Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama
by John T. SimpsonI really thought my Republican platform piece here at BH would have been my last for awhile. Plenty for readers of all stripes to chew on. And I got too many other things to do. The reason for my reluctant return is yet another critical issue the Obamamedia and our LibDem government are completely flat-lining on: the officially sanctioned exterminations of LGBTs in Iraq, and on our dime. Not to mention State’s cold and lame response. More on that later. Too much more, actually.
First, the one of the main points of this fact-based opinion piece. And I know I’m going to catch hell from the Streisand and Brolin crowd on this one! Ronald Reagan was a hero to gays, and Obama has not been to date. I know, I know. The Evil Ronald Reagan, who practically invented AIDS? Reagan, the Adolf Eichmann of the Gay World? Not true. Not by a country mile!
In fact, Ronald Reagan was a better friend to gays and lesbians in his age than Barack Obama has been to gays in his. But don’t even go by what I say. I’m a right wing extremist, and very biased to what I believe. I admit it. Who isn’t these days? The press? LOL! But here are some irrefutable facts on The One and The Gipper I thought I’d throw out there. A gay buffet for thought, if you will. With swimming pools. And movie stars.
You may not know this, but like former presidential candidate Barack Obama, then-candidate Ronald Reagan faced a polarizing gay-related California ballot referendum of his own in 1978. It was called the Briggs Initiative, better known as Prop 6, and would have banned all gays and lesbians from teaching in California schools.
This, in an America not nearly as tolerant of homosexuals or gay issues back then as now. Just ask ‘em. I remember. I read the far left Boston Phoenix. It was free, why not? And I knew fag haters. Too many, actually. But I digress. Back to 1978 California, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, gays and the Briggs Initiative, better known as Prop 6.
As Prop 6 appeared to be gaining steam as the vote neared, with State Senator John Briggs stoking fears of gay teachers in the classroom with the full backing of California’s right wing, gays and lesbians were terrified that Prop 6 might actually become law. In their darkest hour, they turned to a most unlikely hero and savior: former California governor and conservative Republican Ronald Reagan, then gearing up for his 1980 presidential run.
After hearing the group’s concerns, candidate Reagan not only agreed with them, but became the bill’s most public detractor, even penning a scathing op-ed against it in the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, in which he said the following:
“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”
Ronnie also stated that the same laws regarding the safety of schoolchildren applied to ALL teachers in the state. How’s THAT for progressive thinking from a conservative Republican, in an America not eight years removed from the Stonewall Riots? With former two-time Governor Reagan’s stern and vocal opposition, Prop 6 lost by a million votes. And John Briggs lost his race for governor in the primaries.
In taking the bold stand he did, candidate Reagan completely alienated the right wing in California, which blamed him for both the Prop 6 defeat and John Briggs’ primary loss. It was an act of political courage on Reagan’s part that might not only have cost him electoral vote-rich California, but the Presidency itself.
As it turned out, Ronald Reagan took California by a handy seventeen points in his 1980 landslide pummeling of Jimmy Carter, sending the President back to his peanut farm in Georgia (if only he had stayed there). And you can bet a lot of grateful gays and lesbians remembered Ronnie’s championing their cause, and pulled the lever for The Gipper. But despite all that, Ronald Reagan was a conservative of his time. Tolerance did not mean acceptance.
Again, from the Independent Gay Forum:
Reagan: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”
Aside from his tolerant personal attitude, Reagan’s actual record on civil liberties for gays was surprisingly good. Cannon reports that Reagan was “repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s.
Though liberals may harangue Ronald Reagan as I’ve indicated, the fact remains. When gays and lesbians desperately needed him as they faced REAL institutionalized homophobia, Ronald Reagan was there for them, and in a major way that turned the tide completely in their favor. In fact, the openly gay Log Cabin Republicans were spawned from this huge political victory.
Now let us move on to candidate Barack Obama and his wishy-washy stand on Prop 8, the gay California ballot referendum of his time:
“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”
The main point that seemed to escape candidate Obama at this time was that they WERE playing around with the California Constitution. I believe candidate Obama missed an opportunity here to take a bold stand on gay issues like Reagan did, and speak out against Prop 8 from the liberal Democrat POV. He was, and is, a very charming and charismatic candidate and President. No denying that. He could have used that charisma and charm to sway many minds over, and with a very simple statement that could have swung the Prop 8 vote the 3 points it needed to pass.
Example:
“Though I myself oppose gay marriage, I cannot let this Constitutional ban go unchallenged. Amendments that restrict rights instead of expanding them are un-American. Therefore, I oppose the passage of Proposition 8, and I hope you will, too. I will further state that I only support this measure as civil procedure.
“Churches and individuals that are morally opposed to gay marriage should not be compelled under legal threat or duress to participate. That is their right under freedom of religion. I would no more want gays invading the rights of churches, than I would want churches invading the rights of gays.”
But, no. What we got was candidate Obama wetting his finger and sticking it in the air. Just like Bill Clinton with his poll-driven morality, trying to have it both ways. Not much Hope For Change there with regard to Democratic presidents, it would seem. Even in office, the Obama Administration has been wishy-washy on pushing gay issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I don’t really care about that. Obama and gay advocates can hammer out DADT, among many other issues.
