June 19, 2009

Appeasing the gay folks.

They're not happy with the current level of hopey-change.

Let's show them they count. Let's count them.

143 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...

I'm glad Instapundit linked to Dan Savage. I've been listening to his podcasts for a long time. He was a big Obama supporter and I had a hard time listening to him during the campaign, but he was also one of the first people in the gay community to express dissatisfaction with Obama's policies.

Maybe people think Obama is only going to annoy gays with his "go slow" approach, but there are people like Dan Savage who have influence with a big chunk of Obama's base who will be causing him trouble.

Good for them.

knox said...

I like the Nick Gillespie quote: "I can appreciate the anger and disappointment among gay and lesbian supporters of Obama, but in their frustration may well be the seed of a deeper understanding that politics and politicians are disappointing at best and malevolent at worst. Which is precisely the reason to squeeze their power and influence over citizens and human activity to the bare minimum, whether we’re talking about the bedroom or the boardroom."

Fred4Pres said...

Now they know how Jeremiah Wright feels. They have something in common, both are under the Team Obama bus.

Jason (the commenter) said...

"...but in their frustration may well be the seed of a deeper understanding that politics and politicians are disappointing at best and malevolent at worst..."

The thing is, gays aren't going to sit around and whine about the government not being able to do anything. They're going to attack the beast head on.

Conservatives could learn a thing or two from us.

Jim said...

This is precisely the sort of thing that the gay community needs to do in order to get what it wants: make it more painful for Obama to ignore them than it does to appease the anti-gay elements of the Democratic Party. Hitting them below the money belt as it were is a powerful start as is the sort of "civil disobedience" being advocated.

Either make Obama (and the Democratic Party in general) live up to what he (and they) promised or be exposed for having hypocritically taken the money and votes of the gay community for decades with no intention of doing anything other than pay lip service to the cause and throw them an occasional leftover.

MadisonMan said...

I also like Dan Savage. He is sometimes outlandish, clever with a phrase, and no-nonsense. Three excellent attributes in a writer.

Roger J. said...

Think like a chicago alderman: you can support the Gay community but in so doing risk the support of larger voting blocs; There arent enough Gay voters, assuming they voted en bloc to make a significant difference. Cynical? of course, but why would we think Obama would do the right thing?

Jim said...

Jason -

"Conservatives could learn a thing or two from us."

You're not wrong there. A big portion of the anger and frustration is being directed at elected Republicans by conservatives for having abandoned (or never really having had) the principles that got them elected.

That's why, whenever I see garbage criticizing TEA party particpants as being ginned up by FoxNews or the large, I laugh. Only those comletely ignorant about the TEA parties assume that they are in support of any political party.

They're a grassroots message to ALL political parties that small government, low tax conservatives are tired of having lip service paid to their wishes.

The last paragraph of a length letter of a woman to Glenn Beck probably best expresses the sentiments:

Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

P.S. It's also the reason why the Leftists here shouldn't take heart in polls which show low confidence in the Republican Party: Much of the dissatisfaction with politicians of all stripes is coming from conservatives. Interpreting it as support for Leftist policies will be your undoing by causing you to overreach as Clinton did in 93-94 and Obama is doing now.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Roger J. : There arent enough Gay voters, assuming they voted en bloc to make a significant difference.

But voter participation is also important. If gays are vocally angry at a politician do you think liberals or youth voters are going to turn out in droves for them? And even if you are an anti-gay social conservative, the gays are saying promises were broken. Why vote for a liar?

scinfinity said...

As I said elsewhere, when a party knows you'll vote for them overwhelmingly every single time, then your voice becomes silenced. The party you support takes you for granted and the other party sees no benefit in working for you.

If gays voted, overwhelmingly, Republican just ONCE --- they'd get what they wanted without a problem. Ditto anybody other group.

Voting for both sides makes you valuable to them. NOBODY respects a sycophant.

downtownlad said...

The only reason Instapundit even cares about this story is because he thinks it is harmful to Obama and the Democrats.

Reynolds doesn't give a flying fuck about gay rights and never has. In the entire course of his column, going back years, you will not find one word of support for gay people, unless it happens to be undercutting Democrats at the same time.

Yes, most gays want Obama to do more, and they are rightfully taking this action. But if you really want to cover this story, then please link to someone besides Reynolds. Reynolds is using only using gay people in this scenario, because he thinks it helps his agenda. And part of Reynold's agenda is making sure that gay people never have equal rights.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But voter participation is also important. If gays are vocally angry at a politician do you think liberals or youth voters are going to turn out in droves for them?


Well they did for Obama didn't they? I mean why the gay outrage? He said from jump street he was for traditional marriage only and I don't recall him talking about rolling back DADT so why the unhappiness?

Maybe it's because the gay community was projecting perhaps? He's a Democrat, very liberal so he has to be on our side.
In any event I'd be pissed off at him if I were gay. He's bent over backwards to extend Constitutional rights to Islamofascist terrorists but he won't even extend health benefits to gay American fed workers.

At some point the rock star shine is going to have to come off this guy and even liberals will have to admit they were hornswaggled into voting for this fraud.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obama and Democrats only use gay people in this scenario, because they thinks it helps their agenda. And part of Obama and the Democrat's agenda is making sure that gay people just vote for them at the polls but never have equal rights.

Fixed that for you DTL. Carry on.

downtownlad said...

Hoosier Daddy. Just shut up. Because you're spouting nonsense.

Obama did promise to repeal DADT.

Obama did promise to repeal DOMA.

Obama did promise to pass an employee non-discrimination act that included sexual orientation.

Obama did promise to get a hate crimes law passed.

This is not about gay marriage. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, please shut the hell up.

L. E. Lee said...

I think Obama is were Kennedy was in 1961 concerning civil rights. In 1961 Kennedy was favorably viewed as being vaguely pro civil rights. But there was frustration with him being unwilling to get out front on the issue. It was not until 1963 that Kennedy came out forcefully for civil rights when James Meredith tried to enter the University of Mississippi. The March on Washington happened that same year.

downtownlad said...

Really Hoosier Daddy? Democrats were pretty fucking influential in getting gays full equality in Vermont and New Hampshire. If you look at the votes against the anti-gay constitutional amendments that have passed in over half of the states, it was predominantly Democrats that tried to prevent those from getting on the ballot. Gays are protected from discrimination in housing and jobs in about half the states as well - again because of Democratic support.

The votes are there to repeal DADT and pass EDNA. Except I'm sure we'll see a Republican filibuster.

There are plenty of reasons for gay people to vote for Democrats.

And I think gays should use this tactic and strong-arm the Democrats and threaten to withthold their votes. And if I had a prediction, I would bet that these gay-rights laws will pass, via Democratic votes, as long as gays continue to keep up the pressure here.

And then we'll hear the likes of Hoosier Daddy and Instapundit talking about how Obama "caved" to the gays.

knox said...

The thing is, gays aren't going to sit around and whine about the government not being able to do anything. They're going to attack the beast head on.

Let's hope so!

downtownlad said...

Here's a good example of a roll call vote on a gay-rights issue. In this case, gay marriage in New Hampshire. Scroll to the bottom.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleID=d8c6860d-6235-470d-a1ac-081e01387c07

Hmmm - Now why would gays think that Democrats are more likely to be pro-gay rights than Republicans????

Of course it is not always an exact science - but it's a pretty strong correlation (about 95% in this case).

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
scinfinity said...

Reynolds doesn't give a flying fuck about gay rights and never has. In the entire course of his column, going back years, you will not find one word of support for gay people, unless it happens to be undercutting Democrats at the same time.

...except for his repeated statements of support for gay marriage.

And part of Reynold's agenda is making sure that gay people never have equal rights.

You were proven to be a liar when you said this earlier.

Hoosier Daddy. Just shut up. Because you're spouting nonsense.

Obama did promise to repeal DADT.

Obama did promise to repeal DOMA.

Obama did promise to pass an employee non-discrimination act that included sexual orientation.

Obama did promise to get a hate crimes law passed.

So, how's all that working out for you thus far?

But, yeah, people pointing out that you voted for somebody quite opposed to your desires are the bad guys...not the idiots who voted for the guy in the first place.

Funny, considering that there is literally no reason for him to not try and do it...outside of his knowledge that the gay community will vote for him whether he does anything or not.

The votes are there to repeal DADT and pass EDNA. Except I'm sure we'll see a Republican filibuster.

Except not enough Republicans are in the Senate to actually pull it off. And I notice that the Dems aren't making them filibuster...just as they never made Bush do the vetoes they "knew" he'd do if certain bills were passed.

There are plenty of reasons for gay people to vote for Democrats.

Yes. Because Dems passed DOMA and compare your marriage to incest.

I guess what you're saying is that gay marriage really IS comparable to incest. Thanks for the info.

And I think gays should use this tactic and strong-arm the Democrats and threaten to withthold their votes.

BWA HA HA HA!

Yeah, there's a sliver of an ice cube's chance in downtown Hell of that happening.

And if I had a prediction, I would bet that these gay-rights laws will pass, via Democratic votes, as long as gays continue to keep up the pressure here.

You have filibuster proof majorities in the Senate, massive majorities in the House, and the WH and there couldn't be less movement in your favor here.

