June 4, 2009

Gay groups...

... detect what was rather obvious all along.

172 comments:

Pogo said...

Notably, Palladian exposed this fact well before the election.

"Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who is openly gay and was a major Democratic donor before being elected last year,
...warned, “If his position doesn’t evolve, it could turn off some strong supporters.


Ha ha ha.
And do what? Vote for Cheney?

It'll just be more of the one-night-stand boyfriend that doesn't call, but always promises to.

If there's something in it for Obama, then he'll do something. Like blacks and hispanics, they have been pwned again by the Democratic Party.

Gay marriage is like any crisis; it shouldn't be wasted, it's a fucking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing.

Michael Hasenstab said...

It isn't just Obama who's pulling the Lucy-with-the-football routine regarding matters important to gays.

How about ol' San Fran Nan heading for the tall grass? She's the majority leader. She could arrange introduction of a bill that would end DADT, or legalize gay marriage on the federal level. But no, she can't be bothered with it.

And the handful of gays and lesbians in Congress - why are their voices so silent? Mebbe because their leadership has told them to be quiet about it.

Until next election cycle when Lucy will set up the football again, at every fund raising opportunity. Suckers.

My advice - gays and lesbians should all vote for a republican, any republican in the next election cycle, just to get the dem's sttention.

Bissage said...

(1) God forbid everybody should get what they want. Some people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.

(2) How on Earth did this same sex marriage thing get recast as “marriage equality?” At present a man can marry a woman and vice versa. That’s perfectly symmetrical as sexual appetite has nothing to do with it. It’s not as if these protesters are some kind of a third gender forbidden to marry.

Advocates of SSM want to expand the scope of the right, as if, for example, they were advocating a lower age of consent or a lifting of the bar against co-sanguinity. There’s nothing wrong with that so why the horse manure?

Can anyone recommend a book?

Ahhhh, don’t bother. I really don’t care.

traditionalguy said...

The prize Obama's eyes are on right now is seducing the Muslims into believe he is one of them at heart. Any pro-Gay actions will not help that program. So, how does it feel to be a pawn in the One's international game?

Pogo said...

Bissage, the arguments get refined as the goalposts change.

After gay marriage, watch for the demand to abolish all references to heteronormative gender roles.
Everywhere, schools, ads.
Even religions.

'Oh, no, THAT won't happen.'

jimspice said...

As a lefty, I've been disappointed in more than one policy area for the lack of movement. But I never expected gay rights in the first term. Having learned from the early failures by Clinton, I believe he'll be spending his political capitol on other issues. If we don't see action in term II, I'll be truly saddened.

EnigmatiCore said...

"If we don't see action in term II, I'll be truly saddened."

Yes, deeply saddened to the point where you will be gung-ho to replace him with a different Democrat.

The party has you figured out.

Pogo said...

Obama's spending the capitol all right.

Scott said...

We gays and lesbians have been thrown under the bus countless times by the Democrats. Our relationship with the party resembles that of a battered wife defending her husband, over and over again.

I think most gays vote for Democrats because we hunger for acceptance, and will swoon for any party or candidate who says nice things to us. We're the cheapest dates around.

Chase said...

I wrote about this on Althouse yesterday:
`

Because he closed Guantanamo as payback to his far left-wing supporters - political motivation, not an issue he personally cares about.

Which is what gays are beginning to realize about him - he's simply starting to be recognized by even lefties as the lesser of evils.


Do you want to know what the Althouse topics will be tomorrow?

Chase said...

We're the cheapest dates around.
`

Yea, after Blacks and Jews, the most faithful Democrat votes out there - who get even less.

Get in line.

At least you got dinner and a movie.

TitusIamPatientNamaste said...

I am a gay but not part of any "gay group".

And I am patient. But that is probably because my chakras are aligned.

knox said...

Yea, after Blacks and Jews, the most faithful Democrat votes out there - who get even less.

I'll never understand why Jews vote democrat. Far from being supported, they just get kicked in the face again and again.

L. E. Lee said...

President Obama is behind the curve with the Democrat rank and file which is heavily in favor of same sex marriage and many Democrat office holders. The country is also quickly shifting and is becoming receptive of same sex marriage. He needs to reevaluate his position pretty soon.

Eric said...

The country is also quickly shifting and is becoming receptive of same sex marriage.

That's just wishful thinking. If you want political action on SSM it would have to come from a leader, and we haven't had one of those in the oval office since Reagan.

knox said...

He needs to reevaluate his position pretty soon.

He should because so many gays support him, and he should reciprocate.

But he won't until he decides that it's absolutely politically expedient. And I'm not sure how much of the country is "quickly shifting" their position. He's not making a move unless he knows he has nothing to lose.

downtownlad said...

Ann actually has it entirely wrong. Not surprising, because she is straight, thus incapable of ever truly understanding gay issues and how gay people think.

Anyway, gay groups are putting pressure on Obama, as they should. They would be dumb to give him a pass.

But I doubt many gay people actually expected Obama to move quickly on gay issues. I certainly didn't. Clinton tried to get gays in the military on Day 1 and he got hammered for it. Obama, always the pragmatist, will likely appoint a commission to study DADT sometime this year. They'll take 6 months and then come back with a recommendation to phase out the policy over a couple of years.

I expect a non-discrimination act to pass in this Congressional term, but it will probably have to wait until after health care.

As for DOMA, Obama won't touch that until a second term.

A hate crimes law is already in progress.

So exactly as I expected.

An thinks Obama has thrown gays under a bus, but I doubt it. I can tell a homophobe from a mile away, and Obama is not a homophobe. I think he has a clear path for full gay rights (including marriage equality), but he's going to move cautiously on this.

A huge difference from the prior President, who tried to put gays in prison for having sex in the privacy of their own home.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But I doubt many gay people actually expected Obama to move quickly on gay issues..

So far the only thing Obama is moving fast on is increasing the national debt.

L. E. Lee said...

Good analysis Downtownlad.

For the most part those on the left are not like those on the right. There is no Rush Limbaugh that defines the left. Instead, we see the need for being prudent in political matters. I do think President Obama is now being too cautious on same sex marriage. But that does not mean that I don't see him as an ally.


It is funny seeing righties getting all flustered whining that President Obama won't give them the wedge issue they desire.

gaywrites said...

I'm currently a law fellow at the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. I've only been here three weeks but let me tell you the "feeling" I get from the inside of the largest gay rights organization in the country. I think impatient is a proper word to describe the situation; but you have to remember that so much of the work we do stretches far beyond the executive branch. We are certainly impatient on things like DADT and DOMA and hate crimes. But we also are working very hard (and being successful) in assisting state legislatures to rethink and push for same sex marriage. Additionally, yesterday was the first ever hearing on the Uniting American Families Act which would allow foreign born partners of lesbian and gay US citizens to remain in the US permanently; a privelege all married heterosexual couples enjoy. Do we need the President on our side? Of course. Do we wish he were more vocal and proactive about issues important to a core sect of his supporters? Of course. But our work and our fight doesn't change when we have a President that doesn't support us on anything or a President who is luke warm or a President that fully supports us. I come to work and do the same job regardless. The only difference is how easy or difficult it is to sleep at the end of the night.

Pogo said...

"the wedge issue they desire"
If it's so popular, how is it a wedge issue?



"Instead, we see the need for being prudent in political matters."
Is that what they call spending $1B an hour and doubling the national debt in 4 months?

downtownlad said...

George Bush doubled the national debt Pogo.

And you were silent about it for eight freaking years.

Bush inherited a huge surplus and he blew it. I'll judge Obama on how large the deficit is after 8 years.

L. E. Lee said...

Yes Pogo/Palladian the political ground is quickly shifting.

Pogo said...

So doubling it again is fine because Bush did the same?
Gosh, democrats are prudent because they fuck the economy in 4 months what took Bush 8 years to do?