But even as a straight man, I am VERY concerned about the officially-sanctioned extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, what I now call the Gay Holocaust in Iraq. What else do you call a specifically targeted pogrom, with the express goal of exterminating a segment of the population? If this were merely a death squad issue, that would be matter for the Iraqi government.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is neck-deep in the gay butchery themselves. Interior Ministry police hunt down gays in Baghdad, raid parties, hunt them online by using fake foreign IP addresses (as Iran does), then tortures and exterminates them in the worst possible ways. Just as Iraqi Spiritual Leader Ali al-Sistani declared they should be, in his 2006 fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs. Though removed from his website after controversy, the fatwa is still in full effect.
Allow me at this point to question the spirituality of a religious leader favoring any pogrom, or stating that ANYONE should die in the ‘worst possible ways’.
Here is one former Mahdi Army member who now makes a career of being a gay death squad ’surgeon,’ cutting out the cancer of homosexuality the Americans brought with them to Iraq. His words, not mine. Also, one particularly subhuman technique of killing gays, now quite popular with Iraq’s most pious Shiite extremists, is to super-glue a gay man’s anus shut, pump him full of a diarrhea-inducing compound, and have a few laughs as the victim suffers unbelievable agony before dying. The Iraqi tribes also now have carte blanche to exterminate any Iraqi LGBTs they find.
Unfortunately, this Gay Holocaust of Iraqi LGBTs, which has already claimed nearly 500 innocent lives in the most gruesome of ways since the 2003 invasion, and is now ramping up in violence and horror by the day, enjoys wide public support in Islamic Iraq. Just take a look at this recent report, also from Common Ills:
This morning AFP is reporting that signs are going up around the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad threatening to kill a list of people alleged to be gay. The posters are put out by the Brigades of the Righteous and AFP translates the posters as stating, “We will punish you, perverts” and “We will get you, puppies” has been scrawled on some posters — “puppies” being slang for gay males in Iraq. The Australian carries the AFP report here. These posters are going up around Sadr City. Where is the United Nations condemnation? Where is the White House, where is the US State Dept?
Very good questions, to which you may not like the answers. I know I don’t. Here’s State’s response to this worsening gay horrorshow in Iraq, again from the Common Ills blog:
Noel Clay, a State Department spokesperson, said U.S. officials “condemn the persecution of LGBTs in Iraq,” but he couldn’t confirm whether the violence they’re facing in Iraq is because of their sexual orientation. Clay noted that while homosexuality is against the law in Iraq, the death penalty is not the punishment for homosexual acts.
Now I don’t know who Noel Clay is, but I do now know that Inspector Clouseau is Einstein by comparison. I’m finding too much evidence. I don’t even have to look! How dangerously stupid is Noel Clay, to be in that lofty position as State and be so ignorant of the facts? Is he just stupid? Or worse, is it willful ignorance?
To be fair, this gay horrorshow started on President Bush’s watch. He should have done far more to nip it in the bud in 2006 after Sistani’s fatwa. In my mind, that will remain a black mark on his record. He should have put a stop to it, instead of letting it fester to the point it is today. All that said, this issue is now fully the Obama Administration’s and Congress’ problem lock, stock and barrel.
So where is President Obama? Secretary Clinton? Madame SOS said she would stand with ALL the Iraqi people! Where is she on this issue, so near and dear to gay hearts? Nothing on State’s main or Iraq pages. Even Queerty, a major gay blog, is slamming Hillary on this issue. How bad is that? Where is our Gay Rights Hero President on our American tax dollars subsidizing a Gay Holocaust?
What are we fighting for there? Freedom? What are we defending Iraq from? Islamist extremism? Starting to look like a lost war to me! And I supported President Bush every step of the way on this war, even when he was getting hammered for it by everyone! I believed the Iraqi people deserved a shot. For the first time in six years, I’m not so sure anymore.
I look at it this way. Either the Iraqi government and people can put a stop to this Auschwitz-like Gay Holocaust in Iraq, or I say withdraw and let Al Qaeda in Iraq take over. Certainly wouldn’t make life any worse for Iraqi LGBTs. And they can ALL share in the terror they enjoy so much! Hell, I’d even be willing to help and support Al Qaeda do just that! But only this once. You know. Like a Christmas armistice. Wouldn’t be the first time we helped Al Qaeda fight terror.
A brilliant strategy on fighting the war on state-sponsored Islamist terror too, if you think about it. Not only would Iran lose its considerable Iraqi Shiite power base, a supreme Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq would be a mortal foe, and would no doubt be plotting 9/11s for Tehran and elsewhere in the Islamic Republic. As a bonus, Iraq Shiite extremists like the ’surgeon’ and all his gay-butchering Islamist Nazi pals would be the first to be hunted down and exterminated by a supreme Al Qaeda in Iraq. They could ALL enjoy some open-air surgery and super-glue enemas!
How Joker-like blackly comic great would THAT be?
Considering Iran has now seemed to have successfully exported their own Gay Holocaust to Iraq, how Joker-like great would all that be, too! I say let a Sunni extremist Iraq and Shiite extremist Iran turn each others’ nations into bombed-out wastelands of terror. And without the loss of one American life or dime. It’s one idea, anyway. Another hor d’ouevre for thought. And it couldn’t happen to nicer guys. Unless, of course, the Iraqi people decide to refrain from their most-popular anti-gay pogrom and join the civilized. Otherwise, I see no point in defending them any longer.
It sure would be nice to see others speaking out against this taxpayer-funded gay horrorshow in Iraq. Like our Gay Hero President, for example. Knowing Ronnie as I do, I’m sure he wouldn’t stand for this kind of abomination in any nation being rebuilt with American taxpayer dollars, or protected by American soldiers.