But, again, we'll wait for the GOP to win the Congress before Obama does anything --- because he doesn't want to do a damned thing for you because he doesn't have to. He wants it to fail so the Dems can blame the "evil conservatives" and ignore that they don't do anything when they have the ready opportunity to do so.

And then we'll hear the likes of Hoosier Daddy and Instapundit talking about how Obama "caved" to the gays.

Feel free to point a single anti-gay thing Insty ever wrote.

Or admit you're using drama queenery because you know he's right and it bugs you.

Randy said...

I'm with Knox.

(Hi, Knox! Agreed w/your comments over @ Bakes, too. Always nice to see you ;-)

Roger J. said...

Jason: I do agree that voter partcipation is an important calculus. I should have included that in the "chicago alderman" model.

The overly cynical part of me says that whenever we vote for a politician of whatever stripe we are voting for a liar. :)

Now I do take your point that now we have a track record from President Obama, his broken promises may in fact come back to bite him among larger groups than just Gay Americans. (but I am not optimistic because it means the GOP has to find a credible opponent).

Hoosier Daddy said...

This is not about gay marriage. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, please shut the hell up.


Oh I'm sorry. I know that was a big issue for you but now anything to defend your savior even though he compared same sex marriage to incest?

You're worse than an abused wife who keeps 'lovin her man'.

former law student said...

Now that the economy's back to normal, unemployment around 5%, the handoff to Iraq's military complete, TARP funds refunded, and universal health care in place, Obama has time to work on gay rights.

downtownlad said...

So scinfinity can't refute any of my statements so he resorts to bigoted gay-bashing.

Typical.

If Reynolds has ever written ANYTHING in support of gay people - please find one freaking sentence.

And no - Reynolds saying "I favor gay marriage" doesn't count, because we no fucking reason to believe him. And yes - I am calling Reynolds a liar. Just like his phony wife. He's never once taken Republicans to task for all of the anti-gay laws they passed over the years. In fact he's been silent when every single "marriage" law has been passed. And when gays protest against things like the repeal of Proposition 8, Reynolds calls gay people "thugs"

There's a very simple reason Democrats are not passing these laws. Because they are afraid that Republicans will try and generate outrage amongst the Evangelicals and use that outrage to thwart Obama's agenda. And it's partially true - Republicans will use any gay-rights laws to try and demonize Democrats and denigrate gays. And of course Reynolds and scinfinity will cheer the Republicans on when that happens. But Democrats need to know that they will face outrage from the gays if they continue to move slowly on gay rights.

As for Instapundit's anti-gay statements - how about the 10,000 times he called Andrew Sullivan "hysterical". Similar to you calling me a "drama-queen" - another anti-gay slur from an anti-gay bigot.

100 bucks you're a closet case.

TMink said...

Glenn Reynolds wrote: "You know, one of the things I thought I’d like about Obama was his gay-rights position. But now I’m wondering if a Cheney administration wouldn’t be more liberal on this subject."

DTL, I made you look like a moron again! It took 5 seconds of searching Instapundit. Give me something to challenge me dude.

Oh, and once again, do not "insult" me by calling me "Twink." As I have said many times, since I am not homophobic, you cannot insult me by calling me gay, and I am much more attractive to the bear crowd than the twinks.

And what kind of homosexual insults straight people with gay insults? A self hating one like you I guess.

Have a nice day.

Trey

downtownlad said...

Hoosier Daddy. Again - shut up. You know NOTHING on this subject.

First - I'm not defending Obama. I've given up on him unless he reverses himself.

As for your incest claims (which I mistakenly believed too until yesterday) - you are wrong.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/19/gay_rights/

TMink said...

DTL, you are really a piece of work. Again, you insult someone by calling them gay. Dude, that is so self defeating. I think you are having MAJOR heterosexual panic.

Trey

dbp said...

Isn't Dan Savage the guy who infiltrated the Gary Bauer campain and tried to give them all the flu?

downtownlad said...

Twink,

I said:

In the entire course of his column, going back years, you will not find one word of support for gay people, unless it happens to be undercutting Democrats at the same time.

You the quote Reynolds who says You know, one of the things I thought I’d like about Obama was his gay-rights position. But now I’m wondering if a Cheney administration wouldn’t be more liberal on this subject.

You just proved my point. Please try again.

dbp said...

TMink,

My theory of DTL is that he is actually a homophobe who tries to make gays look bad via his histrionics.

Pretty clever (his plan, if true) actually.

downtownlad said...

Histrionics?

Yup - yet another anti-gay bigoted statement from dbp.

Funny, how none of you guys can actually refute my arguments - so you have to resort to gay bashing instead.

Amusing.

former law student said...

Yes. Because Dems passed DOMA and compare your marriage to incest.

I guess what you're saying is that gay marriage really IS comparable to incest. Thanks for the info.

Only in the limited sense used in the DOJ's brief:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.

That is the way one constructs a legal argument, by finding law that supports your proposition. You have to take such cases as exist. Other marriages that might conflict with public policy are polygamous marriages, forced marriages, and child marriages. These may all be perfectly valid where they were contracted. But they all fall under the general rubric of "marriages contracted elsewhere that conflict with the public policy of the forum."

L. E. Lee said...

Downtownlad wrote
"There's a very simple reason Democrats are not passing these laws. Because they are afraid that Republicans will try and generate outrage amongst the Evangelicals and use that outrage to thwart Obama's agenda."

I think Dick Cheney and Ted Olson has made this more difficult. Also, I get the sense that most professional Republicans have come to believe that this is a bad issue for them. If they try to "generate outrage" among evangelicals they risk turning off a whole generation of young voters.

Finally, where things are different today compared to where Kennedy was in 1961 in relation to civil rights is that same sex marriage and the rest of the freedom agenda for gays and lesbians now seems like a matter of time. There is every reason to believe that this issue will be solved in the next ten years. That is unlike 1961 when the civil rights agenda had stalled.

P.S. Downtownlad, Ignore any poster who says anything like "gays are like the abused wives of alcoholics..." They are not serious people and not worth of attention.

downtownlad said...

By the way, here is an example of what writing in support of gay rights looks like.

The second sentence goes beyond what is needed to satisfy traditionalists and takes a gratuitous swipe at benefits currently enjoyed by real families here in the state. I find it hard to believe that the decent, often religious citizens who think gay marriage is wrong will feel very good about the threat of depriving real individuals of insurance benefits. [ADDED: I'm referring to health insurance!] We will see these individuals in the TV ads, and the other side will be reduced to arguing that the language of the amendment doesn't really mean that. Trust us, they will say. Trust the courts to interpret the language of the amendment so that it won't mean the bad thing the gay rights groups are saying it will mean. You hypocrites! The argument for the amendment was that we can't trust the courts not to find rights for gay people in the unamended state constitution.

Guess who wrote that? Answer - Not Reynolds!

Jim said...

DTL -

"And part of Reynold's agenda is making sure that gay people never have equal rights."

Once again you're out there tarring people who are your allies with the "bigot" brush. Are you and your friends in the gay community ever going to stop shooting yourselves in the collective feet or do you just like complaining about the way things are without any real desire for what you claim to want?

Let me say this for you one time:

Glenn Reynolds is a long-time advocate of gay marriage.

If you had ever once even bothered to read InstaPundit, you would know that.

(BTW, I'm still waiting for the apology you promised me yesterday.)

You're acting like a spoiled child and being utterly ridiculous. Grow up.

downtownlad said...

L.E. Lee - I am not as optimistic as you. Gays enjoyed a tons of freedom in 1920's Weimer Republic. A decade later they were being rounded up and gassed.

I'm sure that gay people in 1992 thought that it was only a matter of months before gays could serve in the military. Almost TWO DECADES later, and we're still in exactly the same place.

I don't believe that you automatically have progress if you just wait. Sometimes things move backwards.

And all of these people saying "Ha ha ha - Obama has done nothing for gay rights". Guess what? Those people (Including Reynolds) have never done anything either. They have never lifted a finger in support of gay people. They have never talked about how gay people are harmed by these anti-gay laws and how those laws are immoral. They have never called their representatives to ask that they support even the most minor of gay rights initiatives. In fact, I can GUARANTEE you that Glenn Reynolds has never voted for one politician in his entire life who favored gay rights.

downtownlad said...

Jim - What apology? I already explained to you that benefits for unmarried people are taxed differently than married people.

Pogo said...

Well, as long as gays are happy with the current administration's course on gay rights, then there's no problem, is there?

So Dan Savage is -what- insane? Voting for gay rights now only demonizes Democrats, right?

Tell Savage to STFU; he's off base!
Am I right?
Do I get the drift here?

downtownlad said...

And Jim - long-time advocates of gay marriage don't consistently vote for politicians who make gay marriage illegal.

That's like saying that you're for civil rights, but you vote for David Duke for his economic program.

Jim said...

DTL -

You asked if I would support changing that, and that if I did you would apologize.

I responded with a lengthy post about how I supported a complete overhaul of the tax system which completely abolished income taxes which would result in eliminating any disparity.

Your subsequent silence on the subject was notable. But here you are today yet again going after someone who has been a long-time supporter of gay marriage.

That's what I call "aggressive ignorance." You fail to educate yourself on the facts, and you launch attacks on other people based on your ignorance of those facts. It's one thing to be ignorant but silent. It's quite another to defame someone based on your ignorance.

We already have one of those people here. I don't think you really want to act like Jeremy, do you?