Genius, DTL, as usual.

"Bush inherited a huge surplus..."
You repeat this lie again and again, DTL.
Typical.
Bush inherited a projected surplus that proved to be a bubble, punctured a second time by two planes.

"...the political ground is quickly shifting."
I knew that already.
It's called liberal fascism.

Socialism always ends badly, but particularly so under its fascist form.

Pogo said...

So far Palladian has been called Palladian/Titus and Palladian/Pogo.

I say we call him Palladian/Beth or Palladian/Althouse.
He hasn't been linked to a female yet.

Nonetheless, I am honored by the comparison, as much as he is diminished by the juxtaposition.

Scott said...

The sole reason that HRC exists is to deliver gay votes to Democrats. Period.

When Bill Clinton signed DOMA (which was authored by Bob Barr but co-sponsored by Paul Wellstone and other liberals), HRC's public comments at the time were rather conflicted -- they couldn't bring themselves to condemn Clinton because they had been pimping him for so long. They lost a huge amount of cred in the gay community. But HRC does throw nice coctail parties, I hear.

jayne_cobb said...

Lee,

Wait, conservatives are whining because he won't give them the wedge issue they want? I think you're misreading the entire situation here.

Conservatives are fine with the current situation as Obama is alienating part of his base; a part of the base which, if recent events are any indication, reacts poorly to being denied what they want (Black Lists/Mormon hatred/Miss USA).

Just think of it as somewhat similar to what Bush did on immigration (which is to say nothing his supporters wanted) and the result down the line.

Obama is not going to push for gay marriage so long as a major part of his political base (i.e blacks and hispanics) is vehemently opposed to it.

L. E. Lee said...

Pogo/Palladian wrote
"It's called liberal fascism."

Please rein in your persecution complex P/P. It is not liberal fascism, instead it is called civil rights for all.

L. E. Lee said...

Jayne,

President Obama does risk alienating part of his base on this issue. But he is not there yet. RIght now the march toward same sex marriage is going forward and victories are being won. I don't see a liberal backlash against President Obama yet. If he moves on this issue in the next four years he should be fine politically.

L. E. Lee said...

Pall Wellstone in his autobiography, "The Conscience of a Liberal" dealt with this issue.

"What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA," he writes. "I might have rationalized my vote by making myself believe that my honest position was opposition. This vote was an obvious trap for a senator like me, who was up for reelection. Did I convince myself that I could gleefully deny Republicans this opportunity? . . . When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Mathew Shepard, I thought to myself, 'Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?' . . . I still wonder if I did the right thing."

John said...

I think the future of gay rights is pretty bleak. And I don't say that as a good thing.

Gays are a small minority. Both parties have vital contituencies that are generally hostile to gay issues: blacks in the Democratic party and evangelicals in the Republican Party.

Worse still, gay rights is a popular cause among gay people and rich white people. It is not popular among hispanics, blacks or middle class whites. And those are the groups that are actually having children. I really think in 30 years the country will look different and much more hostile to gays than it is now. Sadly, we will look back on the 90s and the 00s as a twenty year enlightened blip.

Palladian said...

L.E. Lee is the same delusional weirdo that tried to claim in another thread that I'm not actually gay.

L.E., dude, see a doctor. There are better medications for psychosis today than there ever were.

Of course, maybe you're right. I mean, who knows who I am? Maybe I'm Ann Althouse... Maybe I'm all the commenters on here. Maybe I'm you, L.E. Did you ever think about that?

downtownlad said...

Pogo,

Bush passed reckless trillion dollar tax cuts and intiated a trillion dollar war on false premises.

Then he caused a Depression, which is the ENTIRE reason that the deficit has exploded this year. Obama inherited that, and he now has plans to bring that deficit down. That include tax hikes, which is the responsible thing to do. It also includes a stimulus plan, which will get the economy back on track (also increases revenues), prevents deflation (which will lower the debt as a percentage of GDP). In other words, Obama is doing everything possible to LOWER the deficit.

Your policies were tried for 8 years. They failed. They caused the debt to double (which is only disputed by morons) and Bush caused a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit this year (again only disputed by morons).

L. E. Lee said...

I think for this generation liberals are focused on the bigger picture which requires not to expect a victory in every battle or to have every ally wearing the exact same uniform.

It is conservatives of this generation that seem to be immature. It is appropriate that a childish figure like Rush Limbaugh would so define the current Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Palladian said...

"Sadly, we will look back on the 90s and the 00s as a twenty year enlightened blip."

As the Minarets rise across the world and the West finally achieves the consummation of its half-century-long suicide attempt, we (the unlucky ones left) will look back on the past 300 years as a brief enlightened blip.

John said...

"Then he caused a Depression, which is the ENTIRE reason that the deficit has exploded this year. Obama inherited that, and he now has plans to bring that deficit down. That include tax hikes, which is the responsible thing to do. It also includes a stimulus plan, which will get the economy back on track (also increases revenues), prevents deflation (which will lower the debt as a percentage of GDP). In other words, Obama is doing everything possible to LOWER the deficit."


So Obama really is retarded. Only a retarded person would raise taxes during a recession. Does the special olympics have an event in economics?

Perhaps the fact that we are in a recession should cause him to tell people to sacrifice and give up on their planned goodies from the government? Free healthcare is great (at least in liberals' imagination) when you are rich enough to afford it. But when you spend trillions of dollars making sure your buddies at Goldman and Sachs don't have to be just ordinary billionaires, it is more of a luxury than a requirement.

Obama has given away you and your children's future to bail out wall street billionaires. And you love him for it. Tell me, do you ever miss your soul?

L. E. Lee said...

Palladian/Pogo get a grip.

I am just tweaking you a little.

Palladian said...

"I think for this generation liberals are focused on the bigger picture which requires not to expect a victory in every battle or to have every ally wearing the exact same uniform."

In other words, so-called "liberals" are acclimated to failure, impotence and cultural suicide.

Way to go, "liberals"! That's the way to keep the weak, delicate candle of the Enlightenment burning!

downtownlad said...

Wow - Palladian sure is paranoid of Muslims.

I have three very close Muslim friends. They have absolutely no problem hanging out with a gay Jew. One of them even goes to gay bars with me (he is straight and married).

Palladian said...

"I am just tweaking you a little."

Keep your stubby, greasy little fingers to yourself. No one gets to "tweak" me without at least dinner and a couple bottles of Ch. Latour.

Palladian said...

"I have three very close Muslim friends. They have absolutely no problem hanging out with a gay Jew. One of them even goes to gay bars with me (he is straight and married)."

Then they're apostates in the eyes of the majority of the world's Muslims. Or, they would be apostates if they existed.

Pogo said...

"Obama inherited that, and he now has plans to bring that deficit down."
Gosh, what a relief!
A plan!
Does this magical plan have wings and shit marshmallows too?
Do you think the Chicoms believed that same bullshit?



"Your policies were tried for 8 years. "
MY policies?
Whenever was small government ever enacted in the past 8 - or even 18- years?
Never, that's when.

L. E. Lee said...

Palladian/Pogo wrote

"As the Minarets rise across the world and the West finally achieves the consummation of its half-century-long suicide attempt, we (the unlucky ones left) will look back on the past 300 years as a brief enlightened blip."

And you try to label ME as "delusional"....

John said...

"Wow - Palladian sure is paranoid of Muslims.

I have three very close Muslim friends. They have absolutely no problem hanging out with a gay Jew. One of them even goes to gay bars with me (he is straight and married)."

I would advise you to visit a Muslim country sometime. I would also advise you to go to the Mosque with your friends sometime and ask the Imam what he things about homosexuality. It might change your view of it. Most of the world, outside of a few places in the West, hate homosexual's guts. You just think evangelicals are bad. You have no idea the kind of hatred against gays that goes on in the rest of the world. The US and Western Europe are literally the only two places on earth you can live in peace as an openly gay person.

