted dead or alive" poster? There is a significant difference.

Irrespective of the details, which are important, revenge is a dish best served cold. Indeed.
Douglas | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 12:03 pm | #

Ok... let me go on here one more time

I don't think in CONTEXT those posters are reasonably a threat. I think the conduct is a threat

-example the song where Eminem talked about Dead presidents... it wasn't a threat in context... and when you deal with some one who stalks and harrasses anyone who is gay and has the audacity to disagree with them and exposes their deepest secrets

and pressures some one out of blogging, and gets a service provider yank on the other one

terrorist is a word, a legitimate word, for that conduct
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 12:06 pm | #

pressures some one out of blogging, and gets a service provider yank on the other one

terrorist is a word, a legitimate word, for that conduct

Alas, a sad part of the political culture neoconservatism has forced on us is the notion that an argument on the Internet resulting in a private company suspending someone's account can now allow one individual to declare the other is a "terrorist."

All the blather about "context" and such is so much rubbish -- again, the people (on both sides) demanding context accord their rivals NONE when it suits their own political agendas.

Democrats and Republicans have perfected this hypocritical game to high art, reaped what they've sown, and STILL hold each other to standards they themselves won't follow.

I'm waiting for the inevitable misuse of the word "terrorist" to spread. Want to reform Social Security? You're a Social Security terrorist. Oppose deficit spending? You're a social spending terrorist! Vocally disagree with Laura Bush's choice of shoes for a G7 summit dinner? Wardrobe terrorist!

Thank you for reminding me how effectively neoconservatives have dumbed down the national dialogue, it was good for a laugh.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 12:15 pm | #

this is as much an act of terrorism as the people who burned down buisness to get a political end through fear and intimidation

you don't have to have a arabist agenda to be a terrorist.

and, the funny part of the contextual argument is you cut off my own context to

and when you deal with some one who stalks and harrasses anyone who is gay and has the audacity to disagree with them and exposes their deepest secrets

and pressures some one out of blogging, and gets a service provider yank on the other one

that conduct is to exert a political influence on some one through fear and intimidation

yep that is terrorism in a nutshell... you don't have to kill some one to be a terrorist. just because of the modern understanding of the word.. that doesn't mean we can look at the years and YEARS of historical acts of terror and throw them out because they don't meet the modern standard
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 12:43 pm | #

I would phrase it this way, Libertarian Gay American.....if nothing that can be done to a person online or otherwise by disclosure of their identity "can have any real impact", as you claim, why do you not post YOUR real name and email address? Please elucidate the reasons for your posting anonymously so that we can verify that YOU are not being hypocritical.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 1:11 pm | #

FYI, the question was asked whether or not the image said "Wanted" or "Wanted Dead or Alive". It simply said "Wanted".

Here is the post, now that I have regained access to my database.

It seems I wasn't the only one that smelled something fishy. It seems Rogers has taken to terrorizing his critics at work.

According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot's place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot's secretary and boss. GayPatriot had no idea Rogers would go to such measures and shared with me that both he and his secretary were very upset by the calls but that his boss was understanding.

Later on that day, Rogers personally called me and recounted much of the same account, adding that he had also called the police and is working with the authorities on the matter. Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them.

Rogers also said he asked GayPatriot to remove the post and replace it with a post about non-violence or he would launch a national boycott of GayPatriot's corporate employer and pursue any and all avenues necessary to protect himself. By the time Rogers had called, GayPatriot had already made the decision to remove the post and also remove GayPatriot from the blogosphere.

GayPatriot was silenced.

Let’s do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace.

Mike Rogers,

In the interest of fairness, I will give you an opportunity to respond.
I will print these questions and your responses in an update to my
post.

Did you call GayPatriot's place of employment? Did you speak to his
secretary and/or his boss? What did you say?
Did you call the police?
If you felt threatened, what specifically made you feel that way?
Do you think the gay Republicans you have outed felt that way too?
Did it occur to you that hate groups could use the information you made
public about people's personal lives to threaten them?
Would you be open to withdrawing any complaints or actions you may have
filed against GayPatriot and call for him to return to blogging?
Do you feel that your outing campaign is honorable?
Don't gay conservatives have the right to decide how they will fight
for equal rights?
If one of the people you have outed was murdered by one of your readers
as a direct result of your campaign, would you feel at all responsible?

