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
Tips & Feedback
238 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…
And because the thing submitted before I had a chance to finish, I'm not saying I can read someone's mind. Usually the circumstances speak for themselves, and in cases where they don't, I do advocate extreme caution in labeling a crime a hate crime.
"I know you are but what am I"? is your effin comeback? WOW!
Why don't you just tell me what radio or FOX show put this in your head and spare me the effort of tracking it down? As though any of this is some original thought and not another lame-o conservamedia Talking Point.
It's called the internets, Troll. Look into it:
http://tinyurl.com/qkc2nd
Really, and you know this how? If McCain were in office I'd be horrified with what is going on in Iraq. I'm pro-freedom of expression and pro-free speech, moron.
Go back to HuffPo and Daily Kos and annoy them with your slanted conjuring. You sound like a graduate of the Janeane Garofalo School of Generalizing.
We will more interested in their record of judicial activism in general and specifically opinions on Roe v. Wade.
*Waaaaaaaaaa!!!!*
Where is he admitting this is phony? You're not even a good liberal troll.
That last comment sounds like a lame-o Keith Olbermann monologue he's practiced 80 times prior.
I thought being a Republican and a conservative meant keeping the government out of your life. And yes that means bedrooms and marriages and lifestyles. And yes that also meant state's rights. So if a state wants to let gays marry than so be it. Too bad today's "conservative Republicans" are hate mongers hating half the country they live in and dreaming of a return to the 50's values. Oh, yeah, the 50's I remember them cuz I'm an old fart. That's back when Eisenhower was President. Ah the good old days back when the top tax rate was over 90% and we had both a Republican President AND a Republican congress. But those nasty tax and spend liberals finally took over Congress and did away with that nonsense, you know, dropping taxes and all but hey, who needs REAL when you can have IMAGINARY. So come on conservatives, keep on hating half the country you call home so the rest of us know who you are. And by the way, Ronald Reagan's first act as president was to take away my GI bill. As a vet, that left a real warm place in my heart for him.
No, no we haven't. In the 1950s a black man could not walk into a restaurant and expect to be seated. In the 1950s, a black man could not expect to become president. I bring up race because in this dicussion, it was relevant; the parallels between hate crimes against blacks and recognizing hate crimes committed against gays had a place in a discussion about the validity of hate crime legislation.
I'll admit that they're safer here than elsewhere. But how is recognizing the fact that violence is committed because of a person's sexual orientation/race/religion unconstitutional? We don't give out harsher punishments because of hate crime, and we shouldn't. The point is, as I have stated before (and have not received an answer to, hence the repetition), to recognize these crimes for their motivation. Social problems such as prejudice are better illuminated when they're shown in their most extreme forms.
Also, statistically speaking? According to the FBI's annual hate crime report, close to eight thousand hate crimes are committed every year. I think that's more than enough.
I don't watch Olbermann thanks. As if you don't pass around Talking Points like a $20 whore.
Unlike you, I use the brain God gave me. I don't need a script to follow unlike many of the trolls that appear here. Not certain why you are not on HuffyPuffy, you would be far more comfortable there with everyone agreeing with everything you say.
Mustarded quit acting like a cuckold husband, it's not very becoming of you.
1. Vermont was not ordered by the courts to legalize gay marriage. Vermont legalized it with a majority from a democratically elected senate. Conneticut, although they were first ordered by their courts, has also freely passed such legislation, also by a democratically elected senate. The "will of the people" is not always synonymous with your will personally.
2. Read my above posts.
Wow now the Republicans are projecting projection.
Sorry, you're part of the "ever so enlightened" liberals. You are the paragon of reason. So if you can assume all conservatives watch Fox News (which I don't), can't I do likewise about liberals? All you've done is throw condescending snarl at everyone, O Beacon of Intellect. God forbid someone has an original thought that's different from you, St. Troll!
When are you going to secede and prove those Party of Lincoln bonafides?
Try the pie while you're here, troll. It's delicious.
Fred2 gets right down to the nut of it: political gamesmanship.
I figure we'll do it on the same timetable your party used when they seceded from "Jesusland."