Palladian said...

"Whenever was small government ever enacted in the past 8 - or even 18- years?
Never, that's when."

Pogo (I know, talking to myself is weird), "liberals" are apparently incapable of anything but the most rigid, binary thinking. You're either with them or against them. If you don't entirely and completely and unconditionally accept their vaguely-defined, expanding and shifting miasma of values, beliefs and rules, then you must be OF THE ENEMY, whoever that might be today!!!

jayne_cobb said...

Lee,

As opposed to Jon Stewart for the left?

And if you think Obama is going to push it through in the next four years then you're awfully hopeful. As I said a large part of his base (much larger than the gay rights faction) is actively opposed to gay marriage by a far greater margin than conservatives. He will do nothing that risks alienating them.

The best you can hope for is that he pushes for it should he be re-elected. But even then I really wouldn't expect anything, as it doesn't strike me as an issue of any particular importance to him (one way or another).

Instead it seems more like his promise of "net-spending cuts" or "closing Guantanamo" in that he was saying what a particular part of the electorate wanted to hear. Don't forget his statements opposing gay marriage (which were used by Prop 8. supporters).

L. E. Lee said...

John is correct, most of the rest of the world is about forty years behind us in terms of acceptance of gays and lesbians. The question is can they make the generational strides and put behind them the ancient bigotry which has been done in Europe and North America and other similar places?

downtownlad said...

So Palladian - have you ever even spoken to any Muslims? Or do you always like to stereotype 1.5 billion people?

Yes, moderate Muslims do exist. In fact, that is the only type of Muslim I've ever met. Shockingly enough, most Muslims are not members of Al Queada. Just like most Catholics don't blow up abortion clinics.

I don't deny that the Muslim religion is anti-gay. But the religion itself is no different than the Old Testament when it comes to gay issues.

All religions are stupid. Including Islam. But Muslims are human beings just like us, and they are just as capable of picking and choosing aspects of religion that they follow, as do most Westerners.

I don't pre-judge people. But I'll be the first to admit that I am very quick to judge someone once they open their mouth.

L. E. Lee said...

Jayne,

If you are saying that Jon Stewart is to the left what Rush Limbaugh is to the right, then you have made my point.

Palladian said...

L.E. Lee would happily cast the first stone against the head of a gay person if it meant furthering the destruction of the United States.

His kind of "liberal" has romanticized Islam into some mythological anti-American rebel cause. Reality, which tried really hard to wake those "liberals" about eight years ago, won't be so delicate next time.

There will sadly come a day in much of the world when the idea of freely-operating gay rights groups will seem a distant, almost unbelievable memory. And it will be entirely the fault of L.E. Lee's type of "liberals" who don't "expect a victory in every battle".

Pogo said...

So Obama doubles an already doubled national debt -not in 8 years but in 4 months- but it's okay because he has a plan.

It reminds me of alcoholics who go on a big bender as part of their plan to go into rehab 'real soon'.

Instead they are usually found in rigor mortis.

John said...

"Yes, moderate Muslims do exist. In fact, that is the only type of Muslim I've ever met."

How many Muslims have you ever met and where have you traveled to and lived? I have met lots of "moderate Muslims" as well. The Muslims I know are not fanatics looking to blow themselves up. But, they are not fond of homosexuals either.

Palladian said...

"Yes, moderate Muslims do exist. In fact, that is the only type of Muslim I've ever met."

But of course!

Somehow I don't think the rest of them (the overwhelming majority that you haven't met) would be at the same cocktail parties as you. Just a hunch!

Pogo said...

L.E. Lee's type of "liberal" expect a shiv in every battle, and expose their breast to accept it, with a grateful and apologetic smile.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So doubling it again is fine because Bush did the same?.

That is pretty much the third grade response the left provides when confronted with the debt issue.

But Mr Pogo, Bush did it tooooo!.

garage mahal said...

The Muslims I know are not fanatics looking to blow themselves up. But, they are not fond of homosexuals either..

So of those two, conservatives and Muslims have at least one thing in common :)

holdfast said...

"I'll never understand why Jews vote democrat. Far from being supported, they just get kicked in the face again and again."

(1) Guilt

(2) Liberal "education"

(3) Guilt

(4) Media fear-mongering about Republicans

(5) Upper West-Side Fashion

I'll never understand the guilt - when blacks other than the president's ancestors were being hauled off into slavery, my ancestors were getting the sh*t kicked out of them by cossacks and the like. Then Hitler incinerated most of my grandmother's family. WTH do I owe African Americans - what did I ever do to them? Their "leaders" like Jackson, Sharpton and Wright are almost as bad Jew-haters as the Nazis who built the ovens, yet I owe them something?

Diamondhead said...

"In other words, Obama is doing everything possible to LOWER the deficit."

Obama is doing everything possible to "lower" the deficit, by "increasing" the deficit. God, you people will say any fucking thing.

L. E. Lee said...

Palladian please delete all of my posts directed at you. You scare me.

Palladian said...

"But, they are not fond of homosexuals either."

Sadly, most people aren't fond of homosexuals. They just put on a fake smile and pretend when it's convenient for them to put on fake smiles and pretend. Often during election cycles, oddly enough.

L. E. Lee said...

Same with you "Pogo".

Palladian said...

"Palladian please delete all of my posts directed at you. You scare me."

That's the intention.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So Palladian - have you ever even spoken to any Muslims? Or do you always like to stereotype 1.5 billion people?.

You are such a fucking hypocrite. You never miss a chance to slam Catholics yet you're on your worn out knees to placate the most intolerant group of people walking the planet.

Titusthereis a hot landscaper said...

Fellow republicans a total porno is taking place in the gardens surrounding my parking lot.

We have two incredibly hot landscapers, shirtless, planting shit. One of the rare clumbers pissed in one of the holes they dug and they moved the shrub and said, "I just don't want it to die" in a Boston accent-totally dreamy.

A gay guy in my building told me that one of the landscapers does guys and he is really pent up and blows a big load.

My other neighbor told me that the property manager, who is gross, does the guy every couple of weeks.

The girls in the building are in a tizzy right now.

Maybe I should make some fresh lemonade for their breaky wakey.

I bet they have sweaty balls.

Kirk Parker said...

"Then [Bush] caused a Depression..."

ROFL!!!

Palladian said...

I am you, L.E. Lee! You are me and we are all together!

You are Pogo too! You are Ann Althouse!

One of us! One of us!
Gooble gobble gooble gobble!
We accept him! We accept him!
One of us! One of us!

Scott said...

L. E. Lee: Yeah, it's amazing how liberals issue hand-wringing mea culpas after they fuck over gay and lesbians -- again and again and again.

But it's even more amazing how HRC (and sometimes the NGLTF) take these mea culpas at face value. As I said before, the HRC exists only to deliver gay votes to Democrats, and not defend gay rights.

In Wellstone's case, your quote shows that he was more concerned about retaining his seat than he was about standing up for principle, and then fighting like hell to defend it. This reveals him to be an incredible coward; admittedly an unremarkable quality for a member of Congress, but disgusting nonetheless.

RE: the dimwits who answer criticism of the Obama deficits with "Bush started it" japes: You can't deny, then, that Obama is endorsing Bush's record of obscene spending, since Obama is increasing it by several orders of magnitude.

(Ann's "Obama is like Bush" tag is so true so often.)

downtownlad said...

Palladian - You really do show how completely ignorant you are about liberals.

Liberals are black and white in terms of thinking? Really?

You've got to be joking.

"You're either with us or against us." Who said that?

Conservative blogs get their talking points from Rush, and they repeat them ad nauseum. Then conservative commenters repeat them over and over. I see absolutely zero critical thinking amongst any of the major conservative commenters on this thread. Zero.

Obama ate augula!

Obama put mustard on his hamburger!

Obama ordered orange juice in a diner!