Congress, State and The White House really need to hear about this LGBT horrorshow in Iraq, loudly and repeatedly. Short of war, there’s nothing we can do about Iran’s Himmler-like extermination of gays. War works for me, though. But Iraq is ours. We broke it, we fix it. And you could not have much more severe of a breakage in Iraq than a Gay Holocaust. This is 100% Obama’s and the current government’s problem now. Those gay anal super-glueings started on their watch.
Time to stop it. Like right now.
Also, since Hollywood pretty much propelled Obama into office, why don’t you get on the horn to the gay and human rights chumps at AMPAS? See if they can give their best bud and Gay Rights Hero Obamamessiah a shoutout. Then again, considering AMPAS’ and Hollywood’s own deafening silence on Roxana Saberi and Iran’s Gay Holocaust, maybe we’d better wait until the next Oscars for them to champion “gay rights for everyone” again, like Penn and Black so tearfully pleaded for.
That stuff looks SO good on TV, doesn’t it? Just like President Obama and his so-called championing of gay rights, which appears to be totally MIA on EVERY gay rights issue. Hell, I’m a Reagan Republican, and I have a better record on this issue than all of them combined! I don’t care that they’re gay! They’re innocent human beings, and they’re being horribly tortured and brutally exterminated! Do you have to be Jewish to be totally repulsed by Auschwitz?
Based on Reagan’s record, I believe The Gipper would have put a stop to that shite and ordered American troops to hunt down the death squads, as American GIs once hunted down the SS ‘werewolves’ in postwar Berlin. I also believe he would have pummeled al-Maliki’s Shiite government over the issue as well. Which only makes the silence by the Obama Administration and Congress on this issue more profoundly deafening. O Gay Rights Hero President, where ARE you?
Oh and if any of you ObamaBots believe anything I’ve said here is fantastic or untrue, look it up yourselves. I’m tired of spending hours researching and linking stuff I already know inside out. Plenty out there on all this gay horrorshow stuff, in both Iran and Iraq. Too much, actually. The Internet’s glutted with it! You just have to look. And not the other way, as even the Invisible Press seems content to. Look at how few in the MSM are reporting on this abomination. Gay blogs, mostly, along with the BBC and some S.F. TV affiliates.
The rest I leave to you. And our Gay Hero President and Congressional gay rights champs. Ya, As if. Too busy saying Israel needs a tougher line. Um, excuse me?
Goddamn, I miss Ronald Reagan. He stood up even for those he totally disagreed with. This bunch won’t even stand up for those they profess to champion! I guess that part I must leave to you, Dear Readers. Won’t you speak up for those who can’t, to those who should be and aren’t?
Do it for Ronnie! This is the ULTIMATE in taxpayer issues!
And somebody wake up Perez Hilton. Bigger problem here than Miss California, methinks. See if she can’t get the Prop 8 crowd as rabid on the horrific slaughter of Iraqi and Iranian gays as they are with the Mormon Church and us! I’ve sent him a dozen emails on this stuff. Crickets! My Gay Hero.
And just to show I’m not partisan or picking on Perez here (which is just too easy to do), the Log Cabin Republicans linked above need a shoutout, too. I’ve been cc’ing them on all my Perez Hilton emails. None too pleased with their response, either. Time to step it up. Hell, they’re the gays here! Why do I and only a handful of REAL gay advocates have to be the ones screaming to the skies about all this gay horrorshow stuff?
Hmm. Interesting question, indeed.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
390 Comments
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Not sure if Reagan impacted Briggs' primary loss. Would be willing to hear from those who remember. Data sketchy. The rest I stand by. Also, if the West Berliners of 1947 were still hunting and exterminating Jews, I would have had absolutely no problem moving out and letting the Red Army take over. IMHO.
Very good article… Thanks, I didn't even know about these holocausts. But to be honest, I don't even try to keep up with everything in Iraq because it wears me out. No group of people should be exterminated for any reason.
And honestly, I don't see Obama as a champion for anyone that won't uphold his political career… He is in the hotseat for power and not the American people…. I am glad I saw that before the election and didn't vote for him..
This is the perfect example of a human rights issue that the right should take up. The left is too acutely self-aware to worry about suffering among the brown people of the world. The liberties to freely believe and express -liberties sadly co-opted by the far left – are for everyone. I raise my glass to a progressive, conservative stance: to champion human rights wherever and however they're threatened, not picking and choosing the ones that serve one's special interests.
The problem with a very large group of lefties is that they don't really respect the rights of non whites. So when they believe gay "rights" (you lost a democratic vote despite having more money – suck it up!) are being trampled on, they will throw a hissy fit.
However, when it's happening to a group of people who are almost exclusively non white, that doesn't seem to count because (1) it would mean acknowledging that the situation in the ME is more complex than benevolent Muslim victims and American agressors (because they see no way that the situation could be more complex) and (2) their position is not about the truth and how to improve things in the area. No, it's about what it says about their own country. There's no way in hell they are going to criticise the actions of the homophobic scum in Iraq if that means they might have to acknowledge that conservatives got something right. Meanwhile, people suffer and they don't care.
You will never be able to re-brand the conservative party as socially liberal because the conservative base will not allow it. They firmly believe moving farther to the right is the answer. I do agree that we should pull our troops out of Iraq immediately. Iraq was not sold as a humanitarian mission until after the invasion failed to turn up WMDs. The troops are basically there on an excuse for Bush to save face. What a disaster.
I'm waiting for Republicans to redefine sky color.