Fred, please. More games. And tired Talking Points.
Grace, I've slammed BOTH administrations over this Darfur and Gay Holocaust stuff, even Bush! Exterminations go way beyond politics! Mia Farrow is now on a 21-day hunger strike over Darfur. What is OBAMA doing about it? That's TODAY, Grace! Blaming Bush isn't saving any lives. Is it?
IF there is blood, the Congress all share in it and that includes the current Congress and the current POTUS. They have the power, we don't.
"The GI bill programs have been widely acclaimed as the best investment America has ever made. These programs have promoted quality education for our nation's veterans, providing them the opportunity to be the best that they can be. Our defense of freedom requires a willingness to sacrifice on the part of those in our Armed Forces. The provision of GI bill benefits is one substantial way for the country to express its appreciation to and support of those who serve." – Ronald Reagan, upon signing the continuation of the G.I. Bill.
Time to take your meds, gramps.
Well it always comes down to party affilitation, doesn't? That is why the pols are such sleeze bags, The more they get the dopey citizen arguing about how to cut up the rights pie, the more they can get away with.
Poeple die, and the pols whine. Yet, they are the only foks who can stop or start this crap.
Wise up! If you want to get some action, don't whine to us, we have about the same amount of power that you do.
Geez, you can do better than this.
I reject your premise of "the 20 Percenter GOP base."
Having said that, if Republicans get up in arms over a nominee — any nominee — it would be a result of our president's pledge to nominate someone who possesses "that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles" in place of … oh, I don't know … the ability to adjudicate?
Shouldn't that be, wah, ya crybaby.
OK, I still don't "get" this Marriage debate, even though I heard two different homosexual's debate it on Televison this AM. Can't we just agree on this?
1. If any couple gets a government issued license and has a government official perform a ceremony, they are only entering in a contract for civil union, which enables them to take advantage of governmental and legal benefits. I did this once, and my religion of choice at the time did not consider me to be "Married" in the eyes of God.
2. If Churches themselves decide to recogonize Gay Marriage as a Sacrament then they are free to do so. However, according to the Constitution the US Government is not allowed to force Churches to accept anything. So if you get a Government issued License and a Church official performs the ceremony, then you are Married, and you get the Civil Union benefits.
So this is a pretty simple solution and it applies to everyone; either as a couple, gay or heterosexual, you enter into a governmental sponsored Civil Union and that's good enough for you; or you find a Church that will Consecrate your Marriage in the Eyes of God and you are Married (and also in a Civil Union).
In my religion, even if I go to a government court, and get "divorced", that only affects my Civil Union status. In my Church, I'm still Married unless and until I appeal to the Church for Annullment and it is granted. (I'm not an active member of this Church, but I'm still bound by it's teachings.)
At the end of the day, this is merely an argument about semantics. Let's end that discussion and give everyone the right of Civil Union and let the Religions decide for themselves.
Sure I can agree with that. I just think that Republicans are pretending to care about the gay Iraqis so they can frame the issue of gay rights in a way they want. It's total B.S. and when I hear such obvious b.s. I start pummeling it.
Do you really think someone who would tie a kid to a fence and torture him to death would give a rat's backside about hate crime laws? Would "awareness of underlying problems" make a klansman think twice before lynching a black man? Would Matthew Shephard's murder be less repulsive if he wasn't gay? Hate crimes legislation serves no other purpose than to put more importance on violent crimes committed against one type of individual over those against another. It also serves as a nifty tool for lefty demagogues.
Mr. Simpson, I'm not blaming Bush for Obama's actions today. I am admittedly disappointed with much of what he's done since taking office. My point – one that has yet to be answered – is that our military is stretched thin and no longer has the capacity to tackle problems such as Darfur and the killing of gays in Iraq and Iran – a problem for which Bush, not Obama, can be blamed. That blame isn't saving any lives, but it is relevant to the core of this discussion.
We?
Again with the "we" from a troll.
Are you all sitting in your cubicles at Axelrod central or something.