I'll give you some time to chew this over because I honestly think that your reaction is more emotional than intellectual and perhaps a little cooling down time would give you an opportunity to figure who your friends really are and how to stop doing everything in your power to alienate them before you post again.

L. E. Lee said...

Downtownlad wrote
" Gays enjoyed a tons of freedom in 1920's Weimer Republic. A decade later they were being rounded up and gassed."

Luckily, this is not the Weimer Republic and our country is not Germany.

You are right that there are people and groups out there who view this as just another political football to be kicked around. Those people always exist. I would not focus on this mostly impotent dwindling crowd and recognize that the United States is doing what it almost always does over time-embraces freedom and equality-and focus on all of the new allies to be had. Dick Cheney and Ted Olson is probably the best news so far this year along with what President Obama did a couple of days ago. Which was more than what George Bush did in eight years.

downtownlad said...

Pogo - Who said gays are happy with Obama? They are pissed off.

All I am saying is that I am not going to let Glenn Reynolds use us to advance his own anti-gay agenda.

Pogo said...

I see, so Reynold's is actually correct, but screw him for pointing it out, man!!

downtownlad said...

Dick Cheney still favors DOMA. I believe he voted for it too (not certain on that though). So he is worse than Obama.

Nobody knows who Ted Olson is. And I don't trust Olson. i think he wants to bring DOMA before the Supreme Court, because he thinks it will lose, and therefore make an anti-gay ruling precedent, and the law of the land.

Jim said...

DTL -

"And Jim - long-time advocates of gay marriage don't consistently vote for politicians who make gay marriage illegal."

Then why did you (and/or any other gay person) vote for Obama and any other Democrat who told you right up front that they opposed gay marriage?

You're making yourself a hypocrite with everything you post. Stop and take a deep breath.

And as far as Reynolds is concerned: He uses his blog to consistently chastise elected Republicans and the Republican party in general for their opposition to gay rights. He tells them how counterproductive it is. But when the alternative is voting for ruinous economic policies, authoritarian politics and irresponsible foreign policy there aren't a lot of alternatives. Especially when people like you are going to call him a bigot even when he's such an advocate for your cause.

You (and the gay community) are the ones who keep choosing your support for other Leftist causes over your own fight for equal rights, but you think you have the right to criticize someone else for looking at the "whole picture" and the lack of a reasonable alternative when they go the ballots?

Sounds like you need some mirror time....

L. E. Lee said...

Downtownlad

"I'm sure that gay people in 1992 thought that it was only a matter of months before gays could serve in the military. Almost TWO DECADES later, and we're still in exactly the same place."

But I think you would agree that overall things have vastly improved for gays and lesbians since 1992. We have a few more battles to win but it now feels like cleaning up, not the beginning of the war.

"I don't believe that you automatically have progress if you just wait."

I am glad that those who have been fighting for equal rights for gays and lesbians have not just waited but have been in vigorous pursuit and have been strategic when necessary!

Jim said...

DTL -

"Dick Cheney still favors DOMA. I believe he voted for it too (not certain on that though). So he is worse than Obama."

I see. So it must have been someone other than Obama who went to court to defend DOMA.

L. E. Lee said...

DTL wrote
"Nobody knows who Ted Olson is."

They sure do within the conservative movement!

Jim said...

"Nobody knows who Ted Olson is. And I don't trust Olson. i think he wants to bring DOMA before the Supreme Court, because he thinks it will lose, and therefore make an anti-gay ruling precedent, and the law of the land."

Is there no end to your willingness to attack people who are fighting for your cause while you defend those who, by their actions, prove they aren't?

You've made quite plain that if someone disagrees with you on economic or foreign policy, then they are the enemy no matter how forcefully it gets thrown in your face that they're not. So who's the one putting his party politics over gay rights? Yeah...I'm looking at you.

This is beyond counterproductive and well into self-injurious behavior.

jayne_cobb said...

Jim,

But that was just a subordinate of Obama's, not Obama himself.

The President is in no way responsible for the policies of his administration.

Jason (the commenter) said...

downtownlad : I am not going to let Glenn Reynolds use us to advance his own anti-gay agenda.

I'm gay and I love Glenn Reynolds. I wish more people had his "anti-gay" agenda.

holdfast said...

Shorter DTL: "shut up!"

Wow, most of the gays I know are a lot smarter than DTL, and can at least carry on a civil debate. DTL is just a Sullivanesque (or Sullivan sock puppet?) who cries like a little girl if he doesn't get exactly what he wants.

downtownlad said...

Well Jim - Please find me one quote where Reynolds "chastises" Republicans for being lax on gay rights. I have read his site - and I've never seen one statement.

I have seen Reynolds talk about how Matthew Shephard's murder had nothing to do with him being gay. I've also seen Reynolds state that the number of gay hate crimes is overstated and that at max only 2 people have ever been murdered for being gay. He's also stated that gays don't really face discrimination, etc. Of course he usually does this with a link by saying "Heh", but the underlying site is bigoted. I guess he can theoretically claim that he was just linking, etc. But I don't buy it.

There were at least 29 murders just last year by the way.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfiJDIIYGyqrVkfoQcxVwLcbbvjQD98RU8QO3

As for Obama and gay marriage, I voted for Obama because his record, while not perfect, was 100 times better than McCain's. And Obama opposed Proposition 8, so he was not willing to make gay marriage illegal in places where it is already legal. His position was nuanced. And I recognize the political reality of the gay marriage issue - I don't demand perfection in politicians.

But I was expecting him to act on some issues. Especially the easy ones like DADT and hate crimes. I still am expecting him to act. But my patience has run out. Unless, of course, he acts.

And even so, gays are already better off under Obama than they would have been under McCain. But the progress has been way too SLOW.

Jim said...

Lee -

"They sure do within the conservative movement!"

And it's not like he's unknown to the Leftists who spent a decent portion of the Bush years going after him for his role in Bush v. Gore. He was regularly targeted alongside Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld for character assassination.

So to come out forcefully to fight for gay rights is an act of incredible personal courage given how much he risks offending the only people who stood by him. He's doing what his conscience demands even though people like DTL still try to assassinate his character anyway.

It's despicable.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Now that the economy's back to normal, unemployment around 5%, the handoff to Iraq's military complete, TARP funds refunded, and universal health care in place, Obama has time to work on gay rights.


He had time to close Gitmo and grant Constitutional rights to Islamofascist terrorists though. Did that with one swift stroke of the pen.

Guess the man has to have piorities.

Jim said...

DTL -

"Well Jim - Please find me one quote where Reynolds "chastises" Republicans for being lax on gay rights. I have read his site - and I've never seen one statement."

I'm going to be blunt: You're a liar.

If you've read his blog, then you know what I said is self-evidently true. I'm not going to waste my time hunting down posts that you aren't going to read anyway.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Grow up.

Get a grip on reality because it's quite evidently true that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.

You still haven't apologized to me despite your promise to do so and any apology from you now would be worthless. If you had any integrity and were arguing with any attempt to be reasonable, I wouldn't have had to point out the promise you made. I wouldn't now be several posts beyond my reminder that you owed me an apology.

Quite frankly, you're acting worse than Jeremy. You're pretending to care about fighting for gay rights, but what you're really interested in is attacking people who don't agree with Leftist politics under the guise of claiming that anyone to the right of Che Guevara who supports gay rights is a liar or has some other sort of secret agenda.

At least Jeremy is just a troll - not a hypocritical liar.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually I should not be so hard on Obama. After all he did inherit the homophobic policies of his predecessors. Can't expect the man to overturn decades of gay oppression overnight.

holdfast said...

"I already explained to you that benefits for unmarried people are taxed differently than married people."

Interesting - I don't think gays are going to like the marriage penalty when they finally get marriage. Most of the gay couples I know here in NY are high-earning professional, and they would get absolutely smoked by the marriage penalty. Still, not enough to close the Obama deficits.

Oh, and Glenn Reynolds is broadly supportive of gay rights - but guess what idiot, it is not his only issue. He is also supportive of gun rights, low taxes, small government and has a generally mild-libertarian outlook. He is not going to vote for or endorse idiot Dems because they are "good" on the gay issue but bad (to him) on everything else. This is your monomania, and most other folks don't share it.

downtownlad said...

My IQ is higher than yours holdfast. I can guarantee you that.

Jim - Do you even know what my economic and foreign policy views are? I doubt it. I'd gladly favor eliminating Social Security, Medicare, etc. and replacing it with tax cuts. I never give to beggars in the street because I think they are lazy and certainly don't want my tax money to go and support them. I'd gladly prefer that an old person starve to death than get a dime of my taxes. Because its my dime, not theirs. However, I think we should implement these policies when we're at full employment, NOT when we are entering another Depression.

As for foreign policy, I think we should have a foreign policy that acts in American interests. Iraq doesn't fit that bill. Afghanistan does. And America does not equal Israel. I'm Jewish by the way too. I think Israel should defend itself (which they are perfectly capable of doing by the way).

So I have a lot of trouble finding politicians that hold my views, so the idea that I am going to ignore gay rights in order to get my economic and foreign policy agenda passed is quite laughable.

holdfast said...

...and you have the emotional maturity of my 3 year old niece.

MadisonMan said...