Enlightening John, I had no idea they were going after the gays in Iraq – funny how this doesn't get reported or exposed in the DBM. Pigs celebrating bad behavior was the reason we invaded in the first place. Imagine the fun if Sadaam's boys were now in charge? Like Reagan, and in a very similar way, the same can be said for GW's stance in Iraq. He knew that was a nest of hornets that had to be exterminated – and he acted at his own risk. Now the Taliban, Iran and N. Korea are going after the nukes. Will Obama show the same resolve and character of commitment, at the expense of his popularity? So far, not good.
Maybe the Republicans are moving farther away from being Conservatives, but true Conservatives are NOT moving farther right. Don't confuse the "Republican base" with the Conservative brand, which has always promoted the a person exercising his or her freedoms to the fullest extent.
As a side-note, I feel like you have this notion in your head that every BH poster with a reputation score higher than -50 is a gun-toting, AyRab-hating, Bible-thumping backwoods hick with no literary acumen, historical education, critical thinking skills or common sense. You do realize, Anti, that there are reasonable people on this side of the aisle, and that we believe what we believe because we are?
Same here.
Despite sharing the same skin color, Obama's policies are going to help the Black community long-term. His support of killing DC's school choice scholarship for poor Black kids was a recent example.
So, I'm not shocked that the "pro-gay" Obama is indifferent to the slaughter of Muslims of the gay lifestyle.
That'll be the Democrats for sure. When they decide that "blue" is derogatory, offensive, and insufficient to describe the many hues of the sky in different parts of the world, they'll invariably use a universally-neutral term like "CyanoAzure-Variant."
I'm waiting for liberals and Democrats to speak up about the gay slaughters. I could give a damn what color the sky is, Stupid. Another liberal on point, as usual.
[...] screaming to the skies about all this gay horrorshow stuff? Hmm. Interesting question, indeed.(Big Hollywood Blog Archive Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama ) __________________ "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much [...]
Sadly, what we define as rights are what other countries consider privledges. Basic human rights to them are privledges to those who agree with the government. Any voice of dissent ends up in a coffin. Without free speech and and the right to one's personal sexuality, you're not human. You're a unit who will be stifled and killed if necessary for the better of government.
Everyone has a right to their opinion and free speech. I may think your opinion is ignorant or profound depending on the context, but I will never stifle your right to say it.
@antifascist
Call me crazy, but wouldn't an withdrawal of US troops lead to the Iraqi government REALLY stepping up the slaughter of those of the gay lifestyle?
You obviously don't know what it actually means to be conservative…. Real Conservatives do actually care about human rights… we are not all Neo-conservatives war-hawks… I (as a Conservative) do not believe that people should be mass-murdered simply because of whom they find attractive and sexually desirable… Do you?
I absolutely agree that GLBTs in Iraq should not be hunted down and killed. This is the first I had heard of this and I have to admit that it is disturbing. But I can't help feel that there was an undercurrent of "gays are being killed in Iraq, so we should let them get married in California" going on. I just want to make sure no one is drawing the comparison between brutally murdering gays and not granting the "right" to be married (which is really just demanding social acceptance for a behavior that is not socially accepted).
Regan's quote in your article couldn't have captured my sentiments any better.
Reagan: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”
Step it up how, Fred? They're already killing all the queers they can find, and that includes the police! They're HUNTING them, Fred! Even online! I say if the Iraqis all like terrorizing and killing queers so much, let them all enjoy it at the hands of Al Qaeda. A sort of egalitarianism of terror. See how it works?
I'm sorry, JTS. I was too busy laughing my ass off about Dijon mustardgate.
And you're not going to get me to believe that conservatives giving a sh!t about ANYBODY being slaughtered in Iraq is real unless we're talking about gay fetuses. The only reason Iraq is a mess is because of YOU and your George Bush. The blood is on your hands, not ours. Sorry!
Thanks for pointing that out.
I believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle due to my Christian faith and studying the scientific evidence. That doesn't mean that I support the slaughter of those of who aren't of the heterosexual lifestyle.
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans who share my beliefs are shot down as "bigots" by the more hardcore gay activists. Even those who are pro-gay can still get the "b" word hurled in their direction.
Just ask Councilmember Marion Barry, a longtime pro-gay politician in Washington, DC. Despite Barry's track record, his disagreement over redefining marriage resulted in him being labeled "bigot" by openly gay Councilmember David Cantania. Cantania's frankly arrogant quip has further deepened Black Democrat resentment of gay "marriage" activists.
In short, disagreeing with a person's lifestyle choice should not be equate with murdering him.
For me it’s more a question of freedom, a conservative ideal. I believe in live and let live, gays should have every right, “short of marriage.” This is the position of Tammy Bruce an openly gay conservative who believes a civil union would suffice. As far as Iraq in 2006 GW also faced a Democrat house that was intent on losing the war. He had to pick his fights. To stop this kind of violence would require real involvement on our part, for which the political will is not there, for either Bush or Obama. As far as Reagan you are right, I understand when he was told about Rock Hudson, that he was gay and had AIDS he said to paraphrase, “who didn’t know Rock was gay?” Rock Hudson had been a life long friend of the Reagan’s, he loved freedom.
There you go again, Mr. Simpson. Trying to confuse the radical left with the facts.
No offense but why is this issue important? There are hundreds of mistakes being made by the Big Mocha. Why is his allegiance to yet another faction or splinter group important enough for the never ending series of stories on gay marriage, etc.
Jeez, put a plug in it. Unemployment is approaching 10% and the Mocha is getting ready to guy Social Security. Am I in a lather about gay marriage and the like.