I hope no one takes your red stapler
You might want to research you timeline. The DOMA was passed in 1996 (signed by Clinton), in response to a Hawaiian court decision that effectively legalized gay marriage. Vermont's legalization of gay marriage happened last month. DOMA merely prevents state courts from using the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause to force gay marriage on states that have chosen not to recognize them. The only reason gay activists hate DOMA is because it encourages a more democratic process towardd legalizing gay marriage.
No I'm going to stay and force you to argue instead of trading talking points and memes. I prefer to engage people who don't agree with me. Sorry!
Yeah and I would be a republican fighting the dirty south if this was 1850, but it's not. You do realize that the republican party used to be the liberal party of the Northeast, right? They were even labeled as America-hating liberals by southern conservatives. You are perpetually on the wrong side of history there buddy.
God you people are so full of sh!t
It's not a prism it's an issue.
You assume open homosexuality is something people should look for in a Supreme Court justice. Me? I'll take someone who understands the Constitution and will make decisions based upon that. Otherwise, I really don't care.
(This is more for anyone reading this discussion and less for you, you've already proven yourself unable to discuss anything in a reasonable manner.)
muslims have zero tolorance for gays, they behead them.
Obama will soon have to walk the fine line between defending gays and kissing muslim ass.
While I'm a conservative Christian, and I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I think that it is absolutely abhorrent that gays are being executed for their lifestyle choice. Christian conservatives need to realize that opposing the slaughter of gay individuals doesn't equate to a support of that lifestyle. All it means is that we respect the sanctity of life, no matter how young or how old. Being killed for a lifestyle choice is never acceptable. What if someday Christians are killed for their lifestyle choices?
The Scriptures dealt with this issue in the book of John, Chapter 8, when Jesus said to the Pharisees, "He who is without sin, let him throw the first stone." Then, and many Christians tend to forget this, Jesus said to the woman, "I don't condemn you. Go and sin no more."
In my opinion, aggressive gay rights activists like Perez Hilton make Christian conservatives less likely to speak out on these issues. I think that Christian conservatives are very tolerant, but as Reagan puts it: "…[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.”
I think that sums up the feelings of many Christian conservatives.
1. Not Republican, actually.
2. Drop the Pee Wee Herman act or I'll tell your Mom.
*sigh* I guess Auntie Fascist has either competition or a partner.
No, it is a prism because liberals see everything in terms of race, class, gender, greed, homophobia, xenophobia, exploitation – whatever makes them feel good about themselves.
It´s a kind of moral cargo cult trying to imitate virtue.
As you surely know.
And your side can't stick to a line of argument without changing the subject every time someone blows silver-dollar sized holes in their reasoning. The fact is my party was founded around abolitionism. This Republican would like to see a return to the founding principles vis a vis gay rights. You have a problem with that, troll?
Actually, WMDs were found, along with materials for making more.
Might want to do some research… or I guess in your case, hope that no one bothers to research what's going on in Iraq and find that you're being rather… inaccurate about the conditions there.
Keep hammering Teh Narrative. Might be some people reading who are too lazy to run a search engine and check multiple sources.
Judging by your thoughtful rejoinder, I presume you tacitly concede my point.
Good day, gentleman.
Then maybe you just might want to use some manners. You were taught them when you were young, weren't you? Just maybe you could have some great discussions without the verbal diarrhea happening. Oh, and it might help if you actually responded to people's questions WITHOUT using the same standard lines that many trolls use. If your trying to beat AntiFascist in points, you need to register first.
There's plenty of hate on both sides, boomer. Just as there are perfectly reasonable liberal Democrats in the world, there are those of us who believe that that government is best which governs least. If some of my compatriots long for a return to 1950s family values, there are just as many on your side of the aisle who long for a return to 1960s libertine excess.
I believe you may have missed the point of Mr. Simpson's well thought-out and reasoned article. You may consider re-reading it.
I believe the prospect of Republicans returning to their philosophical roots and engaging the gay community in a thoughtful and productive dialogue scares the bejeebus out of you liberal Dems.