Isn't Dan Savage the guy who infiltrated the Gary Bauer campain and tried to give them all the flu?

Why post the question is you know the answer?

I did enjoy the campain typo, however. (laugh) A great word for Bauer's efforts.

downtownlad said...

So Jim couldn't find one Reynolds quote.

I win.

Jim fails.

Just like he can't admit that he was WRONG when he said that his policies treat gays and married couples equally.

They don't - and I passed him articles in the New York Times to prove it.

You owe me an apology buster.

Reynolds is very anti-gay. And he and his wife are supporters of reparative therapy. Proof enough that they hate gay people.

Jim said...

DTL -

Go ahead and tell me what horrible people Republicans are for not supporting gay rights, and I'll just point you to every single post you've made on this topic as the reason why.

You want to know why more people aren't lining up to support gay rights? Because far too many gays are just like you, and until that changes you're not going to get the changes you want.

I stick my neck out, you chop it off. Dick Cheney sticks his neck out, you chop it off. Ted Olsen sticks his neck out, you chop it off. Glenn Reynolds sticks his neck out, you chop it off. Obama gives you the back of his hand, you kiss his ring.

I call you a liar. You don't want gay rights: you want Leftist politics. You've never said a single thing that leads to any other conclusion.

Being gay isn't proof of fighting for gay rights. Fighting for gay rights is proof of fighting for gay rights, and everything you say is fighting against gay rights.

You have a choice: continue claiming to fight for gay rights or actually fight for them. What will it be?

Pogo said...

"Reynolds is very anti-gay."

DTL is very anti-gay.

Jim said...

"So Jim couldn't find one Reynolds quote. "

That's a lie. I told you where to look. You don't want to do the work. Your laziness doesn't mean anything other than that you're lazy.

"Just like he can't admit that he was WRONG when he said that his policies treat gays and married couples equally."

Tell me how eliminating income taxes doesn't eliminate every tax inequity you're talking about. It does. Again, your inability to think beyond talking points and Leftist politics only means you're ignorant and lazy - not that you're right.

"You owe me an apology buster."

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

downtownlad said...

"It's different for gays. Yes, it is. Gays are not asking for the same rights as everyone else, no matter how much they jump up and down and threaten to hold their breath till they turn blue. It is not mere semantics to say "we want the same right to marry whom we love as straights have"; it is a fundamentally different, new, radical, revolutionary right that they want -- the right to change the word very concept of marriage to include "marrying whomever they love," whereas until just right now it has meant, semantically and legally, the right to join in matrimony with a person of the opposite sex." - Glenn Reynolds

Sorry - but those are the words of a bigot.

And you keep calling me a leftist Jim. I've been voting since the 1980's, and I've voted Democrat for President once in my life. I voted for Libertarian and Republican candidates on all of the others.

Go find one post of mine where I call for Universal Health Care. You won't find it. Because I don't give a shit about other people's health. I care about one person. Me.

downtownlad said...

Oh - was that your solution? Eliminating income taxes?

That's nice. Didn't realize you had the power to do that. Can you please cut mine? And I definitely shouldn't be paying income taxes, because I don't even live in the US, and thus I'm receiving no benefits from the US government. So it pains me to have to fork over 40% of my income to a country that I don't even live in. Heck - even if I renounce my citizenship (which I've considered) I STILL have to pay income taxes for 10 years.

But guess what. Income taxes still exist. And your gay employees are going to be treated differently than married couples. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Doesn't that seem patently unfair? Now if you have a problem with that, it's probably a hell of a lot easier to repeal DOMA than it is to repeal the income tax. So call your Congressman to complain about the inequity and give him the reason why.

holdfast said...

"I care about one person. Me."

Then I don't know why you care about gay marriage, since you are clearly not fit for any sort of marriage, gay or otherwise.

Jim said...

DTL -

What Reynolds is saying is a fact.

The word "marriage" means exactly what Reynolds says it means. What gays are asking for is a radical redefinition of the word - both in common usage and legally.

That doesn't mean that it isn't an idea worthy of consideration. That doesn't mean that he doesn't support it. That doesn't mean it doesn't represent a radical social change from thousands of years of social norms.

Just because you call someone a bigot doesn't make them one. It just means that you don't understand what the word means.

downtownlad said...

And Jim - I didn't claim that Reynolds is fighting against gay rights. On paper, his policies are 100% pro-gay. I just think that he himself, as a person, is anti-gay. I don't think he likes gay people. The same with Eugene Volokh, who also supports policies that are 100% pro-gay. Volokh doesn't like gay people either.

Kind of like how Ann knows that Sullivan has a problem with women.

You just know these things in your gut.

Pogo said...

"On paper, his policies are 100% pro-gay. I just think that he himself, as a person, is anti-gay."

In contrast, Obama's policies are 100% anti-gay. DTL just thinks that Obama himself, as a person, is pro-gay.

Get it, Jim?
Nuance.
You just know it in your gut.

downtownlad said...

It reeks of condescension Jim. All of Reynolds statements about gay people, even when he supports gay marriage, have a condescending tone about them.

For example, if I wrote something like "Well, of course we know that women have a smaller brain size than men, but in the issue of fairness and equality, I favor their right to vote", I can claim that I am pro-women's rights. Technically true, but women could also claim that I am taking bigoted views towards women.

That i how I constantly read Reynolds.

There's about one conservative I believe when they speak about gay rights. Dick Cheney. I think he genuinely cares. Wonder why that is . . .

Jim said...

DTL -

"...it's probably a hell of a lot easier to repeal DOMA than it is to repeal the income tax. "

1) So you want to take the easy way out. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? You only support gay rights if it's easy. If it's difficult, then we shouldn't consider it at all.

2) Repealing DOMA for the majority of the country (including the Democrats who voted for it and Bill Clinton who signed it into law) represents a much more fundamental social change than changing the tax code.

3) Every bit of your post argues for the inherent unfairness of the tax code, and yet you support keeping it - even with its unfairness to gays. Yet I'm the bigot for saying that we should scrap the whole thing and institute a system which is fair for everyone including expatriate gays like yourself? WOW! There must be some serious mental gymnastics going on inside your head in order to reach a position like that.

4) Changing the tax code as I recommend would eliminate inheritance rights for gays, benefits taxation, and every other taxation issue that gays have. In short, my solution solves your problem. It also solves your expatriate problem. So when you figure out which side your bread is really buttered on, get back to me.

downtownlad said...

I think that's right Pogo. I think Rahm Emanuel has convinced Obama to take this path.

And Rahm Emanuel is definitely an anti-gay bigot of the worst kind.

But I ultimately hold Obama responsible. He is the President after all. I am NOT giving Obama a pass.

Bush probably had no issues with gays either. But he used hatred of them for political gain. And I held Bush responsible for that too.

downtownlad said...

Who said I favored the income tax? What part of "I don't care if Grandma starves - I'd rather use my hard earned money to go to Bali" do you not understand?

As for eliminating the tax code, you don't care that it happens to help gay people, but you'll gladly used that argument to help advance your agenda.

Reynolds did the same when gays were hung in Iran. He tried to use that to drum up hatred for Iran, so that we could go to war with them. But when gays are killed in Iraq - he was silent, because it didn't advance his agenda.

Stuff like that bothers me. If you have a cause - then justify it on the merits.

This is about gay rights and equality. It's not about war with Iran. It's not about the income tax. It's about gay rights.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DTL wrote
"Nobody knows who Ted Olson is."

They sure do within the conservative movement!

I consider myself conservative. I have no clue who Ted Olson is.

As to Obama screwing over the Gays. The irony is delicious. You guys voted for him and now you reap what you have sown.

Jim said...

Pogo -

"You just know it in your gut."

Too bad their gut is lying to them. Maybe if they thought with their heads first, and their "guts" second they'd be much closer to the goal they claim to want so much.

I go back to my wife's work. If a client says they want something but every action they engage in is in direct opposition to it, then the underlying reason is that there is something in their psyche is saying that they don't really want it. They're getting something from continuing to do what they do. Maybe they enjoy the feeling that the drugs they're addicted to gives them but know they shouldn't so they claim to want to quit doing drugs. Maybe they really want the freedom to have sex with whoever they want but really like having someone cook them dinner, so they claim to want counseling but continue to have affairs anyway.

I'm beginning to feel that this is the situation that many gays find themselves in. They like being victims and the sympathy that they get from being a special victim class. After all, if they actually get gay marriage, then what makes them any different or more special than the heterosexual couple they live next door to in Suburbia? So they self-sabotage actually getting gay marriage by supporting Leftists who are against it and attack anyone else who are for it.

As with therapy, you can't depend on the client's words. You have to look at their actions, and point out where the discrepancies exist. Only then can you get down to working on why those discrepancies exist and figuring out what the client really wants.

For people like Jason whose actions and words are in accord, so there is every reason to believe him at his word: that he truly wants equal rights. For people like DTL whose words and actions are in such direct opposition, there's no reason to believe his words because his actions say he's lying.

downtownlad said...

DBQ proves my point.

She doesn't care about gay rights. She cares about using this item to show how awful Obama is.

It's not about Obama's approval ratings. It is about gay rights.

If Republicans are so concerned about this, then why don't they call their Congressman and tell them to support gay rights.

Why doesn't Instapundit provide the telephone numbers of all Congressman who are holding up the repeal of DADT and DOMA if he really cares so much about these issues?