Obama said that there a lot of Muslims in this country!

Sotomayor is a racist!

Michelle Obama hates this country!

Really - this kind of groupthink (and it is groupthink) is childish.

Liberal blogs actually talk about issues and policies. Take health care. It's not black and white. There are huge disagreements. What's the best way to introduce universal health care? Should we actually have universal coverage, or just try cover children to start (Obama's position)? Should we have single payer or require businesses to insure people? Should small businesses be exempt?

A conservative solution for health care? All I know is that they think the current process is perfect and shouldn't be touched. Yes, most liberals think that is a stupid position, and they try and back it up with arguments.

But in Palladian's eyes, all liberals, from Andrew Sullivan to Bernie Sanders are exactly alike.

That tells me that Palladian has never actually listened to one word that a liberal has actually said. If you want to be ignorant, that's fine but why should anyone even listen to what you have to say if you don't have anything to add?

Maybe, for once, you could actually adress the issue rather than launching into yet another ad hominem attack.

So please - try and persuade me how Bush did not create the deficit situation that we have today.

Aaron said...

Well, Obama has done a brilliant job being a cypher for everyone else's hope and dreams. Hope and change! who can be against that. But the hope i have and the hope you have might be in direct contradiction, as would often be the case with the change we would prefer.

But as Lincoln once said, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Sooner or later obama had to make actual decisions as president, and people's hope for change were dashed.

Titusthereis a hot landscaper said...

One of the queens in the building who is the straightest gay guy I have met (seriously) is out there helping the landscapers.

Bitch, this is war.

I am baking cookies right now, that will show him.

Pogo said...

L. E. Lee said...
"please delete all of my posts directed at you. You scare me."

Translation:
"I got nothin'."

Pogo said...

DTL: "Take health care. It's not black and white. There are huge disagreements.'

Yeah. 'Should we screw the pooch all at once, or just a little at a time? Do we gut the economy in one fell fascist swoop, or do death by a thousand cuts?'

Decisions, decisions.

L. E. Lee said...

As proof to Downtownlad's point I have posted repeatedly that I think President Obama needs to get on the right side of history concerning same sex marriage.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"As the Minarets rise across the world and the West finally achieves the consummation of its half-century-long suicide attempt, we (the unlucky ones left) will look back on the past 300 years as a brief enlightened blip."

And you try to label ME as "delusional"....
.

Actually that's pretty much on the mark. A cursory look at the demographics of Europe shows native Europeans pretty much giving up on reproducing while replacing their aging population with predominately Muslim immigrants.

It's hardly delusional since the numbers don't lie.

jayne_cobb said...

Aaron,

What happens if "some of the people" happen to be in the majority?

Titusthereis a hot landscaper said...

If the American Taliban ever got to power Palladian would be one of the gays to show us to the trains by tempting us with gay shit. "Look gay techno music, muscles, come to the train".

He would also help out cutting our hair before we hit the showers and determining how much are goods are worth.

Roy Cohn is looking down with pride.

John Althouse Cohen said...

How on Earth did this same sex marriage thing get recast as “marriage equality?” At present a man can marry a woman and vice versa. That’s perfectly symmetrical as sexual appetite has nothing to do with it. It’s not as if these protesters are some kind of a third gender forbidden to marry.

Do you think the old laws against interracial marriage were equal? A white person could marry a white person, and a black person could marry a black person.

You're right that "sexual appetite" has nothing to do with it. The government doesn't know anything about people's "sexual appetite." But the government knows people's gender, and your own comment implies that the government does discriminate based on gender. As you said, "a man can marry a woman" -- of course, you're not mentioning the crucial fact that a man can't marry a man (and a woman can't marry a woman).

I really think you do understand the inequality. It's not very hard to understand.

downtownlad said...

Countries I've visited? Ok - here goes.

Canada
United States
Many islands in the Caribbean
Mexico
Uruguay
Argentina
France
England
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Switzerland
Belgium
The Netherlands
Ireland
Scotland
Germany
Czech Repubic
Poland
Slovakia
Austria
Hungary
Macedonia
Serbia
Greece
China (including Muslim areas)
Thailand
Malaysia (Muslim Country)
India (200 million Muslims)
Sri Lanka
Vietnam
Japan
Cambodia
South Korea

I'll bet a lot of money that I'm more worldly than you when it comes to travel.

And if I meet a Catholic, I never pre-judge the person. Of course the Catholic religion is bigoted, but that doesn't mean I know how religious the person is. I take the same tactic with Muslims.

In terms of being anti-gay, the Catholic Church and the Islamic religion are equally bigoted. And I condemn both.

But I don't condemn people, unless I find out that they are anti-gay through their actions.

Of course there are anti-gay Muslims. I'm not friends with them.

Pogo said...

The Democrat health care disagreement gives the following choices:
1. Nationalization
2. Corporate fascism
3. Socialism by the installment plan

It's like disagreeing over which color of Mogen David wine to buy.

Pogo said...

Ha! Palladian made Titus' mask slip.
Again.

Way cool.

John said...

Downtownlad,

You have traveled a lot. But you are not worldly becaus you didn't learn anything when you did. I have been to SE Asia to and all over the middle east. Only a complete moron could claim that those places are in any way gay friendly.

You never fail to amaze me with your ignorance. If I didn't know any better I would say you are kidding. No one can be as stupid as you are. It is just amazing to think about someone traveling that much and not realizing that most of the world doesn't like homosexuals. Basically, your view of the world is "everyone I know thinks this way so it must be so". I can't even type that with a straight face it is so funny.

John said...

"Of course there are anti-gay Muslims. I'm not friends with them."

Comedy gold man. Comedy gold.

section9 said...


As a lefty, I've been disappointed in more than one policy area for the lack of movement. But I never expected gay rights in the first term. Having learned from the early failures by Clinton, I believe he'll be spending his political capitol on other issues. If we don't see action in term II, I'll be truly saddened.


It's enormously amusing to watch the Stockholm Syndrome take effect among leftists. First, Obama came for their money, and they said nothing. Then, Obama came for their Honor, and they still said nothing.

Now, the left has nothing left except their reputation. Obama will come for that, too.

P.T. Barnum was right, of course.

downtownlad said...

I made a mistake. I don't have 3 close Muslim friends. I have four. I am thinking of my 3 Muslim friends in the country where I live now. One of my very good friends is also Muslim, but he live in New York. Actually, I'm friendly with his wife two. So does that count as five? And my friend married one of my Muslim friends and she converted to Islam to please her in-laws, although she still considers herself an atheist. But I guess she's technically a Muslim. So think that makes six Muslim friends.

I also dated a hot guy from Iran for a while. But he was a Jew.

section9 said...

Pogo wrote:

The Democrat health care disagreement gives the following choices:
1. Nationalization
2. Corporate fascism
3. Socialism by the installment plan


Dammit, Pogo, you forgot the most important part of Obamagleischaltung!

4. Strength Through Joy!

Pogo said...

""Of course there are anti-gay Muslims. I'm not friends with them.""

DTL is friends with the only 4 non-anti-gay Muslims of the world's 0.7 to 1.2 billion Muslims.

0.0000004%!

Pogo said...

section9, remember that 'work makes you free'.

downtownlad said...

John - You have zero reading comprehension.

Where did I say that most of the world is pro-gay? I'm very aware that there are anti-gay people in the Muslim world. Most of them in fact. Guess what - most Americans are anti-gay bigots as well.

The vast majority of the world is anti-gay. Shocker.

I was in Malaysia very recently. There are gay bars in Malaysia. They also sold pornography openly (straight porn) when I went to an outdoor market. Is Malaysia anti-gay? In many aspects, yes. But parts of the country and culture are very accepting of gay people as well.

Countries are not black and white. Religions are not black and white. There are nuances.

I've travelled a lot, so I know that.

Palladian said...