See that's the thing Johnnie, if Conservatives could find a way to distance themselves from the contemorary mess that calls itself the G.O.P., then they could put themselves in a better position to be listened to. But as long as right-wing fruitcakes like Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, and Hamblin keep up their selfish, stupid ways and claim that all Republicans and conservatives sit on one sofa, then people will remain turned off.
I'd like to associate conservatism with William F. Buckley, a man I respected, even if I disagreed with him. But right now, to me, the face of conservatism is Michelle Bachmann. And I think she's disgusting.
Dude you ARE a a bigot BECAUSE your Christian faith mandates that you see homosexuality as a lifestyle, and thus a choice as if it's your business at all. And you are grossly misinterpreting the "scientific evidence" because it only shows that it is really a culture created by the isolationism of the mainstream.
You use religion to criticize others, but I thought conservatism was about freedom to just live your life without anyone else interfering.
That, to me, is the hypocrisy of the right-wing.
It doesn´t matter why someone beats you up. It´s already a crime and it´s punishable. And that would have been absolutely sufficient to deal with violent crimes against blacks, whether in the 1950s or 1890s. I don´t think lynchings were legal even back then. But what you had was people applying the law in different ways to different people for essentially political reasons. Which is what hate crime laws do.
Even if "hate crime" as a bureaucratic category made sense, eight thousand is not a big proportion. Are they all violent crimes or does that figure include "offensive speech"? And who gets to decide about the motivation of a criminal? Who applies that label? I shudder to think how that power will be abused.
As you implicitly admit, you wish to "educate" people but you can´t do that and have proper rule of law. But of course the left was always willing to exchange the latter for the former.
"I think that's more than enough."
Want a medal?
This, from the side of the aisle where former Klansman Robery C. Byrd. is "The Conscience of the Senate." You must be so proud, AF. And wasn't is Southern Democrats who pushed segregation and opposed civil rights in the 1960s? That was long after the Civil War, bro. Enjoy your Kingdom.
Hey, Joe, speaking of hypocrisy, I didn't just hear you complaining about all the gay killings. Too busy attacking someone who thinks "gay culture" is a lifestyle, as is Christianity if you think about it? Do not gays and Christians interact and develop socially with their like? Not in Iraq. Grow up, will ya? People are getting massacred here, and on our dime! That is totally unacceptable!
Matthew Shephard woul't have been murdered if he wasn't gay; that's the point. Awareness of underlying problems won't do anything for a guy who's already a Klansman; hopefully it might prevent a kid from being raised in a bigoted environment, and growing up to become a Klansman himself. And those crimes are more important, in a larger sense, than one-time crimes of passion or even those committed by serial killers/rapists. A woman killing her husband after discovering his affair is tragic, and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but her doing so does not indicate a deeper problem with the society that fostered her, beyond the obvious flaws in human nature. A man blowing up a black church and killing everyone inside does. Two kids beating another into a bloody pulp and leaving him tied to a fence to die does. These crimes are more important because, unlike others, they are indicators. This is not discrimination. All crimes should be punished the same way, regardless of motive, but they should not be discussed that way.
Of course we are capable to stop it, but only if we choose to make it a priority. Of course not everything can be a priority, but there is our choice. You cannot evade responsibilty for that choice by pretending to be powerless, though it may be more comfortable for you to do so.
"We have lost military support from the rest of the world."
What support? The contribution from the rest of the world was largely symbolic and it was necessary mainly to placate people … like yourself. All we need is bases and we have those.
We, as Americans, need to regroup and rebuild our nation if we want to be of any help to anyone else.
How melodramatic. Rebuild the nation? Is it broken? Like Germany after 1945? Are people tired of watching the war on TV? Boo-hoo. However, if this administration and congress keep spending like maniacs, we WILL be broke. And the Iraq war will be to blame solely because it upset hysterics who then elected Democrats.
Per http://costofwar.com/
Our cost of the Iraq war is just over $667 Billion not 3 Trillion. But once again, do not let facts interrupt your tirade.
In 1850? So you'd have been running around with John Brown when he was just getting his ideas formulated, and then committed murder along with several other offenses against the US government including seizing a federal arsenal? Hey that's a winning argument there.
Now where's our pie?
No, that figure does not include offensive speech, because offensive speech is not a crime.