Feel free to add any other information you feel is pertinent. I will be
happy to post it.

Robert Shurbet
http://limeshurbet.com

You may interview Mr. Rogers via phone.
He does not answer questions via email.
If it will save you expenses, he will be happy to call you directly.
Please advise.

Kevin Pressman
Media Operations
blogACTIVE.com

Unfortunately, I do not conduct interviews via phone. These are
relatively simple questions. I realize Mr. Rogers is probably quite
attached to his telephone recording equipment, but email is the only
method of response I will extend to Mr. Rogers as I do not have the
ability to conduct a recorded phone interview.

Robert Shurbet

We are sorry you are unable to conduct an interview by phone (with out
without recording), but due to the unbelievably high number of requests,
it's simply impossible to write written responses to all your questions.

All of us at blogACTIVE wish you the best in your future blogging work.

And again, if you would like to interview Mr. Rogers (in the same manner
that all other press do) please do not hesitate to contact us via reply
mail.

Kevin Pressman

I would phrase it this way, Libertarian Gay American.....if nothing that can be done to a person online or otherwise by disclosure of their identity "can have any real impact", as you claim, why do you not post YOUR real name and email address?

Because unlike you, I'm not positioning myself as some selfless, oppressed martyr "fighting the good fight against the evil leftists." Nor am I running a blog or pretending to be a political operative who "speaks against" certain quarters.

I'm a private citize and amused observer who finds your breathless victimhood spiel to be hilarious. And I'm out at work, play and to family, so should you feel the need to "investigate" me and "out" me, ala Rogers, I'm afraid you'll be wasting your time when all is said and done.

Besides, since lying is part of the neoconservative bag of tricks, along with whiny victimhood rhetoric, I doubt you'd post your real information even if I did. In fact, I know you wouldn't.

It's easy for a closet-case coward to position himself as an "activist" and demand others disclose information themselves. It's a lot harder to put your money where your mouth is. That's why you'll always remain a useful idiot for the neoconservative agenda -- a lapdog cowering in fear in the shadows, dreading that theoretical horrible day when your "terrible secret" is brought to light.

Why you enslave yourself to this fear is not my concern, and in fact, it's your right to do so -- along with your whiny victimhood rhetoric. What's not your right is to deny private citizens such as myself a hearty belly-laugh at your ridiculousness.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 3:41 pm | #

Come on gay Lib say what you really mean

"Screw them for not being out"

just say it

"screw them for not agreeing with me"

show just how much of a libertarian you really are

admit what you are quite obviously infering
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 4:21 pm | #

Ah, LGA, together with your cheap namecalling, you typify the thug mentality of Rogers quite well. You demonstrate why this form of intimidation must be opposed.
SPQR | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 4:22 pm | #

Not as a member of the greater BGLT thing.. i find this kind of thuggery truely frightening. that anyone would put up with it, and even aid in it shows a real good sign of their humanity or lack of it
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 4:26 pm | #

What "threat?"

All it says is to stop him by protesting his disgusting anti-Free Speech slime attacks.

Now if it'd had a crosshair on it or something similar, I might agree.

What's up with Michael Rogers? He doesn't like being called on his terrorist tactics in public?

Well, he just got called one more time.
Misha I | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 4:41 pm | #

So, in short, Libertarian Gay American, there IS something that I can do, were your identity revealed online, that "can have some real impact" to you. While your sexuality might or might not be hidden, your reticience and vitriol leads me to believe that you would not like, a la Rogers, for your workplace to be called, your company threatened, and your associates harassed because of blogposts that you wrote.

You need not worry, though....were you a regular reader of my blog or my postings, you would be well aware of the fact that I don't believe in outing, regardless of the situation. Indeed, as I blogged previously, I was concerned that John Aravosis's and Mike Rogers's statements that demonstrated their protecting the staffers of antigay Democrats contained enough information to out those staffers accidentally -- hardly an attitude one would expect from a strict partisan.