Ah, no.
Texi, gotchya. But I am not advocating gay marriage here. I am pointing out the hypocrisy. Obama is avoiding gay issues like the Plague. Even the NYT is hitting Obama on this stuff now. Headlined Drudge. See for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/politics/07o...
PS-Lets cut to the chase: Gay sex IS biologically unnatural. Look at the plumbing, it says all you need to know.
Ronald Reagan might've been a better friend to the gay rights movement than Obama. But ignoring my other issues with Reagan, that was a long time ago, politically speaking. The Republican party is not the same as it was in 1978. The Republicans cannot claim superiority on this issue based on the actions of Reagan thirty years ago, when since then it is their party that has made the gays into a vote-mongering issue. It is their party that has touted such bills as DOMA and it is their party who has opposed legislation such as the Matthew Shepard Act. The human rights violations in Iraq are appalling, but we are having a difficult time just keeping the hold we have on that country; we do not have the troops or the military or political power to devote to stopping this. We ought to. We would, probably, if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place. So for now, the best we can do is to do the best we can in our own country – that means not opposing hate crime legislation.
The reason there's no outcry from the American left over the gay holocaust in Iran is because there's nothing in it for them. Liberalism is defined by narcissism. A cause is only worth fighting for if it makes you look hip or cool to do so. At the moment, gay marriage is in – gay genocide isn't. Until a pop icon of the left such as Bono or Obama signals that it's cool to be against gay genocide Iran, don't expect much outrage from the so-called progressives.
Bruce, I don't give a damn who porks who. Not my business. A pogrom being partly funded by American taxpayer dollars in Iraq is. How do you feel about us paying Iraqi police to hunt down and slaughter gays?
Hate crime legislation provides unequal protection under the law. All groups are protected, yet some are more protected. The inequality in giving greater protection to one group should be obvious to everyone, regardless of why the protection was granted or what the "good intentions" of such a law were. Do you intend to extend hate crime protection to every group in America (based on race, religion, sexual preference, coke vs. tea, etc.), or just the ones that you sympathize with? A crime is a crime.
AUTHOR'S COMMENT: I've too often heard the argument "we have to have full gay rights in America before we can help anyone else." That's as lame as saying we have to have full rights for blacks before we can do anything about Darfur. What? You'll get back to tortured and exterminated Iraqi and Iranian gays after your honeymoons? Whenever that is? Unbelievable!
Wonderful piece. Hope it gets posted everywhere.
This whole "gay holocaust" thing is really sleazy. Give it up already. You deny gays human rights here but get all riled up over their getting killed halfway around the world in a cesspool of violence that YOU CREATED. All so you can claim that liberals are hypocrites.
I have a bottle of Grey Poupon for you to cry your crocodile tears into.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4915172.st...
This was the first link that comes up when you Google "gays Iraq killed". As you can see, it is from 2006. As in, during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. But of course this is all Obama's fault.
Yes, you care so much about gays getting killed in Iraq that you ignored it until there was a Democrat in the WH. You all can kiss my butt.
Riddle me this. How can 'gay' be an alternate lifestyle that has 'rights'? If you are sexually deviant that really isn't a 'life style' so much as a sexual preference. All of us have the right to our own sexual preference and some find homosexuals repugnant and disgusting because of sexual deviancy practiced by this group. If gays can have a 'right ' to sexual deviancy, then why can't child molesters, rapists, and necrophiliacs? Or taking the thought to extreme conclusion, why not murderers? OOPS! I forgot abortion is legal and is now considered a 'right'. So it goes when you have no sense of true morality or propriety.
Nice bit of feminine hysteria, there…but exactly what "human rights" have been denied to gays in this country? They enjoy all the rights heterosexuals do, with added protections in many areas. Yes, some people still disapprove of your lifestyle. But that doesn't seem like much to cry about when they're hanging gays from construction cranes in other countries, does it?
Um, because child molesters, rapists and necrophiliacs are UNCONSENTUAL whereas homosexuals are willing participants. That was a REALLY dumb thought you should have kept to yourself.
Amen…I think you said it best… The fact is that as conservatives we believe that all people are created equal, and that a few people don't deserve special rights because of the the color of their skin or who they happen to love…Being conservative does not mean that we believe other groups should be denied civil liberties, just not more liberties than everyone else….
Your "empathy" on this topic is so incredibly phony. This is all about exploiting whatever is happening there for political points. Stop pretending you faker. You people cannot stand TEH GAY. You have made that VERY VERY CLEAR, especially recently. So please stop embarrassing yourselves.
What the hell does that mean?
wow so filled with hatred that you can't see even though your eyes may be open. ;o)
Truely suprised that you ignore what Obama HAS NOT done, but quick to throw out the BLAME BUSH FIRST dialogue. Have a nice day!!!
) xoxoxo
Thank you for stating the facts.
A person saying homosexuality as a lifestyle is not the same as Iran legalizing the mass murder of gays. So, "hate crimes" laws are unnecessary as well as a violation of the US Constitution (see 14th Amendment).
That's why I'm opposed. It's about justice not hatred of those who don't share my straight lifestyle.
Mustardo, if you actually read Mr. Simpson's article you would have come across this paragraph:
To be fair, this gay horrorshow started on President Bush’s watch. He should have done far more to nip it in the bud in 2006 after Sistani’s fatwa. In my mind, that will remain a black mark on his record. He should have put a stop to it, instead of letting it fester to the point it is today.
You're apology is accepted. Now get lost.