Pogo said...

" I have no clue who Ted Olson is."

Dad to the Olson twins?

Newscaster for WJM?

downtownlad said...

Have you ever actually met a gay person Jim and spoken to them about this? Do you have any gay friends at all?

Doubtful.

Reynold's writings are full of anti-gay condescension and I've provided proof. Still waiting for your proof, which you've insisted is so easy to find. . . .

Jason (the commenter) said...

downtownlad, I have the perfect Reynolds quote for you: ...some people are more interested in the pleasures of calling other people bigots than in actually advancing the cause of gay marriage.

Also:

Unlike Maggie Gallagher, I favor gay marriage.

And Reynolds pointed out the de-ranking of gay themed books by Amazon, and he's linked to Gay Patriot many times.

This all since mid-March!

Jim said...

DTL -

"As for eliminating the tax code, you don't care that it happens to help gay people, but you'll gladly used that argument to help advance your agenda."

You wouldn't even know what my position was on the tax code if you hadn't claimed that I was a bigot for supporting the taxation of gays' benefits. So I explained that I didn't by pointing that I supported a tax system that didn't discriminate against anyone.

Your response? To claim that I was trying to use gay rights to advance my tax agenda. WTF?

You were the one who brought up taxes. Not me. So I proved that you were wrong about me being a bigot by explaining that I didn't support discrimination against anyone.

I'd say that this was backwards logic except that it's not logic at all. It's dishonest political hackery, and excuse after excuse to avoid having to apologize for defaming me.

You owed me an apology for claiming that I supported something that I don't support. You tried to lie about my beliefs, and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

You're a coward.

L. E. Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Whenever I hear the bit about knowing things in one's gut, Ebeneezer Scrooge comes to mind: "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

L. E. Lee said...

Dust Bunny,

I have no idea who Glen Reynolds is and why everybody cares so much about what he thinks. So I guess we are even. :)

The facts are President Obama did more a couple of days ago to advance equality than what George Bush managed to do during his entire eight years. Obama still has not done enough but there is ample reason to believe that he, like President Kennedy in 1961, will make equality a focus during his first term. With Bush it was not even a possibility. BUT, I highly encourage the Republicans to out flank Obama and put up a pro civil rights presidential candidate in 2012 and take pro freedom votes away from the Democrats!

downtownlad said...

Jim - Read carefully. Here was my argument.

YOU claimed that your health benefit policies don't discriminate against gay couples. I claimed that they did.

I PROVED that that they did, because the tax code is inherently unequal. I never said you favored those tax policies. I just showed that they were treated unequally.

So I said that your health care policies were bigoted. Which - by the way - they are. Not through your fault, but because of the fault of the tax code.

Jason - You've proven my point. The only gay blogger that Reynolds ever links to is Gaypatriot - the supposedly gay blogger that has opposed every single gay rights initiative in every single state ever. The Uncle Tom of the gay community if there ever was one.

And the other quote you provided - again Reynolds is showing condescension towards EVERYONE in the gay community who has ever pointed out a bigoted statement. In Reynolds' book, there is no such thing as a anti-gay bigoted action. NONE. Matthew Shephard - Not bigotry. Proposition 8 Repeal - Not bigotry. DADT - Not bigotry. Hate crime laws for gay people - Reynolds doesn't think they are needed, because he thinks that gays have never had hate crimes against them.

Reynolds only has use for gay people if they happen to advance his Republican agenda (thus his reason for linking to Gay Patriot every day).

You know what i think Jason. I think people use you all the time and you have no freaking clue.

Jim said...

DTL -

"Have you ever actually met a gay person Jim and spoken to them about this? Do you have any gay friends at all?

Doubtful."

Are you sure that you and Jeremy aren't the same person?

This kind of ad hominem BS is self-justifying. I've spoken previously about discussions my wife and I have had with her gay classmates, how did you miss that?

I'm not going to get into enumerating the gay people in my life. Quite frankly, it's none of your business and it's irrelevant.
Either my beliefs are valid and can stand on their own without some sort of "my gay friends approve" stamp of approval or they don't. That you would even ask such a question implies that you subject your own beliefs to some sort of poll approval process. I have more integrity than that, sorry.

Randy said...

I consider myself conservative. I have no clue who Ted Olson is.

Didn't watch much television on September 11, 2001,or read much of the subsequent coverage? Perhaps you were on an extended vacation during the Bush v. Gore legal machinations as well.

downtownlad said...

I was right. You have no gay friends. Not a surprise.

That's ok, even if you said you had gay friends, I would have known it was the Sarah Palin kind of gay friends - i.e. "I watched the Ellen show once"

It's ok that you don't have gay friends, but I think that's why your attitude towards gay people is so condescending. The same with Reynolds. He has no gay friends either. Both of you have no use for gay people unless we advance your agenda. Jason advanced your agenda so you tolerate him. Andrew Sullivan advanced your agenda until 2003, so you supported him then. But as soon as he criticized Bush, you had no need for him.

Some Republicans come across as sincere when talking about gay people, e.g. Dick Cheney. Schwarzenegger as well.

Jim said...

DTL -

My solution is only discriminatory if you completely divorce from the concurrent change in the tax code. As I belief that both changes are necessary, that makes my proposed non-discriminatory.

Your solution on the other hand addresses benefits dicrimination but does absolutely nothing about inheritance rights and gift-giving. Yours is the more narrowly tailored solution, while mine covers all the issues in one fell swoop.

By your own logic: You are the anti-gay bigot. You want to address benefits discrimination but not inheritence rights.

What? Two changes are required? That's a separate issue? Still bigotry according to your tortured formulation.

Your own circular logic has defined you as a de factp anti-gay bigot. Two can play this game.

You take half my argument and intentionally ignore the other to paint me as a bigot because you're too much of a coward that admit that you were wrong in the first place.

I can do the same to you. Except, in your case, you're a self-hating anti-gay bigot. Which is worse?

Or are you ready to admit that you've been wrong all along yet?

Jim said...

DTL -

"I was right. You have no gay friends. Not a surprise."

Because I refused to name them for some Jeremy-wanna-be on the internet?

OMG...Are you really this stupid?

downtownlad said...

Jim - You make no sense at all.

If gays can get married, and DOMA was repealed, then gay couples would be treated identical to straight couples. Gay singles would be treated identical to straight singles.

Granted, couples and singles might be treated differently, but singles could always choose to get married and couples could choose to become single.

Jim said...

DTL -

"Andrew Sullivan advanced your agenda until 2003, so you supported him then. But as soon as he criticized Bush, you had no need for him."

I've always thought Andrew Sullivan was a crass opportunist and nothing more. But then again, I knew that he was busy writing anti-gay marriage columns for The Advocate throughout the 90s.


He was against it when it was politically expedient, and now he's for it now that he's trying to curry favor with people like you. He's not pro-gay rights: he's pro-Andrew Sullivan. Always has been. Always will be.

Believe him if you want, but if the political winds change he'll change course again. Then what will you say about him?

downtownlad said...

You have no gay friends Jim. It's ok. Now I understand where your condescension towards gay people is coming from. You're probably just not confident in your own masculinity, so you take it out on gay people.

I can totally understand why Glenn Reynolds is not confident is his own masculinity, for example . . .

Methadras said...

"Jason (the commenter) said...

The thing is, gays aren't going to sit around and whine about the government not being able to do anything. They're going to attack the beast head on.

Conservatives could learn a thing or two from us."

That's probably true, but conservatives are to busy trying to make a living, keep their hard earned money from leaving their pockets, putting a roof over their heads, and food on the table. However, conservatives by-in-large don't sit around and whine either, they go out and get the job done. Protesting just isn't on their list of priorities when you are trying to fight off the ever encroaching largess of government and it's cronies.

Jim said...

DTL -

"If gays can get married, and DOMA was repealed, then gay couples would be treated identical to straight couples. Gay singles would be treated identical to straight singles. "

Repealing DOMA doesn't automatically grant gay marriage, just as DOMA didn't prevent states from granting gay marriage in the first place.

Pretty much the only practical effect of repealing DOMA would be that it would no longer be illegal for gays to get federal benefits for their families.

Would it have symbolic value? Yes, and for that reason alone there is reason to talk about repealing it. And it might have the effect of jump-starting the granting of gay equality in other areas of the federal government and at the state level. But it doesn't do what you claim it will do in any way.

Do you even KNOW what you're arguing about or are just making it up as you go?

Methadras said...

" downtownlad said...

Hoosier Daddy. Just shut up. Because you're spouting nonsense.

Obama did promise to repeal DADT.

Obama did promise to repeal DOMA.

Obama did promise to pass an employee non-discrimination act that included sexual orientation.

Obama did promise to get a hate crimes law passed.

This is not about gay marriage. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, please shut the hell up."

Once a tool, always a tool. Dude, your a big fat tool.

Jim said...

DTL -

"You're probably just not confident in your own masculinity, so you take it out on gay people."

LOL

You're proven wrong over and over again, so all you're left with is some pathetic attempt to insult my masculinity?

If you think the opinion of a self-hating gay bigot means anything to me, then you've really got some ego issues to deal with.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

What part of "If gays can get married" in "If gays can get married, and DOMA was repealed" did you not understand?