Motive only affects prosecution insofar as justification for the crime is concered; if a woman kills a man because he tried to kill her, that's self defense and thus justifiable. If a man kills another man because the other man slept with his wife, he will be punished exactly the same way as a man who kills another man because that man was gay.
Making people aware (and so, yes, educating them) that such crimes take place is not unconstitutional, it does not infringe on anyone's rights, and in no way forces anyone to actually change their views. By classifying hate crime as being separate from other motivations for murder or assault, you do not have to think that gay marriage is legitimate or that a black man should be president. You just have to acknowledge that Matthew Shephard was killed because he was gay.
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.
Wrong. The Bush administration was the only one in the world using the g-word, back in his first term. The vaunted "international community" didn´t care about that at all. We do a lot of good in many places. If we didn´t do much about Darfur or some other hellholes, it is because we obviously cannot do everything – priorities again – but also because the left was busy gelding the Bush administration, using the Iraq war they voted for. Would you not have screamed bloody murder over another military engagement or even a little proxy war? What are you complaining about?
And don´t forget the Dems control both houses for over 2 years already. Still leaves open the question what the left wants to do besides blaming Bush. One can argue against fighting for gays in Iraq or stopping mass murder in Darfur, but I would not hide behind sanctimonious laments about our ruined nation needing to "heal".
Okay. Let's get this out of the way. I would approve of gay marriage as CIVIL PROCEDURE ONLY! No religion or individuals that are morally opposed, LIKE Barack Obama, should be forced to participate. THAT is freedom of religion. Phelps and Wright don't have to marry no fags! Bishop V. Gene Robinson will. Who's unhappy with that?
And those crimes are more important
You're kidding, right? Tell that to the victims of what you consider non-hate crimes.
hopefully it might prevent a kid from being raised in a bigoted environment, and growing up to become a Klansman himself.
How so? Not all bigots are murderers and by no means are all of them going to go out and commit crimes against gays, blacks, etc. I don't understand how you think this is going to prevent people from raising their children to be bigots. Care to explain?
does not indicate a deeper problem with the society that fostered her, beyond the obvious flaws in human nature
So, hate and bigotry have nothing to do with human nature? Many women have husbands that have affairs and they don't kill them. I'm really not getting your "logic" here.
So then I can count you as a part of the morally bankrupt crowd? Certainly, your retort defines you as intellectually bankrupt. Your dismissal means exactly nothing.
Who has denied that Shepard was killed because he was gay? It is ALREADY a matter of record.
Fine, if you are now talking merely about classification – about having in effect better crime statistics – as opposed to hate crime laws that come with tougher sentences, I don´t mind about that. However, that is usually not where the left is going when hate crimes are debated since the intent is to make people better, and also to atone for historic sins (for selfish reasons of self-esteem). And I don´t trust such motives.
You keep going there. You ask us what we think and then you allude to the GOP. Stick to us, not the GOP/
I am so disappointed in this blog. If your claims are true, speak up (and loudly) for those people being victimized! Unfortunately, all I see here is yet more hate-mongering against whomever you don't agree with (namely democrats—a party which can place its gay rights record against the republican party on any day and win hands down). I mean, why are there no "log cabin democrats?"
To suggest the Republican Party is the voice of people of color is also a questionable claim. BTW, I am straight, white, middle-aged and a gay-rights advocate who works to promote civic awareness and effect legislative change. Put your intelligence and this site to work towards the eradication of hatred against all people, instead of perpetuating it. You have the ear of many. If you care about this issue, bring it to the forefront as a human rights issue, not a politically-divisive one.
Yes, and of course, ALL issues are equally important. Sorry, to me, this is WAY down the list of issues to be addressed.
Yes, it was GWB, he did it all.
Of course, he is retired. But the Big Moca has the issue now. To bad. huh.
How about polygomy? Isn't that just a choice? Certainly, we should have that too.