As for the remainder, I assure you that I am out at work, play, and to family. In addition, I respect the right of all people in these areas to communicate their sexual orientation to whomever they see fit whenever they make the choice to do it. Indeed, I often like to remind people that, while I will respect your right to stay in the closet, I will also do everything in my power to help you come out of it, because outside is definitely a better place to be -- if you choose it.

In conclusion, LGA, my take on you is simply this; those who express the most contempt for others are invariably the most contemptuous of themselves.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 4:48 pm | #

That "wanted" banner on the sidebar has been added to Haight Speech blog. Intimidation of free speech must be resisted. I see nothing in that banner that is inherently threatening to Rogers' personal safety, nor any endorsement of such.
Anne Haight | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 5:04 pm | #

If we are talking about standards of civil debate, as opposed to what must be allowed under the first amendment, then a wanted poster is an incitement to violence that has no place in political discussions. Caveats about "peaceful debate" can be read as a cynical attempt to establish plausible deniability.

Rogers may very well be a slime bucket, but that's not the way to deal with him. I don't blame the ISP for taking it down. I wouldn't want to be a party to that either. Find another way to spread the message about what he is doing. You don't have to engage in hyperbolic propaganda. People don't need to be beaten over the head with a club to see that his actions are wrong.

And let's reserve the word 'terrorist' for people who have murdered, or are part of a conspiracy to commit murder. The fear of being outed has to be a good bit lower on the scale of things than the fear of being blown up, shot or beheaded. I don't think it quite rises to the level of 'terror'.
Ardsgaine | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 5:04 pm | #

So i thought their were mobs of hetro's out to beat down and murder gays

did the national gay lobbys lie to me again
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 5:07 pm | #

ND30, bullseye on yourself? Yeah, right. In your dreams.

R-
Me is the Ridor | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 6:08 pm | #

A wanted poster isn't an incitement to violence. All Rogers is doing is gaming the system by claiming to perceive a threat. The next person targeted by him should respond in kind by accusing him of stalking, a more accurate assessment of Rogers' actions than his of GayPatriot's.

GayPatriot should start a legal fund. Rogers has won because of the threat of legal action, not because of the facts. Once GayPatriot is in the same position to make Rogers' life hell I suspect he'll see a different attitude.
mj | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 7:11 pm | #

with you one hundred percent, chief!
Adam | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 7:12 pm | #

You've never been bashed have you Larry?
filchyboy | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 8:58 pm | #

For me, the real problem with JohnA and MikeR and their websites isn't that they are gay terrorists using thug-like tactics to quash viable resistance to their one-voice rhetoric (like the smash and burn tactic of MikeR against GayPatriot), the real problem is that they appeal to so many gay Americans and partisans who willingly hoist comrades on a fagot of tinder and offer to light it. Outing practiced by these thugs is despicable. Legal harassment against critics –and that’s a big difference from constructive dialogue and commentary—is equally despicable.

For me, these men tap into a fetid underbelly of our gay community in order to mistakenly advance partisan interests. They harm all gays and gay activism in general by dividing us, culling out those who don’t pass the rabid litmus test, and wantonly demean critics with petty name calling, false indignation at criticism, and posses a self righteous monopoly on the truth which is shallow, ephemeral and misdirects the debate.

To call either man a gay activist is like Smart Growth environmentalists calling the arsonists who burn McD-mansions in the burbs environmental activists. Literally, MikeR and JohnA advance an agenda which harms our community’s long term interests. Responsible gay activists need to identify the cancer on our community these men and their writings –as well as the hardliners who feed at the trough of those blogs—represent. THEY are the threat, not GayPatriot, not Log Cabin GOPers, not gay leaders who seek meaningful dialogue and progressive public policy.

Kudos to RobertS and others for standing up to the MikeR and JohnA types in our community. I say: take time each day to read these two blogs and if they continue their course, take a moment and speak out. Matt-Michigan
Matt-Michigan | Email | Homepage | 03.29.05 - 9:24 pm | #

filchy;

not a gay man but i like free speech

but my tounge in cheek response went to the following

And let's reserve the word 'terrorist' for people who have murdered, or are part of a conspiracy to commit murder. The fear of being outed has to be a good bit lower on the scale of things than the fear of being blown up, shot or beheaded. I don't think it quite rises to the level of 'terror'

Libertarian Gay American: you are my new favorite!
Nailing ND30 as the gay martyr and 'with your whiny victimhood rhetoric....what's not your right is to deny private citizens such as myself a hearty belly-laugh at your ridiculousness'.