Actually, Iraq was sold as a humanitarian mission because a fanatical dictator and sworn enemy of the U.S. having his hands on WMD's wasn't enough for the Democrats to support the war. Long before it was concuded that Saddam didnt have WMD's, the general consensus from the left was "So what if he does? He wouldn't DARE use them against us. And who are we to judge, anyway?" So the administration offered other reasons besides just WMD's to invade, hoping that Saddam's genocide of his own people would perhaps be enough to get Democrats to side with America against him. They were wrong, of course. Liberals played the moral equivelency game – we supported Saddam against Iran when he gassed the kurds, therefore we had no right to liberate Iraq from Saddam. I guess the lesson learned was that you just can't get Liberals to side with America when there's a Republican in the White House.
Ah 2006, when the Democrat majority in Congress began, right? Like the commented above me said, this is a black eve for Bush seeing as the fatwa was issued in 2006. Still, the general article is about Reagan v. Obama. Reagan, whom you lefties love to villify as hateful and evil, wasn't quite the mean bastard you make him out to be.
So you pick the one article that's from Bush administration out of about 25 articles on the topic. The Shiite cleric issued the clampdown on gays on April 4, 2009. This is now Obama's onus to bear whether you like it or not.
The thing about Ronald Reagan and unlike Obama believed in individuality. The strength of Reagan was that he really did bring people together. I think the radical left that has hyjacked so many issues, saw this and freaked out. Here was a man who was all about traditional values who could be the least narrow minded human being in the world when it came to issues of freedom. Reagan's time in the Hollywood he knew made him a far more tolerant man than Obama is. In contrast, Obama is beyond divisive.
And when's the last time you protested in from of an Iranian embassy?
If you haven't protested, then you're one hypocrite of a gay activist.
Yes. If violence was being perpetrated against members of the right, because they were members of the right, it would be hate crime – and I would want it recognized as such. I am firmly on the left. And the point of recognizing hate crimes is to create awareness of the underlying problems – homophobia, racism, religious intolerance. No one is legislating against discriminating against people for liking coke as opposed to tea because it isn't necessary. There is no underlying problem in society. There has been no large-scale violence against people who drink coke. However, there has been much violence against gays, Arabs, blacks, Muslims, etc. – that violence should be recognized as belonging to a different class than, say, crimes of passion or the actions of sadists and serial killers. If we did not recognize the lynchings and shootings of blacks during and before the civil rights movement as being because those people were black, we may well have remained a segregated nation to this day.
So abortion rights aren't good enough for "brown people"?
I disagree Grace for the simple reason that when Gays were being persecuted under Saddam Hussien, the only person who really spoke out about was Christopher Hitchens. Now, by the very fact there are US Troops on the ground in Iraq the matter is on public record. And really Grace since we are there you might as well stop living in the if only past. That ship has sailed. We are there and tough for people who don't like it. The Iraqis have a chance to create something utterly amazing for themselves. I would think an open mindel "liberal" would be all about helping them. Or, perhaps your not that open minded. As in your upset over Iraq is spattered with political anger towards George W. Bush, which is too bad because that doesn't help the situation. Its time to stop the hate and become part of the solution, not continueing the problem.
Well said Stan.
Should blacks be charged more for crimes against other blacks? Statistics say black on black crime is much higher than white on black or black on white. If it's a problem, your logic dictates higher penalties for said offenses.
Your "empathy" on this topic is so incredibly phony. This is all about exploiting whatever is happening there for political points. Stop pretending you faker.
Have you ever heard of something known as "projection"? Might want to go look it up. Or keep flinging insults and invective. Alinsky might have been mildly impressed with you.
Maiku, you're being unfair. Why should you let little things like facts get in the way of an unhinged rant?
It means, let the big boys and big girls talk.
Gay marriage sure seems insignificant when gays can't even walk outside their doors in Iraq without being subjected to gestapo tactics. The government gives you 2 choices: stay closeted or be executed.
Oh yeah, I forgot, if you even fit the gay stereotypes in Iraq you can be killed under suspicion of homosexuality.
Actually, if the "hate crimes" bill in the Senate is passed and signed, then pedophilia WILL be a right:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.as...
Unless you like the idea of guys having the right to molest your kids, I suggest you call your Senators to oppose this bad bill:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009957.cfm
Actually, if the "hate crimes" bill in the Senate is passed and signed, then pedophilia WILL be a right:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.as...
Unless you like the idea of guys having the right to molest your kids, I suggest you call your Senators to oppose this bad bill:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009957.cfm
We are not, at this juncture, capable of devoting military power to this. These are crimes against humanity, without a doubt, and must be stopped, but our military is stretched thin and we're drowning it debt. We do not have the force of the world behind us. We can only be of significant help to anyone at this point if we further risk the long-term security and well-being of our country – the one we're living in. We are not the country that fought World War II, not anymore. It is arrogance to think that we are.
It may be unnatural, but then a small percentage of people has always been gay – in every society, everywhere, born that way for all we know – so maybe it isn´t. But let´s say that some human beings do things that are unnatural (that includes hang-gliding, if you ask me). Still doesn´t mean they deserve punishment or death. And since this is an aspect of the Iraq war, it strikes me as a highly relevant story.
Based upon the posturing and the reactions to my comments, I will simply assume that you all would be SUPER-COOL with an openly gay Supreme Court nominee, right? Right.
Also – I am in no way saying that we should completely ensure the rights of American gays before we do the same for the Iraqis and the Iranians. If we WERE still the nation that fought World War II, we would be capable of multi-tasking. We wouldn't have to take time out from fighting for gay marriage to stop a holocaust. We wouldn't have to ensure our security against the Taliban before stopping the genocide in Darfur.