Can we marry animals too? They might not object
I went through it all. I agreed with Reagan on the issue, but as a liberal Democrat (mea culpa) I was happy as a clam that Briggs was seriously damaged by Reagan's stand. Democrat literature made great use of Reagan's stand on the Briggs Initiative. As a conservative today, I can look back on it and still say that Reagan was right, and Briggs was a lousy candidate who didn't care about anybody's civil rights. He wasn't a conservative, he was a bigot.
Indeed. This is a Darfur that we can actually do something about.
Obama OPPOSED prop 8 while he was running for president!
(http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03...
He also opposes "Don't ask, don't tell", but this is going to require more than just his influence to get it repealed. Even Barny Frank, the gay congressmen from MA agrees with this.
(http://www.rollcall.com/news/34244-1.html)
Obama is the only present in history to have reached out to gay in such a public way. He let a gay marching band play at his inauguration, gay families to participate in the Easter Egg Roll, and mentions the GLBT community EVERY TIME he speaks on the fairness and equality that our nations stands for.
Despite what people think, the US does not have power, nor control, over Iraq. Most of the author's argument is based on Iraq, which is their own (frail) country. In my opinion, NATO should be involved in this, not just us. Yes, we should be doing more about this, and it should be covered in the public media. Yes, I'm pissed off and outraged that this atrocity is being ignored. However, if you look at all the acts of genocide around the world, they ARE historically ignored by everyone. Even Nazi Germany was left to kill of Jews for almost two years before the US took action. While NATO was involved in Rwanda, they were only there to protect non-Rwandan nationals, leaving the rest to die (the US was nowhere to be found). In order to get action on this issue, it first NEEDS to be publicized to push further American outrage and protest.
As many HUGE problems as Obama has right now, he can only spread himself so far in each issue before he loses effectiveness. Right now, he is doing what he can, but we have to be patient. We've made amazing strides in the last few years (hell, this year alone we've had four states pass gay marriage!), we can wait a bit longer for our president to have the time to push for us beyond common events and speeches.
Edit:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03...
You are on a conservative site and blog, yet you expect a liberal reaction to the 'gay' victocrats? Please! If you want sympathy for the morally bankrupt, then please visit HuffandPuffPost because your liberal talking points just amount to so much repetitous drivel on this blog.
and:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/34244-1.html
I have to tell you that you just perfectly described California law post-Prop 8 and pre-State Supreme Court decision. The semantics are being used to divide us, not to unite us.
Ronnie, you're on the money. I think by and large Conservatives would like to see their bases expanded by demonstrating the classical liberalism on which the party was founded:
1) Accepting African-Americans and treating them as equals instead of the liberals' tack: make them believe they need us.
2) Allowing for freedoms for all instead of the leftists' sorry move: liberty and justice for some. (Talkshow hosts need not apply.)
3) Returning to Locke's assertion that peace must be pursued AS LONG AS it may be achieved – but that the full advantage of war may be used when necessary to promote justice. Not the last vestiges of "give peace a chance. Again. And again. And…"
4) No establishment of religion, but with the moral clarity that presupposes religion is most often a means to a positive morality. A far cry from the leftists' view that religion is inherently flawed and, in its greatest excesses, most probably evil, a drag on societal progress.
I'm with you 100%.
@John T Simpson
I'm sadly not surprised by Joe's response to my post. It's "braver" to attack a rational Christian than some crazed Islamofascist from Iran, who responds to gay activists with bullets instead of words.
In short, Joe is a true hypocrite who only supports "gay rights" so long as he doesn't have to risk his reputation or his life.
Excellent idea. Let's reinstate the draft immediately, quintuple our national defense budget, and make sure that the draft includes women. We would have troops galore, and all the money necessary to fight civil rights wars overseas with sophisticated weapons systems. You are volunteering, right?
Liberals always respect dead conservatives. Funny, that.
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time) appeared on 60 Minutes and discussed the Clinton Adminstration policy of sanctions against Iraq. Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima…." Albright replied "we think the price is worth it",
The associated Press from 04/23/09: Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by the AP, the figures show that more than 110,600 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
So. according to liberal leaning 60 Minutes and the AP, Bill Clinton's weak-at-the-knees liberalism was much more deadly thant GWB's war.
You have a number of misconceptions.