"Roy Cohn is looking down with pride."

Wait, I thought I was Roy Cohn, Steve. Remember when you used to call me that?

Sofa King said...

"You're either with us or against us." Who said that?

Who, indeed?

downtownlad said...

Iraq was much more accommodating of gay people under Saddam than it is today.

John said...

"The vast majority of the world is anti-gay. Shocker. "

No kidding. What the hell are you arguing about then. The majority of the world is much more anti-gay than the West. And to the extent that they are not anti-gay, it is because they are Westernized. There are gay bars in Malaysia because of Western influence.

Palladian said...

"Is Malaysia anti-gay? In many aspects, yes. But parts of the country and culture are very accepting of gay people as well.

Countries are not black and white. Religions are not black and white. There are nuances."

Funny that you couldn't be so forgiving and understanding of your own country, which has a far better record on gay rights than any of the other filthy shitholes you've visited.

But to the eternal adolescent, mom and dad are always the worst, most oppressive people in the world. The "other" is so much more sexy, even if the "other" would openly murder me if they could.

"I've travelled a lot, so I know that."

LOL. I love how you keep bragging that you've traveled a lot, as if in 2009 that's something special. We've all traveled a lot, honey. Get over it. You'll have to be aspirational in a more 21st century way to impress us.

Looking over your list of vacation spots, I'm reminded of Laozi: the further one goes the less one knows...

Palladian said...

"Iraq was much more accommodating of gay people under Saddam than it is today."

What's a little genocide and oppressive dictatorship when it means a slight "accommodating" of gay people.

downtownlad said...

That's not true John. From my experience, Asia is much less anti-gay than the West. Most people don't care. So you don't have the same level of animosity towards gay people that you find in America. If there is any animosity towards gay people in Asia, it usually derives from Christianity.

South America was more tolerant as well from my experience. But maybe that counts as part of The West.

Palladian said...

"No kidding. What the hell are you arguing about then."

You think he knows?

That's why it's called compulsive.

Pogo said...

"Iraq was much more accommodating of gay people under Saddam than it is today."
1983-1988: chemical attacks caused 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village killed 5,000

1987-1988: chemical attacks on 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis killed in invasion of Kuwait.

1991: suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings killed 30-60,000. 2,000 Kurdish villages destroyed.

Operation Anfal: 180,000 Kurds died, many of them killed by poison gas




But gays? OK!

L. E. Lee said...

Scott wrote

In Wellstone's case, your quote shows that he was more concerned about retaining his seat than he was about standing up for principle, and then fighting like hell to defend it. This reveals him to be an incredible coward; admittedly an unremarkable quality for a member of Congress, but disgusting nonetheless."

As I wrote in another thread I find it interesting that many of those who constantly bray about how issues of civil rights should be handled not by the judiciary but in the elective political realm are also the first to trash people who actually get into the political arena and carry all of the baggage that goes along with it.

Yes Senator Wellstone had to make a choice between his personal principled position and his role as a representative of the people of Minnesota who at that time were heavily opposed to gay marriage.



Scott, when you get into that political arena I will take your tough talk more seriously.

downtownlad said...

So now Palladian thinks that every country besides America is a "shithole".

Keep digging. Your bigotry is quite apparent to everyone.

And the U.S. does not have a better record on gay rights than all other countries I've visited. In fact, it easily falls in the bottom half. It's worse than China actually when it comes to gay rights. China does not banned gays from serving in the military. China removed their sodomy ban quite a few years before the United States, etc. And I would bet a lot of money that China will legalize gay marriage before the US does.

As for my family life, you know nothing about it. I get along perfectly well with my family. My mother is an anti-gay bigot, because she does not favor gay marriage. I've told her as much, but I still get along fine with her, and call her frequently. We agree to disagree. Big deal. But that doesn't prevent me from speaking my mind if the subject comes up.

Palladian said...

All of the places downtownlad touts as "better than America" towards gays have completely schizophrenic attitudes and policies towards their own gay citizens while going out of their way to "accommodate" rich white foreign visitors like downtownlad. Of course downtownlad has no problem with this sort of two-faced way of living and governing since by his own admission he spent most of his life in the closet. The closet is not only a place of isolation and sequestration, but also a spiritually deadening place of "open secrets" and mercurial tolerance and double standards. One day it's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge and the next day, at the whim of the closet-keeper, they might smash your head in. This kind of "accommodation" is the way things are in many parts of the world, and certainly the norm in the Arab world, where the same men who fucked the faggot last night might be happily tightening the noose around their neck the next day. downtownlad thinks that this way of being is freedom, but of course it would appear that way to the internalized closet case wouldn't it?

downtownlad said...

Pogo - Why are you leaving out the 100,000 civilians (minimum) that were killed during the Iraq war?

Palladian said...

"As for my family life, you know nothing about it. I get along perfectly well with my family. My mother is an anti-gay bigot, because she does not favor gay marriage. I've told her as much, but I still get along fine with her, and call her frequently. We agree to disagree. Big deal."

downtownlad said...

"Well Brent - life is short, so I don't waste my time with bigots.

Which is why I haven't called my mother in a while even though she has cancer."

Pogo said...

LE Leee said: "Scott, when you get into that political arena I will take your tough talk more seriously."

Gee, What would Wellstone do?
Capitulate!

Pogo said...

"Pogo - Why are you leaving out the 100,000 civilians (minimum) that were killed during the Iraq war?"

Were they gay?

Pogo said...

I mean, by DTL logic, if they weren't no foul!

mccullough said...

DTL,

"And I would bet a lot of money that China will legalize gay marriage before the US does."

I'll take that bet. Gays are allowed to marry in six states of the United States.

By the way, I was in China during Tiananmen Square. So why don't shut the fuck up about how great China is. It isn't.

And Dick Cheney supports gay marriage and Obama doesn't, because it is against Obama's religion.

Palladian said...

"Gee, What would Wellstone do?
Capitulate!"

Good thing we had him killed! Didn't we?

downtownlad said...

Have you ever even left the country Palladian?

Really? It's an honest question.

I don't think you have. Because you sound like an ignorant fool. Exactly like when you try and speak about economics. And trust me, like 90% of Ann's commenters, and Ann herself, when it comes to economics, you are an ignorant fool.

Here are the countries that are better on gay rights than the United States of the ones I've visited.

Australia
Canada
Mexico (homosexuality has been legal since 1862!)
Uruguay (legal since 1934)
Argentina
France
England
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Switzerland
Belgium
The Netherlands
Ireland
Scotland
Germany
Czech Repubic
Poland
Slovakia
Austria
Hungary
Serbia
Greece
Thailand
Japan



Countries that are about the same as the U.S.:

Cambodia (King of Cambodia is gay)
Macedonia
South Korea
China (including Muslim areas)
Vietnam

Countries that are worse:

Malaysia (Muslim Country)
India (200 million Muslims)
Sri Lanka
Caribbean


If you have evidence that I'm wrong, please provide it, rather than resorting to your armchair psychoanalysis (where you're also completely ignorant)

Pogo said...

DTL is bragging about his grasp of economics?

Shit, that's just pathetic.

Palladian said...

Ah, there's dtl's travel diary again, just to make sure you know that he's a JET-SETTING INTERNATIONAL PLAYBOY!

downtownlad has a two-hour layover at the airport in Outer Testiclaria and after one Mai-Tai at the airport bar, gives a blow-job to a janitor in a toilet stall and says "Well, here I am, downtownlad, JET-SETTING INTERNATIONAL PLAYBOY, in yet another country that's better about the gays than the stinking, disgusting land of my birth!"

Chase said...

My question: is there such a thing as a truly honest gay person?

Obviously today's climate has improved for gays to be "out". The fear of actual violence an certainly be a motivator to be less than fully honest about one's self.

But regardless of the external reasons, as bad as they may seem - it still is a fact that the majority of gay people practice deception and dishonesty to at least some degree.