Iran? WTF does anything have to do with Iran, Walter?
@The Dude
I meant the Iraqi embassy. I was typing too fast.
A black man killing another black man is not doing so because the other man is black. There are underlying problems in the black community – poverty being the most obvious – which should not be ignored, but "black on black crime" is not hate crime. Now, if the first black man killed the second because the second was gay, that is hate crime and should be recognized as such. Also, if a white man kills a black man, that is not inherently a hate crime. It is only a hate crime if the crime was committed BECAUSE the person being assaulted is black/gay/Arab/Jewish/etc., and not because the person doing the assaulting is looking for revenge or money or gratification or what-have-you. Otherwise, the crime is just a crime. When a hate crime is committed, however, the underlying problems in society that said crime exposes only become apparent when that crime is recognized as such, and those problems cannot be solved until people are made aware of them.
As long as he doesn't make judgment's based on "empathy."
Otherwise, we might wind up with the situation of the gay judge not ruling against the "homophobic" Black criminal for fear of being branded racist.
"Black on black" violence isn't a crime of hatred? Tell that to Black murder victims and their families.
What's scary about "hate crime" laws is their supporters naively believe they can read someone's mind to determine if a crime was motivated by prejudice.
It's not about "rebranding as socially liberal," troll. It's about getting back to what our party was founded on: abolitionism; a deep commitment to civil liberties and the notion that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. At it's best the GOP embodies the progressive spirit that led to the founding of this country: representative democracy, federalism, liberty, personal responsibility, etc.
To paraphrase Voltaire, "I may not agree with how you live your life, but I will fight to the death for your right to live it." The GOP has long been the "content of one's character" party. It's time for us to OWN gay rights.
What about those of us who are tired of being bombarded with "All Things Gay"? How about…screw your sexuality and your pee pee issues. Take it private and leave it there. How about that? Is that possible militant sexualists?
"I am firmly on the left."
You don´t say. Is that why you ignored what TexiCon said and just restated your beliefs?
We HAVE "remained a segregated nation to this day" largely because you guys are obsessed with race. It dominates our thinking and creeps into everything, morning, day and night. Don´t you see how sick this is? The well indoctrinated left is the one major reason why we cannot get over race. And all that wallowing in victimhood it is a bad, bad thing even if it makes you feel good about yourself. Sanctimonous attitudes aren´t virtues.
Besides, statistically there has NOT been "much violence against gays, Arabs, blacks, Muslims, etc." in this country, not in recent memory. There has been systematic violence against blacks in the past, but demanding unconstitutional hate crime laws to atone for history is a typical example of muddy feelgood liberal thinking. All these groups are pretty safe here and in fact, immigrating here from other places in significant numbers.
Of course I want to help them, Lola! I'm a human being, for Pete's sake, not some sociopath. My argument is that at this point we are not capable of devoting the resources necessary to quell large-scale violence. If the causes of that incapacity are not important in this context, so be it. WE DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION IN IRAQ. Our hold is tenuous at best, held in place only by keeping soldiers over their for years longer than they should've been. The people over there want us OUT. We have lost military support from the rest of the world. Yes, Iraq could become a free nation, and an ally in the middle east, but that's a long way off if it happens. We, as Americans, need to regroup and rebuild our nation if we want to be of any help to anyone else. Besides, if the right is so concerned about human rights violations, tell me – when you were in power, why didn't you do anything about Darfur? Bush couldn't even acknowledge that what's going on over there is genocide.
I have no issue with gay people at all. Whatever they do sexually is fine by me. However, I was just pointing out that this is biologically not the way we are put together. So, when I hear folks talking about being gay as "natural" or "normal" I am wondering how this is being meant.
Hey, to me, it is not immoral or problematic, it just isn't natural or normal.
Regarding marriage rights, that is a legal and political converstation.
I never said nor implied that gays deserve anything. I am just tired of hearing about everything seen through this particular prism. There is all kinds of folks being slaghtered throughout the Mid East and Africa by Muslims, the religion of peace.
If it were me, I would pull all our troops out of the Mid East and let them have at it.
But, that is just me.
I am with you. The topic has become boring.
The Big Mocha is probably looking for one right now. Of course, it would help if he/she/it is a good legal scholar, unlike the Moca himself.
The blood is no more on the hands of those who voted for Bush than on those who couldn't mobilize enough liberals to vote against him. And what petulance, Mustardo. Listen to how childish you sound.
"It was YOU! YOU and YOUR DAMNED… George BUSH that got us into this mess!"
(Boo. Hoo. Hooo.)
You're not pro-gay – you're anti-Obama. Enough with the posturing. This is the new Schiavo.
I have been waiting for years to hear the liberal outrage on the way women in the Middle East are treated.
1. The DOMA is only necessary because liberal judges are being used to circumvent the will of the people
2. The Matthew Shephard Act is just plain stupid, as brutally murdering someone is already illegal and the individuals who killed Shephard are serving 2 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. What then is the point of hate crimes legislation but to put more importance on the murder of one person over another?
It's time to start understanding that liberals, like Obama, don't pretend to champion causes because they actually believe in them. No, they do so because it helps them obtain power, soothes their white-guilt consciences and gives them a reason to bash conservatives. If gay Iraqis could vote in America or contribute to the DNC, then you might hear a peep from The One and his comm-rades in Congress.