As for your statements about Sullivan and same-sex marriage - you are just flat out wrong. Sullivan was one of the earliest proponents of same-sex marriage, and the gay left gave him grief about that for years.

downtownlad said...

I'm going to bed now, but I'm going to express one more thought.

Many gays supported Obama. Quite vigorously. But when Obama let gay people down, gay Democrats put their politics aside and held Obama to task. They vocally expressed their frustrations with the Administration for backtracking on his agenda.

There are gays that supported Bush. And when Bush campaigned for some of the most anti-gay legislation, such as marriage amendments that not only banned marriage, but banned any kind of benefits whatsoever, those gay Republicans were not only silent, those gay Republicans supported those actions. Rather than vocally protesting those actions by Bush - those Gay Republicans instead attacked the gay community. Those gay Republicans included Gay Patriot. Gay Patriot has opposed the gay community at every turn, and he has given cover to those politicians who drummed up hatred against gay people. Gay Patriot has never lifted a finger to support gay rights. But the only reason people even know about Gay Patriot is because of people like Reynolds who give them publicity, despite the fact that Gay Patriot has never even had an original thought - and only echoes wingnut talking points.

But one day gays will get their rights, in spite of the actions of gay Republicans to stop them.

Shanna said...

All I am saying is that I am not going to let Glenn Reynolds use us to advance his own anti-gay agenda.

So, DTL, someone claims to support gay marriage (consistently for years, with no personal stake in it that I can see) and you just assume that they are lying, based on nothing? And call them names for daring to support your agenda? That’s a strange way to go about winning people over. I think you need to read some Dale Carnegie.

holdfast said...

Shanna - Glenn is insufficiently fervent, and thus a heretic - can't you see that? I am sure the Iranian Guardian Council understands this logic perfectly.

Kev said...

Rather than vocally protesting those actions by Bush - those Gay Republicans instead attacked the gay community.

Maybe the problem here is with the whole idea of a "gay community" (or, for that matter, with any other sort of "[insert gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.] community").

It might be hard for some people on this thread to believe, but there are lots of folks out there who mostly think and act as individuals and not as members of some group. Yet the people who do think in groups are sure quick to attack anyone who doesn't march in lockstep according to what the group has decided is correct.

My first reaction to this is always, "Baaaaa!" And I suppose that explains why so many of the group-thinkers turn to government for help, rather than working on their self-reliability: They're ultimately looking for a shepherd. Too bad that, a lot of the time, government is just a wolf in shepherd's clothing.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Methadras : However, conservatives by-in-large don't sit around and whine either, they go out and get the job done.

I agree, but a lot of Conservatives seem to waiting for some sort of Messianic Conservative to lead the way.

Many of them just get fed up with politics, or spend their time like downtownlad, yelling at their fellows for not being ideologically pure enough.

Gays make up, at most, 4 percent of the population; look at how far we've come and how good we are at getting our voices heard. Conservatives make up 40 percent of the population and can't even agree on a leader.

Randy said...

I agree, but a lot of Conservatives seem to waiting for some sort of Messianic Conservative to lead the way.

While I agree with everything you wrote after "but" I wonder at the two words before that. Most of the near non-stop pissing, moaning and whining I've read since election day hasn't been coming from liberals. ;-)

Pogo said...

"a lot of Conservatives seem to waiting for some sort of Messianic Conservative to lead the way."

No, no, no.

Conservatives don't want a savior, they want a leader with a spine who favors and promotes and enacts small government.

Beth said...

As to Obama screwing over the Gays. The irony is delicious. You guys voted for him and now you reap what you have sown.

Gosh, DBQ, you sound happy about that! I'm saddened by that little core of unresolved hostility to gay people you harbor inside. I actually believe you'd be just fine with DOMA, DADT, etc. repealed and gay people having equal rights, but there's something there that makes you enjoy the setbacks along the way. What's up with that?

scinfinity said...

If Reynolds has ever written ANYTHING in support of gay people - please find one freaking sentence.

You accused him of bigotry against gay people. You did so, mind you, with zero evidence to back it up. He's actually supportive of gay marriage, but feels going through courts is not a productive way of doing it and that many of its loudest supporters are hurting the movement badly.

And no - Reynolds saying "I favor gay marriage" doesn't count, because we no fucking reason to believe him.

Yes, he's just lying.

I could mention that he is clearly more supportive of it than the man you voted for. He was for legalizing it under Bush and didn't like Constitutional Amendment idea floated.

He's never once taken Republicans to task for all of the anti-gay laws they passed over the years.

You mean like DOMA and DADT? THOSE Republican laws?

*snicker*

I think the problem is that YOU don't gay Democrats to task for THEIR anti-gay laws. I can pretty well guarantee you'd be a lot more irritated if Bush said in court that gay marriage was akin to incest.

There's a very simple reason Democrats are not passing these laws. Because they are afraid that Republicans will try and generate outrage amongst the Evangelicals and use that outrage to thwart Obama's agenda.

Funny...Dems pass DOMA, DADT, and refuse to do anything about it --- and it's all the GOP's fault?

Then, pray tell, why vote for Democrats at all?

As for Instapundit's anti-gay statements - how about the 10,000 times he called Andrew Sullivan "hysterical".

You actually wish to argue that Andy ISN'T hysterical? The guy who was OBSESSED with the belief that Sarah Palin's youngest child wasn't born by Sarah? That sounds rational.

Really.

And all of these people saying "Ha ha ha - Obama has done nothing for gay rights". Guess what? Those people (Including Reynolds) have never done anything either.

So, you're holding bloggers to the same standard you hold the PRESIDENT to? Sounds rational. I assume Reynolds has the power to use the bully pulpit to advocate ending DOMA or DADT and hasn't done so...oh wait, that's the President.

They have never talked about how gay people are harmed by these anti-gay laws and how those laws are immoral. They have never called their representatives to ask that they support even the most minor of gay rights initiatives. In fact, I can GUARANTEE you that Glenn Reynolds has never voted for one politician in his entire life who favored gay rights.

Can you provide Glenn's full voting record? I'm quite interested to see how you know this.

And, gee, with all of the "pro-gay rights" people you've voted for --- I bet your desires are being fulfilled ANY DAY NOW. Heck, just hold you breath...

I have seen Reynolds talk about how Matthew Shephard's murder had nothing to do with him being gay.

His blog started on 8/01. Shephard died on 10/12/98. A few years earlier, if you didn't notice.

I've also seen Reynolds state that the number of gay hate crimes is overstated and that at max only 2 people have ever been murdered for being gay.

That, to be gentle, sounds like bullshit. Feel free to provide a link to Glenn writing or saying that.

If Republicans are so concerned about this, then why don't they call their Congressman and tell them to support gay rights.

As has been asked earlier, why the hell should they?

Idiots like you will call them "bigots" regardless. When people like Cheney or Reynolds speak out in defense of gay marriage, you condemn them as bigots while defending a President who likens it to incest.

Hard to stand up for something when its adherents are insulting you incessantly. Makes it not worth the effort.

I have no problem with gay marriage if it's passed legislatively or via ballot initiative.

But YOU are such an unbelievable douche that I want to oppose it simply because I hate the thought of being on the same side of any issue as you.

Jim said...

Beth -

There's a world of difference between enjoying the irony and enjoying the setbacks themselves.

For example, it's also hugely ironic that so many auto-workers who voted for Obama are going to lose their jobs because, now that the UAW has been handed control over their employers, they have decided that a return to profitability requires shipping the jobs of their members overseas. Remind me again which candidate the state of Michigan went to in November?

Enjoying the irony of that situation doesn't mean there's anyone rubbing their hands in glee at people losing their jobs. What it does mean that the people who were the loudest and most vile in their attacks on people who didn't vote for Obama might have to admit that they were wrong and that those who tried to warn them were right...

Obama's attack dogs like to claim that they're "smarter" and "more sophisticated" than everyone else. Obama's action is proving the truth every day: they're actually more gullible and easily led by bright, shiny promises which even the slightest bit of critical thought would have revealed as utterly empty.

It's not like he hasn't done pretty much everything that Obama's opponents warned he would do the second he was elected - and that includes his failure to act on gay rights. But the people who tried to issue the warnings were called "racists" and "bigots" for their trouble in much the way that I've been called a bigot repeatedly over the last couple days on this very blog for the crime of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

"He's not a tax and spend liberal like McCain says he is..."

- You'll have to pardon the snort-inducing laughter at that one...

"He's going to "fight hard" for gay rights..."

- If he had been, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

....and so on....

So you tell me how people who, over and over again tried to pull the wool OFF the eyes of his supporters are SUPPOSED to feel when it becomes so blatantly obvious that Obama is the liar that we said he was all along?

Beth said...

Jim,

There's a little history with me and DBQ on this question, going back to Prop 8 - but you're addressing fair questions.

My decision right now is that I'm done with voting for and otherwise supporting Democrats until I see more from Obama that I like. I won't go GOP, I'll go third party, or I won't vote. I have no illusions that McCain would be rolling back DOMA or DADT, or even signing the piddly-shit memorandum that Obama signed this week, so there's no zero-sum game in play.

But that's just the one issue - gay rights. Do I expect Obama to fix the economy with no pain, with no loss for even his biggest supporters (the unions, say)? Nope. That doesn't mean he's not screwing up, it just means I'm not going to evaluate everything on a personal, how am I affected, level.