That is why it is expected for those on the pro-gay marriage side to use dishonesty and disingenuous tactics in campaigns such as those against Prop 8. The same things will happen again when the next initiative in California comes before voters. And that serious analysis by the voters of California - recognizing the blatant dishonesty of the pro-gay marriage side - should give pause to pro-gay marriage leaders about how they should run the next one.

Here's a part from the Website against Prop 22 in 1998, the initiative that started all the fuss. Notice the blatant disrespect for the honesty and intelligence of the voter of California in what's said. And it continued in the anti-Prop 8 side. California may be moving toward gay marriage, but the voters hate being lied to.



2. How is the Knight Initiative unfair?

The Knight Initiative threatens hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and other equal rights and protections that any two people in a committed relationship deserve. In other states, right-wing activists have used laws like the Knight Initiative to challenge local and state domestic partnership laws and anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Back to top

3. How is the Knight Initiative divisive?

The Knight Initiative will increase the rhetoric of hate and intolerance towards gay and lesbian Californians and their families. The Knight Initiative is a mean-spirited effort to divide and polarize Californians over marriage and further a broader, right-wing agenda for our state. Back to top


Yeah, that happened - NOT. And the backers of this campaign - and the voters - knew it wouldn't. How patronizing and dishonest!

But here's the kicker:

7. You say that same-sex marriage isn’t legal in California, but if some other state, like Vermont or Hawaii, legalizes same-sex marriage then wouldn’t California have to recognize those marriages too?

Same-sex couples cannot get married in California now, nor will they be able to after the Knight Initiative is defeated. If one state does decide that same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other loving couple, then the courts in each state will have to decide whether those marriages will be recognized. Many legal experts have said the Constitution requires that they be recognized. Time will tell. California has never not recognized a marriage from another state. But, remember, the real reason Pete Knight and his right wing allies are pushing the Knight Initiative is not to defend marriage, but to attack families. The Knight Initiative is intended to create a legal framework to go after any legislation or laws intended to ensure the fair treatment of gays and lesbians. It’s been Pete Knight’s track record in the legislature and it’s how these laws have been used in other states. The Knight Initiative doesn’t change anything except to divide the people of California and target gay and lesbian families for discrimination.


"Yeah - let's not do this, so that we can let the courts, you know, decide, or whatever."


Same-sex marriage is already banned in California. This measure is not about marriage; it is about legalizing discrimination.

And that was nothing compared to the bullshit from the anti-Prop 8 campaign.

Are there any gays who can be honest about this?

Palladian said...

"My question: is there such a thing as a truly honest gay person?"

I'm truly honest, honey. Your tie is crooked.

downtownlad said...

Actually Palladian, that incident happened in 2001, a year after I came out to my parents, but I converted it to the present tense in that comment thread in order to drive my point home. The point being that I don't hold back calling someone an anti-gay bigot, even if they are family.

My mother did not want to hear about anything in my life that referred to me being gay, so I told her that there was no point talking until she changed her mind. Yes, I had been in the closet prior to that, and I really had no interest in hiding anything anymore. So I told her to call me when she got over it. And yes, she did have cancer at the time (she still does - it's in remission)

Anyway, she learned how to deal with me being gay after about three months, and we have talked frequently after that.

But of course I lost a lot respect for her after that incident, and it has taken quite a few years for her to win that respect back. I never had an issue with my father - he has been great the entire time.

I really don't think my experience is different than most gay people. Most parents of my gay friends were complete dickheads when my friends came out to them. Not surprising - since most Americans are very anti-gay. In fact, my experience with my parents was better than about half of my friends. I have quite a few friends who are completely alienated from their parents, because their parents are homophobes.

downtownlad said...

So Palladian has obviously never left the United States. Shocker.

Pogo - I majored in Economics at one of the top universities in the country. I've also worked on Wall Street for 18 years.

Yes - I know a hell of a lot more about economics than you.

Pogo said...

" I majored in Economics at one of the top universities in the country. I've also worked on Wall Street for 18 years."

Jesus H. Christ!
All that book larnin' and still you didn't learn a goddamned useful thing the whole time.

As per (reputedly) George Orwell, DTL holds economics ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them. It mirrors your travel experience: you have seen, but not observed.

Your training impresses me not at all. She-hit, dude, Krugman won the Nobel, and his dumbass ideas are forcing the US into penury.

And a lot of morons have worked on Wall Street. Enron, WorldCom, Savings & Loans in the 80s, GM, Fannie Mae, etc etc. None of those pedigrees means jack shit.


"Yes - I know a hell of a lot more about economics than you."

If your posts reflected the strength of that assertion, I'd agree immediately. I can't recall you posting on much more than gay issues, so, have at it.

Palladian said...

"Actually Palladian, that incident happened in 2001, a year after I came out to my parents, but I converted it to the present tense in that comment thread in order to drive my point home."

Oh, so you lied as usual.

And you came out to your parents in 2001?! Jesus. What a pussy. You spent your life enjoying the advantages of the closet and then when you were comfortable and safely professionally situated you got around to coming out. Meanwhile the rest of us who "came out" when we first discovered our sexuality, suffered the ostracism, bigotry and sometimes violence that such an act incurred in a rural town in 1991. But my soul is better for it.

Yet you have the nerve to come in here and spout off and spew at everyone else about their "homophobia" and "hatred" and "bigotry" when you yourself were a willing and complicit beneficiary of the legacy of anti-gay bigotry and oppression.

You're a colossal and pathetic hypocrite and everyone knows it. Luckily everyone here is smart enough to understand that your bilious nonsense doesn't represent the opinions and viewpoints of the majority of gay Americans.

former law student said...

And the handful of gays and lesbians in Congress - why are their voices so silent?

This point is worth taking up. Where is the gay leadership? Who are the gay leaders? There's no gay MLK; there's barely a gay Bayard Ruskin (who was gay, by the way).

Blacks did not secure equal rights for themselves simply by hanging back and hoping LBJ would push for them. They came out; they marched; they got beat up and worse.

The most public gay these days is the sex advice columnist, Dan Savage.

Let's see some public leadership; let's see the face of the gay rights movement. Don't expect "straighty" to do all your work for you.

Palladian said...

"So Palladian has obviously never left the United States. Shocker."

My silence towards the question does not imply an answer. But we all know your little rhetorical "trick" of asking questions of people, fabricating answers and then using it to smear them. In this case the question is so laughable and pathetic that I don't really care.

"Pogo - I majored in Economics at one of the top universities in the country. I've also worked on Wall Street for 18 years."

LOL. We go from travel bragging to college bragging to career bragging! Do you have your diplomas hanging in your living room? Do you leave your paystubs lying around for the benefit of the housekeeper? Do you have any diamonds? Why don't you show them to us?!

L. E. Lee said...

"let's see the face of the gay rights movement."

There are thousands of pictures gay and lesbian families. That is the face of the movement.

It is also succeeding.

L. E. Lee said...

Chase wrote
"My question: is there such a thing as a truly honest gay person?"

Chase thank you for being honest about your bigotry.

Bissage said...

@JAC asked: Do you think the old laws against interracial marriage were equal?

Yes, in the narrow sense of the word as used in my 6:38 comment. Separate but equal, that is, symmetrical. There’s a lot of precedent to support that view. Whether those laws were unconstitutional as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause is a separate issue. A separate but very much unequal issue, I might add.

My point was simply one of rhetoric. The fact of inequality, in the broadest possible sense (as it is typically used by protesters and their ilk) does not a persuasive argument make. So far as I’m concerned, the burden is on proponents of SSM to show why a rule that has served well for thousands of years should be set aside. It’s not necessarily a heavy burden in my view (maybe even the standard is by a preponderance), but it needs to be done. For example, there might be arguments that SSM reduces the spread of disease or that it benefits children or that it promotes general economic prosperity. That’s why I said “There’s nothing wrong with [advocating change] so why the horse manure?” My objection was to the horse manure, only.