Most here probably would, but you act like this is some litmus test for reasonableness. Were you SUPER-COOL with ANY of Bush's picks?
You're trying to blame Obama for this. Your statement doesn't even make sense. So liberals failing to get enough votes against Bush means they are responsible FOR Bush? That's not logic. That's insane bullsht. You should be embarrassed for trying to sell garbage like that.
Please start making sense.
I don't think 'Consent ' is considered or even a factor when it comes to the thought processes of the morally bankrupt. Certainly, the aborted don't 'consent' to have their human life terminated. See the reply below for more proof of my opinion. So now who's the dummie?
Honestly I don't care who the next SCOTUS Justice has sex with… as long as they rule blindly and based on due process and not what they feel… :/
Mustarded, did you run out of excuses…give me a friggin' break with the "You're not pro-gay – you're anti-Obama" crap. Even if we were pro-Obama (which I am definitely NOT), where the heck are the democrats/liberals denoucing what is happening to the gays and women in the middle east. Their silence says EVERYTHING about them.
And what pray tell are the human rights that they don't have? Last I checked education, period, is readily available and accessable, they can get any job they want (and in some cases even as a minister), they don't have their own water fountains or bathrooms… they are not forced to live in ghettos, they get paid the same as everyone else… So what, besides marriage (Which all the liberals INSIST is a religous thing anyway) don't they have?
We're just A-OK with it. You know bc we're all closet Muslims.
Moran.
You're right. I'm embarrassed for distancing myself from the outrageous notion that I have some hyperbolic blood on my hands because I voted for a gentleman that you happen to disagree with.
Would you do me a favor and explain something to me in as much express detail as possible? Pretend I'm… you know, an idiot: You said, "You're trying to blame Obama for this." What is "this"? When did I say I was blaming him for "this"? Why do you consider it a bad attempt on my part?
But more importantly:
What doesn't make sense about my disputing that the casting of a vote which would result in a disputed election which would result in a presidency which would experience a terror attack which would result in a more aggressive approach to terrorism which would result in a war in Iraq which would result in the deaths of several thousand people causes the people you don't like to share in the responsibility of those deaths while your NOT casting a vote which would result in a disputed election which would result in a presidency which would experience a terror attack which would result in a more aggressive approach to terrorism which would result in a war in Iraq which would result in the deaths of several thousand people makes you some altruist?
I should be embarrassed for trying to sell garbage? It would take you a NOVEL to explain yourself, Colonel Mustard. You couldn't find support in Bin Laden's cave for such an incredibly juvenile solution to your sourfaced, miserable eight years. You must be a blast at cocktail dinners.
Where's the pie, you nitwit?
What position are you in to demand that anyone else follow YOUR agenda? ONCE AGAIN, I state that this is all pretend posturing. We're not playing your stupid little game here. Your concern for the welfare of gay Iraqis is nakedly phony. I'm not engaging in a "debate" with you on this where the pretense is that you care about ANY Iraqis. Please.
I find it ironic that you dragged the name of America through the mud and you have the guts to say those who spoke out against it are against America.
I'm not sure where you have been for the past 6 years, but the Iraq war was an utter failure on all counts. No WMDs, 100,000 Iraqis dead, the world is not safer, Baghdad still doesn't have water or power, and we spent 3 trillion dollars to accomplish it. This, all because you thought war would bring you glory. That is the false belief of all war criminals throughout history. They all think war will bring them honor. It brought you nothing but shame in the eyes of all but the few remaining conservatives. You have the stink of failure all over you.
Wouldn't "empathy" be the primary concept with which you are touting here? As in your messianic empathy for the plight of the "gay Iraqi holocaust"? Hello?
Hear, hear!
Social conservatives need not approve of behavior they have religious and/or philosophical objections to. Conservatives of all stripes should take Reagan's lead and seek to conserve the basic principles embodied in our founding documents by the application of those principles to emerging circumstances.
Abolitionism? I thought southern baptists were a major constituency of the modern republican party. Weren't they founded on slavery? Didn't conservatives argue during the civil war that abolitionism was over-reaching of the federal government? Nice try, but you still haven't "re-branded" yourselves on slavery, much less on gay rights.
Meh
Assuming that the nominee has more on his CV than "openly gay," yes.
I don't think 'Consent ' is considered or even a factor when it comes to the thought processes of the morally bankrupt.
This is pure gibberish
I haven't stated any agenda, except that there is a blaring silence from the left with regard to what is being done to women AND gays in the middle east which IS disgusting.
I will have to admit, I am extremely impressed on your mind reading abilities and your insight about me…NOT! You are the phony! I may not agree with everything someone does or says but that doesn't mean I don't care.
I do hope that someday you start using the grey matter that God gave you…a mind is a terrible thing to waste!
Yes, Anti. What you're saying is brilliant in its simplicity, so I'm going to paraphrase and affirm: The current torchbearers of conservatism are Southern Baptists, all of whom are of one mind and believe exactly what their SBC great great great grandpappies did – that slavery is AWESOME.
But you HONESTLY think the 20 Percenter GOP base is not going to have a conniption? Cmon…
Does the pretend championing of gay causes extend to those of us on the left who actually ARE gay? Or are those liberals phony too? This is not working for you son. Nice to see you're all but admitting this is a phony act.
"Crime of hatred" is different than "hate crime." I will say it again: a hate crime is defined as being a crime motivated by hatred towards an ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. A crime of hatred – although not a legal term – is a crime committed because of one individual's hatred for an individual, and not the group to which that individual belongs.
Exactly and yes you are…
You must be logged in to post a comment.