He is so full of self importance, and is a pathological liar....the way you handle him has me laughing!
//
ImpeachBush | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 12:12 am | #

This straight has your back... er... I mean...

Oh you know what I mean


DANEgerus | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 12:51 am | #

Rogers has my full support. If rightwing thugs, gay or straight, want to incite violence and defame him, he has every right to fight back.

Waa waaa waaa. Mean librul fight back. Boo hoo.

If you're going to conduct a virulent hate campaign against someone, don't freaking whine about it when they fight back.

GP et al are playing hardball just like Rogers does. He just does it better.
Geek, Esq. | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 1:25 am | #

Geek, your comment is intentionally dishonest. You know that the original post did not incite violence in any form. You are attempting to mislead people as to the actual legal standards thereof.
SPQR | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 1:43 am | #

Geek, Esq., got it right. GP challenged and got withered.

Survival of the fittest!

R-
Me is the Ridor | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 2:52 am | #

I'm loving how Dallas Thirty Closet Case is attempting to turn his vitriol towards me rather than address the greater issue.

It's not an issue of "out" or who LGA works for. It's an issue at laughing at the ridiculous notion that I'd be terrified of being outed at work or anywhere else.

Well-adjusted people like me don't feel the need to quake with fear and make money off of the people who oppress us.

Well adjusted people don't feel the need to work for people who hate them and hide who they are.

Well adjusted people don't feel the need to be homophobes by day and cocksuckers by night.

Well adjusted people don't feel the need to complain about "violations of their privacy," yet actively support and participate in political campaigns that make the private sexuality and relationships of other gay people a "public issue."

Well-adjusted people don't bleat on and on (and ON) about "terrorism" because some partisan gadfly has their $150,000 per year panties in a wad over the fact that he might cost them their cushy jobs with organizations that advocate their own imprisonment and inequality under the law.

Sorry boys, you get little sympathy from me -- or most other gays. And it's a little difficult to claim I'm acting out of partisanship or anything else, as I'm not a member of your primary opposition party.

As for heterosexual conservative opinions on the matter, I couldn't care less what they think and will allow their statements to pass by without comment.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 4:18 am | #

find exposure basically as risking some one's life under certain circumstances.. while not putting the bullet to some one's head it loads it

now i think the slimeball can do what he does but i think the fact his conduct could cause people to die makes him a terrorist


The reason people would die as a result of being outed would be because of the homophobic environment that conservatives and the entire Republican Party has created for electoral gain.

Using your definition, the Republican Party are the terrorists.

Still keen for abusing the word "terrorist" in those circumstances?
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 4:21 am | #

Libertarian Gay American: you are my new favorite!
Nailing ND30 as the gay martyr and 'with your whiny victimhood rhetoric....what's not your right is to deny private citizens such as myself a hearty belly-laugh at your ridiculousness'.

He is so full of self importance, and is a pathological liar....the way you handle him has me laughing!

Thanks, IB. I find the dizzy "outrage" of these people to be entirely annoying and without basis.

They blog and "comment" in public behind aliases and claim to be "fighting against liberals" and whatnot, when they are, in reality, being cowards.

Want to take on John Aravosis or Mike Rogers? Do so under your own name, not some cheap susbtance-free alias to avoid the consequences of those political actions.

Incidentally, there are out gay conservatives like Andrew Sullivan who have been able to thrive as conservatives who honestly engage and debate with gay leftists like Rogers and Aravosis. I have nothing but respect for them as individuals (even if I don't agree with all of their opinions).

I have no respect for a closeted "commentator" posting under an alias and his Freeper minions throwing about the word "terrorist" as though it was a conventional adjective.