@JAC said: I really think you do understand the inequality. It's not very hard to understand.

This reads like an accusation of bad faith. I joke around a lot here at Althouse, and you might think I’m stupid, but I never comment in bad faith. So I’ll thank you never to accuse me of that ever again.

Scott said...

L. E. Lee: When you and your ilk stop being apologists for backstabbing political hacks, maybe fewer of them will run for office.

L. E. Lee said...

Once again Scott, I think President Obama needs to get on the right side of history.

Maybe, because of the double dealing that you are representing, I should argue that it should be handled by the courts.

Smilin' Jack said...

Gay groups... detect what was rather obvious all along.

Oh noes! We had the audacity to hope that Obama was lying when he said he opposed gay marriage, but maybe he has a shred of integrity after all! Oh noes!

L. E. Lee said...

Citizen Chase standing in the streets of Rome during the early empire states

"My question: is there such a thing as a truly honest Christian?"

Sofa King said...

Once again Scott, I think President Obama needs to get on the right side of history.

Or else what? There's no incentive for them to care what you think because they know you'll never not vote Democrat in any case.

former law student said...

they know you'll never not vote Democrat in any case.

Why not? There are plenty of Log Cabin Republicans. You could argue they're Southern blacks; the gay Democrats are Northern blacks. The whites around them are equally antipathetic; the Republicans are just more open about it.

Pogo said...

"they know you'll never not vote Democrat in any case."

fls said: "Why not?"

Because they won't, no matter how many times they get abused.

You know it, and Obama knows it.

If he calls up those gays upset he still "needs to get on the right side of history" and whispers to them on the phone, you know you're always special to me, they'll shower, primp, put on their Sunday best and be at the door, waiting, waiting for him to show.

Pogo said...

Oh, I'm just teasin'.

He'll call.
Real soon.

L. E. Lee said...

It is another conservative/Republican fantasy that there is no difference between the Dems and GOP for gays. (I guess that is what you get from listening to Rush all the time.)

Are the Dems perfect concerning gay rights? No. Are the Dems significantly better than the GOP? HELL YES!

As they say, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sofa King said...

Why not?

Very simply: if you are a gay democrat because you have lefty positions, you are not going to abandon the lefty party just because they are insufficiently supportive of gay rights.

If, however, your gay identity is actually more important than other political issues, you're still never going to not vote Democrat, because they are the undisputed party of identity politics.

I'm certain there are a small percentage of gay moderates that could be swayed by a combination of these issues. I'm also certain that L. E. Lee isn't one of them.

Pogo said...

"another conservative/Republican fantasy that there is no difference between the Dems and GOP for gays"

No one says that.

A conservative/libertarian approach would get the government out of the whole question.

There are very few remaining overlap areas between conservatives and the GOP.

There is quite a bit of overlap between the GOP and Democrats. Even, as Obama proves, militarily.

L. E. Lee said...

Look, obviously many on the right have allowed "the perfect to become the enemy of the good" but don't blame those on the other side if they refuse to follow your childish ways!

Also, if you watched the 2008 GOP convention you would know that the Republicans are the true champions of identity politics. It just is not that very diverse.

BTW, what ever happen to J.C. Watts?

Chase said...

Chase thank you for being honest about your bigotry.

My pleasure. Thank you.

Pogo said...

" the Republicans are the true champions of identity politics"

Black is white.
Up is down.


Criminey.

L. E. Lee said...

If Palin was not an appeal to identity politics of the smallest order than I don't know what is. She obviously wasn't chosen based on her credentials.

Chase said...

Here is some advice for gay-marriage proponents from someone who will never vote for same sex marriage. Those who believe as I do will not tell this, and those already on your side will only possibly give the right advice.

The people that you need to convince are neither of those sides.

#1) Time is, yes, on your side. But only for a short window. What I mean by that is that overall impressions must be made now before the country turns the voting both against Democrats - and the cycle will happen again, believe me. So DO NOT let the face of gay marriage be angry protestors or gay pundits and their friends constantly using the bigot and homophobe label. Just as most people feel for any family and friends, they don't like it when other family or friends are called such names.

#2) DO Start by respecting the differences of opinion that many people honestly have about same sex marriage. Acknowledge that yes, there has been millenea of f heterosexual marriage, and yes, changing that is not something to be handled lightly. Recognize that many, if not most, people are afraid of major change. Why would same sex marriage be a good thing for American society at this time, a time of economic worldwide upheaval. Why should we add social upheaval too. There are answers that can calm and make a rational person see things from a same sex marriage perspective.

#3) Do continue to emphasize the relationships that are long term for gays that eople on the fence may know - co-workers, family, neighbors. This is marriage we're talking about - stability and security is the focus. The face of the movement should not be the gay pride parade, bitchy always talkin' 'bout gettin' some queen that is portrayed on TV so often. Americans on the fence are more likely to see marriage as a possibility for Will - not Jack.

#4) DO NOT be dishonest in any campaign - the voters smell it and if they're already inclined against you, you will take much much longer to win them over. Make the argument on the points I raised above, and you will win the middle far sooner than previous tactics can ever get you to.

L. E. Lee said...

think Chase's political analysis is pretty good. I would add that if you believe focusing on domestic partnership's is the more politically viable strategy then don't allow yourself to be distracted by the other side who have no interest in supporting either options.

Now, personally I have come to believe over the last eighteen months that fighting directly for same sex marriage makes the most sense.

L. E. Lee said...

Weighing in on the Muslim/gay issue I would say that Muslim societies are about fifty years behind the United States. I would also add that I am proud to live in a county (The U.S.A.) that is leading on this human rights issue as it has done so, over and over, during its two hundred years in existence. I would also add that western society has been better on these issues because they have formally separated civil law from religious law starting many centuries ago. That is mostly not true among Muslim nations and other nations that are behind western nations in recognizing that these civil rights should be shared by all. (They are called CIVIL rights for a reason after all.)

Palladian said...

"Weighing in on the Muslim/gay issue I would say that Muslim societies are about fifty years behind the United States."

I'd add a couple of zeros onto that estimate.

"I would also add that I am proud to live in a county (The U.S.A.) that is leading on this human rights issue as it has done so, over and over, during its two hundred years in existence."

Good. I'm glad there are still some liberals who will openly admit that. See downtownlad for an example of the opposite.

"I would also add that western society has been better on these issues because they have formally separated civil law from religious law starting many centuries ago."

I agree, and we need to complete that separation by removing marriage (a religious rite) from the regulatory power of the civil government. The State has no right to affirm or deny marriage to anyone. There should be no State-recognized "gay marriage". There should be no State-recognized heterosexual marriage. Marriage should solely be an issue decided by each church and religious organization.

Palladian said...

Marriage is not a civil right, it's a religious rite and therefore should not be subject to the regulatory power of the civil State.

Pogo said...

I could live with that, Palladian.

Palladian said...

"I could live with that, Palladian."

I've thought about this issue a long time, and it's the only solution that is fair and won't result in religious organizations and churches being compelled to perform same-sex unions if they don't choose to. Because that will be the inevitable result of State-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

Since the State showed (with no-fault divorce and other changes) that it was not serious about marriage or encouraging marriage as anything other than another revenue stream, it loses all legitimacy in an argument that State-sponsored marriage is meant to strengthen society.

Funny, but a lot of issues are more easily resolved by removing the government from the equation. Not all, of course, but many.

Pogo said...

" marriage as anything other than another revenue stream"

Damnit, but I never even considered that POV!

L. E. Lee said...

Palladian wrote
"it's the only solution that is fair and won't result in religious organizations and churches being compelled to perform same-sex unions if they don't choose to."

Churches are not forced to marry people of different races or religions. Of course the same will be true concerning gay marriage.