I changed registration from Democrat to Independent a few days after Clinton screwed up DADT, and by the time he'd signed DOMA, I knew I'd done the right thing. I don't always vote Democrat, and I am very careful about to whom I send campaign dollars. Unfortunately, we have the two parties to choose from, and the third-party candidates are too often lunatics. What a clusterfuck.

Beth said...

I won't go GOP, I'll go third party, or I won't vote.

Let me amend: I do vote GOP sometimes in local elections. Not national, at least not yet. A whole lot would have to change, and living in a state where the GOP is still handmaiden to the most out-there of the religious right, that's not likely to happen in say, a Senate or House candidate from Louisiana. No vote for Vitter, not from me.

Randy said...

Unfortunately, we have the two parties to choose from, and the third-party candidates are too often lunatics. What a clusterfuck.

Yep!!! Lacking "None of the above," I've been writing-in various members of my family whenever the choices are genuinely unpalatable.

Jim said...

Beth -

You're sounding like a TEA partier, and I mean that as a compliment not an insult.

If you see the snippet I posted earlier in this thread, you'll notice that your feelings aren't isolated.

We'd all be served by looking less at party labels, asking more questions about the individual candidates, demanding answers and then holding their feet to the fire on the issues that we find most important.

As a country, somewhere along the way we've forgotten to remind our representatives - from the presidency to the city council - that ultimately WE are the bosses, and we tell THEM what's good for the country: not vice versa.

A favorite analogy my wife likes to use is the Owner vs Employee view of life. The employee cruises through the work day trying to do as little as possible in order to collect a paycheck at the end of the week. He takes no responsibility for the success or failure of the company because hey, he just works here. The owner, on the other hand, has to put his nose to the grindstone every day because he's responsible not just to the customer, but to his employees and his family as well. When things go right, he reaps the rewards. But when things go wrong, he's the first one to stop drawing a paycheck.

The question before us is: are we owners or just employees of our lives and of this country.

As for me, I'm an owner. And I'm ready to clear out the deadweight on the payroll.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Pogo : Conservatives don't want a savior, they want a leader with a spine who favors and promotes and enacts small government.

Well, when are you running for office?

Beth said...

Jim, thanks, but I'll continue to avoid the tea parties - just like many such activities on the left, they pick up flotsam along the way that I won't associate with.

I disagree with the owner/employee thing, though I understand its usefulness as a metaphor. Most employees I know are very aware that the company has to stay open, and making money, for them to stay employed. I'm sure there are folks out there who can't make that connection, but all it takes is a few years of the working life to figure it out. No business, no job.

Beth said...

Jim, I meant to say more about appreciating the metaphor for politics - I can see that often, voters find it easier to sit in the "employee" seat and hope things work out.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Gosh, DBQ, you sound happy about that! I'm saddened by that little core of unresolved hostility to gay people you harbor inside

Beth, I have no hostility towards gay people. Some of my clients are gay couples and I have friends who are gay. I have no issues with rational, sensible people of any stripe or persuasion. I do have issues with idiots like DTL who are totally illogical and actually do their own cause harm by acting like such a swaning loon.

I just think it is ironic that the Savior Obama, despite all the hype and fervor and drooling worship, turned out to be just another cheating lying venal politician.

This is what you (the general you as in EVERYONE who voted for this piece of shit) gets when you don't really take the time to actually understand who and what the candidate is.

People took a blank slate, a puff of smoke and projected what they wanted to see. They didn't look below the surface and now are shocked.. shocked ..shocked, when he turns out to be nothing like they imagined.

This goes for Gays and every other special interest group who thought they had elected the One. The man of their dreams and now they are realizing it is a freaking nightmare.

People who voted for him....get what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us have to suffer as well.

Steven said...

In fact, I can GUARANTEE you that Glenn Reynolds has never voted for one politician in his entire life who favored gay rights.

Hmm.

1) There has never been a major-party pro-gay-rights Presidential candidate in the U.S. (Obama is on the record as opposing gay marriage, while John Kerry went so far as to endorse the no-marriage-or-civil-unions Missouri ballot initiative, and so on.)

2) Few if any local politicians are going to run on a pro-gay-rights platform in Tennessee.

3) When we go far enough back to before Reynolds was a U of Tennessee lawprof, we go back to an era where pro-gay-rights politicians were rather rare.

So, hey, DTL might be right. By accident, of course, but even a stopped clock . . .

garage mahal said...

I don't recall Obama promising anything within 4 months of his term, let alone repealing or legalizing anything regarding gay rights. I'm waiting for my pet issues as well. The faux concern from the right is truly precious though. "I don't mind gays, I know one!". As if McPalin would have delivered in 1000 yrs instead of 4 months.

L. E. Lee said...

My better sense says do not respond to Dust Bunny Queen, who is a silly and unserious person, but...

DBQ wrote
"(people who voted for) the Savior Obama (are) shocked.. shocked ..shocked." "(He was the) man of their dreams and now they are realizing it is a freaking nightmare."

Now Dust Bunny Queen, this is just another one of your Rush Limbaugh induced delusions. Most people who voted for President Obama did not do so thinking he was "The Savior." This is just a weird right wing talking point. Also, I don't know of anyone who think that President Obama "is a freaking nightmare" except for a few over emotional right wingers like yourself. Get a grip woman.

knox said...

The faux concern from the right is truly precious though. "I don't mind gays, I know one!".

Well, now here's a bogus "talking point"... only The Enlightened Ones On The Left actually know gay people. "We're the only ones who care!! This is exactly how democrats bamboozle people into voting for them, even though they fail to deliver, again and again.

I agree with Jim and Beth. Time to start looking past D and R. Get rid of all the bastards. Hey, let's none of us vote for the incumbent next time around, no matter what their stripe, k?

Beth said...

DBQ - I hope you know me well enough by now to know I don't just have any gushy love for politicians of any stripe. I didn't vote for Obama out of the need for a savior; I voted for one out of two candidates, based on my beliefs and political alliances. I don't regret that vote, as opposed to voting for McCain. What I regret, and am angry about, is the continued cowardice of politicians who want gay support but without supporting us in return.

Beth said...

Dust Bunny Queen, who is a silly and unserious person

Lee, we're all that at some point everyday. And DBQ is more than that, in my opinion.

L. E. Lee said...

Thanks Beth. I should listen to my better instincts and not waste my time on her goofy rantings.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I regret, and am angry about, is the continued cowardice of politicians who want gay support but without supporting us in return.

You should be angry.

Politicians beg us for money and support and then mostly reward us with at best sub par efforts to accomplish their campaign promises and at worst just kicking their supporters to the curb.

The suggestion to cut off the money supply is a good one. Also threatening to cut off the votes would be effective. I think you would find that most people are sympathetic to the Gay Rights movement and would be supportive of "prudent" moves to get those rights.

What people don't support is radicalism, chaos, rudeness, obscenity and in your face bigotry like the DTL types who call anyone who doesn't walk in lock step with him, homophobes. You don't win supporters by spitting in their faces.

You(Beth)and some of the other Gay commentors strike me as a having commonsense and being reasonable people. If the face of the Gay Rights movement were to be people like this and like my clients and friends that I know, there would be hardly any resistance or worry.

@ Lee. Obama is a freaking nightmare. Economically and politically. I'm not going to go into the details since it would be a waste of time and pixels to try to discuss this with you, but be assured that for generations our country (assuming we even survive as a country) will be paying for this folly. I don't know how old you are, but right now, I'm glad that I will not live long enough to see the worst and sad that my children and grandchildren will never be able to experience a prosperous and free country as I have known it.

garage mahal said...

Well, now here's a bogus "talking point"... only The Enlightened Ones On The Left actually know gay people. "We're the only ones who care!! This is exactly how democrats bamboozle people into voting for them, even though they fail to deliver, again and again..

It's that it's so patently obvious that the right doesn't actually care if what policy is implemented or not, only that some liberal is sufficiently humiliated by their support for a candidate. Build up all the ridiculous strawmen i.e The One, Messiah, Savior, then tear it down. Did you ever wonder why you never hear a conservative that supposedly supports gay rights say they were let down by Obama as well? [on gay rights]

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Did you ever wonder why you never hear a conservative that supposedly supports gay rights say they were let down by Obama as well? [on gay rights]


Perhaps because conservatives who support Gay rights already knew Obama's position on the issue and were not surprised or let down?

And by the way: not "actively" supporting something doesn't mean that you oppose it either.

jayne_cobb said...

"If the face of the Gay Rights movement were to be people like this and like my clients and friends that I know, there would be hardly any resistance or worry."


Sorry to disappoint, but apparently the face of the anti-Prop 8 crowd is now Megan McCain.

You know, I think I'm actually starting to buy into the whole theory that gay marriage supporters are attempting to sabotage themselves.

Joe said...

The facts are President Obama did more a couple of days ago to advance equality than what George Bush managed to do during his entire eight years.

Actually no. Obama announced a policy, but nothing has actually been done. (And knowing the government, the actual implemented policy will a convoluted bureaucratic nightmare.)

You've fallen for one of the most annoying games from politicians of all stripes; assuming that an announcement has anything to do with concrete action.

Joe said...

Wow, Megan McCain and DTL; with friends like that, who needs enemies?

Randy said...