Christianity does not mandate anyone view homosexuality as a lifestyle. It views homosexual sex as an inherently selfish sexual act (like masturbation or fornication) and therefore. sinful. To have society condone sinful behavior is bad for society, hence Christians oppose promoting a homosexual lifestyle as normative.
I'm not aware of any 'Scientific Evidence" that indicates conclusively a physiological cause for a homosexual inclination, though scientists are researching the subject.
Conservatism is not about the freedom to just live your life without anyone else interfering. That would be hippies.
AF, you're complete regard to the action of dictators makes you really the biggest ProFascist on this site. People like Saddam Hussein and Castro only know they can get away with their murderous ways because people like you will always have their backs.
TOP, I've been reporting on and disseminating this human rights horrorshow stuff in Iran and Iraq for a long time now. If this is what it takes to get peoples' attention, so be it. But I said what it was going to be about from the start: Iraqi LGBTs. And name me one gay issue Obama has taken a real public stand on. DADT? Yawn!
Hate Crimes is a great example of "Special Interest Liberalism". Look..they are against this legislation, therefore they support crimes against gays.
Your liberal desire to feel noble is not a good reason to remove the blindfold from the statue of Justice. Your intention maybe principalled, but your solution is immoral.
You mean like Democrat's redefine Christmas, St. Patrick's Day, freedom of speech, terrorist attack, etc., etc.,etc.?
Voy, Even the San Francisco Chronicle, which revealed the Toklas letter last June, called Obama's mixed stance on gay marriage wishy-washy. That's SF, okay?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
Okay, I'm pro-gay and conservative. Let that soak through your thick troll skull. That's my argument.
Okay, I'm pro-gay and conservative. Let that soak through your thick troll skull. That's my argument.
There is something about Reagan that you didn't mention.
In the early 80's, when AIDS first started to make the news and it hit the gay community first because of one gay flight attendant (as I understand it), Surgeon General Dr. C Everett Koop practically begged Reagan to begin special research for AIDS/HIV, but Reagan just put it on a back burner.
I believe someone back then said it was only a gay problem.
Also, C. Everett Koop mentioned in his autobiography, titled Koop, that he repeatedly urged President Reagan in the early 80's to set aside funds for AIDS research.,….but "they" kept saying it was only a gay problem.
Reagan sure wasn't in any hurry to start early funding on AIDS research.
Urged by the Surgeon General to do that ?….and he virtually ignored it ?
Not good.
I would also recommend the movie "And The Band Played On".
A based on fact movie about the emergence of AIDS in America.
http://www.amazon.com/Band-Played-Matthew-Modine/...
One issue this author continues downplays is the issue of gay-on-gay violence. I’m also concerned that some of the reports are fictional (although I have nothing against standing up for genuine cases). Studies reveal that “human rights” groups have a history of distorting even the most basic facts. For example, if a homosexual is bashed because he has been interfering with boys, does that make his respective culture “homophobic”? As for Reagan, he moved to the conservative right after California.
I never claimed to be speaking for the entire left; my views, while certainly liberal, often differ from those of the larger party. I appreciate your point about the motives of atoning for past sins, and I have to agree.
They are not inherently worse, and they should not be prosecuted more vigorously than hate crimes. Of course emotionally speaking, no assault or murder is worse than the other except in the degree of the act's cruelty. From a social, sociopolitical, and historical standpoint, however, hate crimes are more important. As a society, we should devote more time to discussing them than, say, crimes of passion.
The point is not that all bigots are murderers. The point is that more people will be aware of this bigotry. It is my personal hope that such awareness, and the stigma that accompanies it (think about the implications of being called racist), will be at least a factor in an eventual end to bigotry and prejudice. This may be naive and misguided; I don't know.
Bigotry is learned and can be taught against; there are other evils in the human psyche which, being more widely recognized as evils, have been spoken out against for years. No one but the most insane argues that Ted Bundy's actions were valid; there are still people who deny the Holocaust, and there are still people who, even if they aren't members, agree with the sentiments of the KKK.