They can turn the commentary towards me all they like and demand I post my personal information, etc., but I really don't care. I'm not positioning myself as a professional commentator and the thing that will always bother them is the fact that I know -- and they know -- they're cowards. Even after I did post my information they'd switch to some other line of attack, comfortable behind their aliases, feeling "safe" from the political and social hatred they unleash on their fellow gay people on behalf of their twisted and amoral masters.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 4:28 am | #

LGA - check out your own hate speech, bucko. And the overwhelming whine your comments and fellow commentators employ. Hmmm. Your opponents are "cowards", "make money off the people who oppress us" --come on, get a grip on something other than JohnA's or MikeR's cocks would you? Please.

And this whole 'tude about slamming men by portraying them as bisexuals, or closeted gays or whatever --what the hell is that all about? You got some serious mental health and self-image issues, LGA. And not caring about what heteros have to say? Is it really that dense to you that you fail to understand our community lost 11 state-wide initiatives in the last year because, like you, the self-appointed leaders of our community didn't listen to what others had to say? How dense is that?

For me, I'd like to see the dialogue take a great leap forward and gain some civility and common ground, rather than continue to allow mugging in this blog like those muggings that go on daily over in JohnA's and MikeR's blogland. I said it before: you guys are clueless. You really are.

The hate speech is divisive, LGA Ridor and Geek (who is actually the CraziePoet himself pulling the hide-behind-the-anonmymous-no-subtance-cracker- gig). You guys gotta take a day off, look in the mirror, contemplate your utility in this world and knock off the hate speech.

Our do you guys actually make your mark throwing rocks rather than building with them? Wait, that was rhetorical; I know the answer to that question already. Matt-Michigan
Matt-Michigan | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 7:22 am | #

LOL

"Hate speech?"

I would say the people in your party who describe gays as "morally weak human garbage" and who declare that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" are the hateful ones.

I don't think you're hateful though, Matt. Just deluded and sycophantic, as is demonstrated by your claim that I must be affiliated with Rogers and Aravosis.

I have serious disagreements with both "sides" in this debate, but I cannot abide a bunch of government employees in positions of power over average gay people using statist power to oppress them -- all the while being gay themselves.

Nor can I cry too much when someone thrusts himself into the limelight as a public commentator and gets enraged when he's unmasked.

If that bothers you, don't be a public commentator. Go back in your closet, get married and persist in pretending to be heterosexual.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 7:25 am | #

LGA, you just don't get it, do you? The practice of outing government employees, political campaign operatives, children of politicians, and (of course) the politicians is uncivil, demeaning of our best public policy efforts in the marketplace of free ideas, and hurts the combined efforts of our community to advance, be seen as something other than drag queens, and be taken seriously on key issues.

We need to care about what heteros think --we need them in the polling places to reverse the losses of the last two years and next 3-4-5 years.

Our community is losing bigtime --and anti-gay forces will be adding 2-3 more states to the anti-gay ledger before this year is out. My own Michigan is now set in a harsh backlash against modest gay rights.

NewsFlash LGA: our community is losing because of the harsh, strident tone adopted by guys like you and others --it's the 2K version of the rightly discredited ActUps of the 1980s.

Outing ala MikeR is wrong. Making canapes of guys like GayPatriot and Lime Shurbet and ND30 is counter to building consensus and moving forward.

That's the point bucko. The tone of your commentaries ARE hate speech. The demeaning slams on guys who don't share your unique perspective and opinions is hateful. Like lots of others have said: gays have struggled against intolerance for decades and we've now come to practice it even better than it was dished out in the first place.

I'm not deluded but I might be working against all odds at getting you to appreciate your comments and support of outing practices are not insightful, they're inciting. There in lays the difference. Matt
Matt-Michigan | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 10:22 am | #

LOL.....you keep spinning and trying to divert the real issue, LGA. GayPatriot wasn't outed at work as being gay -- he was already out. Publicly out, no less.

Instead, he, his fellow employees, his boss, his company, and his blog support provider were all threatened and harassed with clear intent to intimidate via multiple phone calls, by a person who has done the same on multiple occasions to anyone else who dares print criticism of him, i.e. the Washington Blade.