L. E. Lee said...

Palladian,

Marriage is I believe found in every society that has developed among humans. It appears to be a based more on nature than religious law. Just as every society has had government so have they had marriage. It appears that it is the natural equilibrium among humans living together as a community.

L. E. Lee said...

I wrote
"I would also add that I am proud to live in a county (The U.S.A.) that is leading on this human rights issue as it has done so, over and over, during its two hundred years in existence."

Pallidian wrote
"Good. I'm glad there are still some liberals who will openly admit that."

I would add that it was a central theme of the Obama campaign.

L. E. Lee said...

See video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

L. E. Lee said...

Barak Obama spoke to true patriotism not the Palin nativist kind.

I will be disappointed if he does not get on the right side of this history that he so eloquently spoke of.

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

"Barak Obama spoke to true patriotism not the Palin nativist kind."

You were doing well but then you had to ruin it by starting to talk out of your ass rather than your head.

You people need to learn how to talk about Barack Obama in completely positive terms rather than constantly defining him with negatives ("he's not an evil racist white-trash whore like that "nativist" Sarah Palin!").

Obama didn't appeal to patriotism. He appealed to the idea that everything was wrong with America and that he alone had the mystical power to fix it. And he appealed not only to "nativists" but racialists as well. It didn't matter that Obama didn't have much experience relative to an executive position and didn't really articulate many specific ideas. It mattered that he was going to "make history". To me this sort of racialism is far worse than "nativism".

Obama and his followers seem stuck in permanent political campaign mode. Y'all seem more interested in "making history" than governing. While we dither around with silly ring-sharing rights we're falling deeper and deeper in debt and farther and farther behind and still under an existential threat from a backwards, bloodthirsty, regressive army of religious fanatics and I ain't talking about Sarah Palin. It all seems like worry about the curtains on the Titanic.

Palladian said...

"Marriage is I believe found in every society that has developed among humans. It appears to be a based more on nature than religious law. Just as every society has had government so have they had marriage. It appears that it is the natural equilibrium among humans living together as a community."

Wow, a leftist appealing to a specious interpretation of natural law and ancient tradition. That's a new one.

Bissage said...

If there’s anything I find more annoying than advocates of same-sex marriage arguing that gays and lesbians are currently being treated as second-class citizens, it is advocates of same-sex marriage implying that I had best knuckle under now rather than risk retribution for being on the wrong side of history.

L. E. Lee said...

Bissage, Jesse Helms said the exact same thing to me 25 years ago!

L. E. Lee said...

Bissage wrote

"...risk retribution..."

I don't find conservatives having this constant persecution fantasy annoying, but I do find it amusing!

Bissage, I promise you that you are not going to face any retribution.

But twenty years from now you or your children will look back and say "how could I (dad) have been such a bigot?"

Big Mike said...

I promise you that you are not going to face any retribution.

That's a lie and you're a liar. You may actually believe what you typed, but that doesn't make it true.

Big Mike said...

@Palladian, your 2:22 comment.

I also think you have the right of it. (As well as the rite of it.)

Hoosier Daddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

Weighing in on the Muslim/gay issue I would say that Muslim societies are about fifty years behind the United States..

I had no idea that we were executing gays back in 1959.

L. E. Lee said...

I don't think most Muslim countries are either.

I should note though that many of the conservative posters to this site might feel more comfortable living in some of these more conservative societies.

Sofa King said...

I should note though that many of the conservative posters to this site might feel more comfortable living in some of these more conservative societies.

Then your ignorance is exceeded only by your obliviousness.

traditionalguy said...

L E Lee.. you are a wise gay man expressing a moderate position asking for acceptance. That will win it for you. The fear of many traditionalist people is that the Gay Marriage and Gay Equality movements are being used to outlaw normal human beliefs based upon scriptures. Banning the Bible or its quotation as hate speech will not go over in this area of the country, and many see the fight to be that one.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian : I've thought about this issue a long time, and it's the only solution that is fair and won't result in religious organizations and churches being compelled to perform same-sex unions if they don't choose to. Because that will be the inevitable result of State-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

If churches can refuse to perform marriages to people of other religions, why not marriages between someone of the same sex?

Jason (the commenter) said...

L. E. Lee : President Obama is behind the curve with the Democrat rank and file which is heavily in favor of same sex marriage and many Democrat office holders. The country is also quickly shifting and is becoming receptive of same sex marriage. He needs to reevaluate his position pretty soon.

I think you mean he needs to re-reevaluate his position. He used to be for same-sex marriages, then he was against them for strategic reasons, and now he's against them for religious ones.

Big Mike said...

I don't think most Muslim countries are [executing gays] either.

I saw the execution of two gay Iranian men posted on the Internet. The ropes were attached to a bar hooked to a crane's cable, so the last sound the men heard was the crane's diesel engine starting up as the crane slowly lifted their bodies off the ground and into the air.

A thoroughly crappy way to die, and an even more crappy reason for it.

Note to wish-you-were-Robert-E. The reason why you can say nasty things about conservatives in general and Christian conservatives in particular is that you know none of them will show up at your house to behead you. The reason why you say things like the quote above is that you know that Muslims might very well do just that. You are not displaying magnanimity of spirit. You are a coward, plain and simple.

L. E. Lee said...

You're a goof Mike.

L. E. Lee said...

BTW, I think very highly of most Christians. I don't think highly of those who use their christianity as a means to justify their bigotry.

L. E. Lee said...

Traditionalguy wrote
"The fear of many traditionalist people is that the Gay Marriage and Gay Equality movements are being used to outlaw normal human beliefs based upon scriptures. Banning the Bible or its quotation as hate speech will not go over in this area of the country, and many see the fight to be that one."

Thank you Traditionalguy.

Many Christians have come to accept equality for gays. I think many understand that ancient hatreds should be overcome. Finally no one wants to ban the bible. Afterall, most gays and lesbians are also Christians.

Finally, I have not identified myself as gay. I personally prefer to let my arguments speak for themselves unlike some of the other posters here who engage in identify (or in one case mis-identity) politics.

jdeeripper said...

downtownlad said...Ann actually has it entirely wrong. Not surprising, because she is straight, thus incapable of ever truly understanding gay issues and how gay people think.

But you are a male homosexual. Why does that make you capable of ever truly understanding how straight women think about gays?

To claim that any individual inherently lacks the capacity to understand how other humans think who belong to different social or biological categories is itself a form of bigotry. The most basic kind.

And genetic/biological determinism as well.

But then again you are a stereotypical, overly emotional homosexual lunatic.

And you don't want to marry anybody anyway. It's best for the human gene pool that you continue in your bitter sissy lifestyle as a childless, unmarried victim of the 99% of humanity that isn't homosexual.

And a victim as well of all the other gays who think people like you are flaming kooks.

Eric said...

I think you mean he needs to re-reevaluate his position. He used to be for same-sex marriages, then he was against them for strategic reasons, and now he's against them for religious ones.

Oh please. Obama doesn't give a damn one way or the other. If Axelrod tells him a pro-SSM position will help with reelection he'll switch back immediately. Otherwise no. I can't believe there are still people who don't realize this.

And no, Lee, no matter how many times you say public attitudes are shifting it's still wishful thinking. The people who voted for prop 8 are still out there.

Also, don't be too quick to claim the imprimatur of history. The Nazis and the Soviets thought they were on the right side of history too, you know.

L. E. Lee said...

Eric wrote

"The people who voted for prop 8 are still out there."

It was a close vote and those who voted for it are dying off and they are being replaced by a new generation of voters who are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights.



Also, if you wait long enough someone will bring up "Nazis". Thanks Eric.

Eric said...

Also, if you wait long enough someone will bring up "Nazis". Thanks Eric.

You're welcome. Do you have a point, or is this just a knee-jerk "Godwin's law" insinuation?