As Glenn Reynolds was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for some time, it is possible that he has voted for more pro-gay rights candidates than many people bringing his name up here.

Mark said...

"Funny, considering that there is literally no reason for him to not try and do it...outside of his knowledge that the gay community will vote for him whether he does anything or not."

Well, other than the pesky detail that the African American community is one of the most profoundly anti-GLBT voting blocks in existence.

Note to those paying attention: Obama overcompensates in the "no, really, I'm Black" arena. Which given his current position is foolish, but there it is.

Beth said...

Lee, my comment was easy to misunderstand, but it's point was that DBQ is more substantial than you describe.

Beth said...

If the face of the Gay Rights movement were to be people like this and like my clients and friends that I know, there would be hardly any resistance or worry.

Sure, but for integrity's sake, shouldn't you decide your position on the issue, and not on whether some loud queens blocking a street piss you off?

Methadras said...

"Jason (the commenter) said...

I agree, but a lot of Conservatives seem to waiting for some sort of Messianic Conservative to lead the way."

I somewhat agree with this only in the respect that when conservatives are looking for The Conservative to lead the way, they often times go to the wrong source(s). It's not so much a waiting game as it is more of the right guy at the right time. The problem with that is, is that's it takes to long. Leftists and liberals have no problems finding one of their own, glomming onto them and foist them into office. Afterall, it doesn't take much to be a leftist or a liberal. There just isn't that much thought that goes into who you want to represent you as a leftist or a liberal.

However, conservative are definitely more choosy about who they want as a representative for their ideology. Conservatives don't want to look back and have buyers remorse.

"Many of them just get fed up with politics, or spend their time like downtownlad, yelling at their fellows for not being ideologically pure enough."

Many conservatives just don't have time for politics, but that is changing because they are seeing that their are starting to pick up in who they really want to represent them. Like I said before, people like DTL and there are a lot out there like him, are nothing more than moronic bull-horns that are just noise and no substance. Some conservatives are like that, but they won't last long amongst a conservative electorate. Yeah, people get fed up with politics because it doesn't change. It's the same old story of power and corruption and little in between. They see it as a hopeless dance of calculation and deck-stacking. Of handouts and giveaways. Of rewarding irresponsibility while no good deed goes unpunished.

"Gays make up, at most, 4 percent of the population; look at how far we've come and how good we are at getting our voices heard. Conservatives make up 40 percent of the population and can't even agree on a leader."

Strictly a numbers game. There are more of us than there are of homosexuals. It doesn't take long for homosexuals to reach a consensus on who they wish to represent them. The right words are spoken, a little vetting to confirm is done, and viola, you now have velvet mafia backing. Conservatives on the other hand want to make sure the the people they send up are going to do their bidding, not the other way around and that take longer because there are just more of us than of them.

Methadras said...

Beth said...

Gosh, DBQ, you sound happy about that! I'm saddened by that little core of unresolved hostility to gay people you harbor inside. I actually believe you'd be just fine with DOMA, DADT, etc. repealed and gay people having equal rights, but there's something there that makes you enjoy the setbacks along the way. What's up with that?"


Beth, can you name my one right that any individual homosexual doesn't have vs. a heterosexual? If you want to play this game, we can do it. It isn't that DBQ has some sort of vindictive streak against homosexuals. She may, but I've never seen it here, but rather I think you misinterpreted what she said as a function of how President Barely is nothing more than an empty, vacuous, substanceless incompetent that duped a segment of the population with his honey-dripped words.

Beth said...

Start with: to serve in the military, and to marry. So go ahead and say "you can marry! someone of the opposite sex!" and reveal what an idiot you are.

Christopher said...

Former Law Student wrote:

"Now that the economy's back to normal, unemployment around 5%, the handoff to Iraq's military complete, TARP funds refunded, and universal health care in place, Obama has time to work on gay rights."

Despite everything on Obama's plate, his Solicitor General found the time and energy to argue in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in front of the Supreme Court.

Despite everything on Obama's plate, his administration found the time to extend some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees (well, except for the military men and women who still have to hide their sexual orientation) while neglecting to give them arguably the most important benefit of all -- health insurance.

Despite everything on Obama's plate, his Justice Department has had the time and energy to come out in support the Defense of Marriage Act.

It's not the Obama administration's inaction that's at issue, it's the actions that his administration has taken.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Sure, but for integrity's sake, shouldn't you decide your position on the issue, and not on whether some loud queens blocking a street piss you off?

I get pissed off at loud queens blocking the street and ALSO at loud bicycle fanatics blocking the streets, tree sitting idiots putting people out of work and anyone else who thinks that they have a special right to do property damage, disrupt and annoy people who are trying to go about their business. The Vietnam protesters in the 60's pissed me off too, (even though I agreed with them), because they made me late for class and for work and made a mess of the streets and parks. If you want to persuade people to your cause, the first thing you might avoid is pissing them off.

I thought I already stated my position on the issue. I don't oppose Gay marriage as long as the process is done deliberately and properly through the legal system and not rammed down the public's throat or snuck in under cover of another law or done by activist courts overturning the votes of the people.

I really don't care much one way or the other what people do and I don't see how anybody's marriage can affect mine and certainly don't want to deny people the joy of a good marriage.

I do object to prosthetizing and indoctrination of ANY ANY ANY kind in the public schools or anywhere else, also under the cover of 'health' or 'social science' education to push an agenda. Gay, Religious, Political

The Federal Tax laws are the first problem of inequity. States where same sex marriage are legal still can't give complete equality because it is a matter of Federal laws. Even liberal States like California can't fix the inability of you or your partner to pass your Social Security Benefits to each other or to change the IRS tax laws regarding the taxation of employer provided health insurance premiums. Unmarried/domestic partnership hetro couples have the same issues. I would concentrate my efforts there, before attempting to radically and immediately change the social and cultural rules that have been in place for thousands and thousands of years.

All the prancing queens in the world aren't going to change the IRS code. And people like DTL who only see the world through his own prejudices and call people bigots, even those who agree with him, are not doing your cause any good.

I suggest a better PR firm and some more public decorum if the same sex proponents really want to advance their cause.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Perhaps instead of acting like 3 year old's who want what they want and they want it NOW or else throw a tantrum, the Gay Rights movement should behave like responsible adults. This doesn't mean no protests, public rallys or other visible demonstrations....just act like responsible, respectful adults who deserve to be heard.

Jim said...

"Gays make up, at most, 4 percent of the population; look at how far we've come and how good we are at getting our voices heard. Conservatives make up 40 percent of the population and can't even agree on a leader."

There's also a huge self-selection bias at work as well.

By and large, gays (as well as many other special interest groups) are Leftists. By definition, they look to government as the be-all, end-all solution provider in most situations. So if you're a young Leftist, the odds of you selecting a career in government - whether politics or in the bureaucracy - are pretty high.

On the other hand, conservatives - again, by definition - see the private sector as the solution provider in most situations. To a conservative, the primary goal of government is to either facilitate a private sector solution or to just get out of the way completely. So if you're a young conservative, the odds of you choosing a career in government - whether politics or in the bureaucracy - are pretty low.

It winds up being a numbers game: there is now and always will be more Leftists in government and competing for elected positions than there will be conservatives.

As a corollary, it's also a "best and brightest" gap too. The "best and brightest" conservatives are the ones who ultimately end up as CEOs and middle managers in the private sectors while the "best and brightest" Leftists wind up in elected office or running bureaucracies.

The only way for conservatives to close this gap is to recruit successful businessmen to run for public office: that is where the vast majority of the untapped potential of "best and brightest" conservatives are. They have the ones who have proven an ability to "make the trains run on time," understand the real-world implications of pie-in-the-sky Leftist policies (like single-payer health insurance, cap and trade, etc.), and have the time and energy to serve in public office.

Government could use a lot more people with real world experience who were serving the public for a limited period of time out of a sense of civic duty rather than those who make careers out of it and are therefore dedicated to constantly expanding the system that produced them.

Jim said...

As an addendum to my previous comment:

I mentioned successful businessmen who performed a "temporary public service" approach to serving as our representatives. To further expound upon that point, I cite the best example: our Founding Fathers.

As Leftists are fond of pointing out, they were for the most part wealthy, white landowners. In their time, they were the equivalent of our modern day successful small business man.

They saw, up close and personal, the tyranny that big government (the king in their day) imposed upon the populace.

As the guys who "made the trains run on time" in their day, they understood things that no pure academic or lifetime government employee will ever truly "get," because they were the ones who had to take personal risks, live with the consequences of failure and understand what the private sector does best and government's proper role in it.

While they weren't perfect men, they recognized that fact. They didn't recognize the rights of women to participate in the voting process, but they designed a system that allowed their descendants to correct their error. They didn't recognize the full personhood of minorities, but they designed a system that allowed their descendants to correct their error. They didn't have all the answers to all the problems that have cropped up in the succeeding centuries, but they designed a system flexible enough to correct whatever mistakes they made.

In the succeeding centuries, the system they designed has allowed us to expand the potential talent pool to minorities and women, so that today's hidden "Founding Father" no longer necessarily means that only wealthy, white, heterosexual males need apply.

We could do with a whole lot more "Founding Fathers" type - no matter their gender, race or sexual orientation - and a whole lot fewer of the corrupt, ivory tower, statist, authoritarians who use the government to enrich themselves at our expense than we have today.