You keep using being out, which is a desirable thing, as an excuse for outing and harassing/threatening/trying to intimidate other gays who are already out, which are NOT desirable or even publicly acceptable. Both you and ImpeachBush also "cower in fear" when confronted with the fact that Mike Rogers called and harassed Christian Grantham, who is emphatically out AND blogs under his own name, in exactly the same fashion as he did GayPatriot.

Your argument has nothing to do with whether or not a person is "out", LGA -- but it has everything to do with whether or not they conform to your ideology.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 11:01 am | #

Hey, I'm the resident Haight Speech around here.

My objection to Rogers' behavior is not primarily about his "outing" activities (although that is pretty disgusting in itself). But to harass and intimidate Gay Patriot into shutting down because GP criticized him is totally unacceptable.

Psuedo-legal strongarm tactics to suppress the dissent of others is anathema to the founding principles of the United States, and must be resisted at all costs because it is one of the first and most powerful tools that tyrants use to dominate the populace.
Anne Haight | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 1:49 pm | #

Re: "We need to care about what heteros think --we need them in the polling places to reverse the losses of the last two years and next 3-4-5 years."

Unfortnately, this is the point that is getting lost in all of this. I live in the "Republican Paradise" of Arizona, and it is very ugly here. I don't remember who said it, but somebody was quoted as saying that the coastal-centric LGBT "leaders" have such a deaf ear to middle American that their rhetoric looked like a "bright red Ferrari zooming down main street". That observation is dead-on.

Are we, in the gay community, left and right, going to just go about our lives and mirror the left-right invectives that have poisoned our culture for the past two dozen years? When will we demonstrate that we are a people of dignity and common sense?

This is important because our adversaries are winning the argument that we don't "deserve" equal rights. And while we shouldn't have to, we are unfortunately in the position of having to show ourselves "deserving". It's not right, but it is the way it is, because like it or not, middle America will continue to choose our leaders in the years to come.

So, grow up people, or I'll start channeling my mother: Stop the name calling! And I don't care who started it.
Jim Burroway | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 1:57 pm | #

"I don't remember who said it, but somebody was quoted as saying that the coastal-centric LGBT "leaders" have such a deaf ear to middle American that their rhetoric looked like a "bright red Ferrari zooming down main street". That observation is dead-on."

Actually, the person who said that, Jim B, is Hilary Rosen of HRC, one of the coastal-centric LGBT "leaders" you referred to. Maybe they do know something after all???


JoshS | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 4:11 pm | #

JoshS.

Yes, I found the quote. To bad she wasn't at the helm fo the HRC during the last election's last debacle, and too bad she came to this conclusion after a lot of soul searching AFTER the elections were over. But it goes to show that at least a few of the coasters are starting to get a clue. I hope so.

On the other hand, Cheryl Jacques, who was at the helm of the HRC, acted more like a democratic advocate than a LGBT advocate. I'm a democrat, I but don't need a democratic advicate, I need a gay advicate. Okay, maybe after the last election we need a good democratic advocate, but that's the DNC's job, not the HRC. While I am encouraged comments made by Joe Solmonese at HRC, time will tell.

Meanwhile, GLAAD spends much of its resources GLAAD-handing the media while short-changing real hard-core anti-defamation efforts (which is what the AD in GLAAD is supposed to stand for).

And then there's NGLTF, whose "Task Force" is busy planning it's next circuit party in Miami (That would be on the east coast, by the way )

But yes, one coaster has caught on. And of course this isn't about the coasts vs. the middle. But it is about how we reach the voters in the red states. After all, they are the one who chose this president. And they will choose the next one as well.

Dobson, Rove et al have their ear. We need to talk to them as well, but right now our leaders don't even understand their language.

As one who votes a straight democratic ticket, let me ask the democrats in this thread: Do you honestly think the actions of Mike Rogers et al will actually CHANGE these voter's minds, or will it just turn them off even more?
Jim Burroway | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 5:13 pm | #

Recognizing the problem and fixing the problem are two different things, JoshS.

HRC's response to the "noisy red Ferrari" was to hire an executive director and Democratic activist who is pro-abortion, confuses the gay-rights agenda with the "progressive agenda", and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to at least one candidate who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment because she was a pro-abortion Democrat.

In short, Hilary Rosen's response to the "noisy red Ferrari" charge was to buy another one and send them BOTH "speeding down Main Street". They may "know something", but apparently they don't "know" enough to stop from doing it again.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 5:16 pm | #

Oh good lord! You people need to get your big ol' grandma panties out of the knot they seem to be in. I posted that as a bit of irony, not to get into a discussion about HRC.

We can save the HRC debate for another thread. This one is already filled with WAY too much hot air.

Now, breathe deeply, exhale, then unclench already!
JoshS | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 5:44 pm | #

You're right, JoshS.....time to head to the sauna.
North Dallas Thirty | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 6:04 pm | #

"You people need to get your big ol' grandma panties out of the knot they seem to be in. I posted that as a bit of irony, not to get into a discussion about HRC."

I knew that. I appreciated the irony, believe me. I should have put a smiley after the first sentence or something.

But I think this is very appropriate for this thread, if tangentially. There are a lot of people defending Mike Rogers et al, but the question remains: Does anybody honestly believe that his tactics actually change voters' minds? Or does it just alienate them further? And if it just alienates them, then what exactly do we accomplish besides feeling better about exposing another hypocrite?

The success of any tactic must be measured by its results. Otherwise, we're just flailing about blindly, satisfying the rage that all of us feel deep inside, including me. While it may feel good, it doesn't accomplish anything except to throw even more poison into the well.

Besides, I never really warmed to the idea that being gay was something I might have in common with GayPatriot or Ken Mehlman!

By the way, I was interested to note that Joe Solmonese was very cool to the idea of outing. Unfortunately, I don't have the link.
Jim Burroway | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 6:06 pm | #

LGA:

#1) Using the word terrorist as the freaking dictionary defines it isn't abuse. it's called the english language
#2) gay hatred is older then the current religious centered leadership of the republican party.. democratic bastions still came out and voted for gay marriage bans

you just hate republicans, and hate people who don't choose to be like you

just admit to it man.. be honest
Larry Bernard | Email | Homepage | 03.30.05 - 7:21 pm | #

Christian why not start an HRC open thread....

Just to let people know, I've got another post on this soap opera on Lloydletta.

It's really good for getting more traffic to the blog. I'm not convinced it is the most important story though.
Eva Young (Lloydletta) | Email | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 12:14 am | #

You can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. I would have to see the actual Wanted Poster before I said if I thought it was out of bounds. The words themselves, if it's like GayPatriot's post would be inflamatory. but if the poster was done to obviously be funny, then it would be more a political statement versus a threat.
Steve Talbert | Email | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 5:13 pm | #

Using the word terrorist as the freaking dictionary defines it isn't abuse. it's called the english language

Oh GOODY! I cannot wait to use it for every perceived political slight on planet Earth now, and cite the dictionary every time.

Republican Civil Liberties Terrorists clashed with Democratic Civil Liberties Terrorists in who first rushed to terrorize Libertarian Gay American, by silencing his strong and heroic voice in the wilderness raging against the rapacious and hateful terror of the Republican and Democratic terrorists.

When asked why he stood against political terrorism, LGA replied "I would give you an answer, but the dark, dark forces of gay activism would terrorize me into silence. Every day I quake in terror at being terrorized. Sometimes they terrorize through disagreement. Other times, they terrorize through telling the TRUTH about people! But always and forever, the constant theme is terror. They are the political dialogue equivalent of al Qaeda!"

When asked to substantiate his statements with even one modicum of fact, LGA stood back in horror and said "I never indulge TERRORISTS with discussion!"



Do y'all see how ridiculous y'all are yet? Because y'all really are. Especially the hetero Freepers.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 04.04.05 - 12:57 pm | #

Last post is mine, BTW.
Libertarian Gay American | Email | Homepage | 04.04.05 - 12:58 pm | #

You people are sick. Comparing someone who outs Republicans with terrorists. And I don't like Byrd, so you can't use that against me.
liberalminded | Email | Homepage | 05.25.05 - 2:50 pm | #

53e1a9 b2912fb9cd
Ellie | Email | Homepage | 12.15.06 - 5:05 pm | #