It's not fair. The horror of it all. Brad and Angelina will have to stay un-wed until every gay problem anywhere in the world is solved. Well, at least it will save them from the divorce that would probably be filed soon anyway. Marriage means a great deal to the beautiful pair, that's why they've put it off for so long.
You think that gay activists only want gay marriage if it circumvents the democratic process? They're not fascists, Robert. If DOMA was in fact the will of the people in 1996, then the will of the people (at least in Vermont, Conneticut, and Maine – the three states that legalized gay marriage through their state legislature as opposed to through the courts) has changed, given that a new state seems to legalized same-sex marriage every month.
Also – I dislike Bill Clinton. It means nothing to me that DOMA was signed by him.
Read my above posts. I have no desire to give harsher punishments to people who commit hate crimes; the whole point is better crime statistics. I really don't see how that's unconstitutional or immoral.
We're not Germany after the war – but we're not America after the war, either.
Our military is stretched thin. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan again and again. We're allowing the mentally disabled and the criminally convicted to enlist out of desperation for troops (and yet we still don't repeal DADT, but let's not get into that). We could, if we really wanted, allocate the resources to take care of the violence against gays in Iraq. But let's face it – as a country, we've allowed and even committed multiple atrocities.
Early Americans slaughtered the natives and stole their land. We fought a war in part because of an unwilligness to abolish slavery. Bill Clinton stood back and allowed Rwanda to happen. With Bush, it was Darfur. With Obama, it will probably be this. This is horrible, and unforgiveable. But neither of us are joining the Army or the Peace Corps or even going on a late night talk show to promote a book about this subject. We could stop it; I have my doubts that we're going to. I won't excuse myself. I hope that you don't forgive yourself. We shouldn't excuse President Obama, anymore than we should forgive Presidents Clinton or Bush. This will all wrap up how it does, and that's the end of it.
I reference that book in my article, SB. I was in the Navy. We were all screened for AIDS in 1982, not long after the test was invented. And even a lot of gay people didn't want to talk about it! Can't blame that all on Reagan. 26 years later, still no cure. Could Reagan have done more? Sure. But if you know Shilts, you know the story.
Where in the four lines of my response do I suggest you have a desire to give harsher punishments to anyone? You do cite Republican opposition to hate-crimes as a proof in your mind that republicans have become anti-gay relative to Reagan. And it's not about better crime statistics, it is an extra-charge that adds to your sentence. Those of us who oppose hate-crime legislation simply want to see justice meted out based on the criminal act that is committed, not upon group status. Again, this is a standard wedge issue of liberal special interest politics hoping to balkanize our country into groups vying for privilidge.
And regarding, DOMA, it was created in response to a very small,committed group of zealots attempting to change the definition of marriage via liberal judges. To pretend that it was created out of whole cloth to demonize gays is preposterous.
BPT, Check my links and refs and make up your own mind. They're entrapping them online like we do child molesters! Consensual adults! Do you see a horrorshow here or not? You want even more gruesome stuff? Check my links. You'll find it.
So let me get this straight: you ask a question, and then when people here give an answer that you find difficult to believe, you first suggest that they are not representative of the wider conservative population (sorry, Republican population, since of course EVERY conservative must be a Republican in your world), then profanely accuse them of lying. Based on this behavior, I can only assume that you're not actually interested in a dialogue with us, you're just here to insult.
This is why I get such a kick out of liberals who call US "close-minded."
What you forgot to include in this article that muslims regard homosexuality as an abomination and punishable by death which kind of explains why Barry is so reluctant to speak out on any issue that's "gay". Reagan had one thing right….he believed in the spirit of the individual and it didn't really matter what someone's orientation was because all have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Barry doesn't believe in the individual rather he's in love with collectivism meaning that there's no such thing as the individual, only categories of groups that have one type of grievance or another that can be exploited for political gain.
[...] Big Hollywood created an interesting post today on Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than ObamaHere’s a short outlineI 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, [...]
[...] to mention State’s cold and lame response. More on that later. Too much more, actually. First, click for more var gaJsHost = ((”https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : [...]
And those natives slaughtered the ones before, and those the ones prior to them. How far back shall we go?
Me, I'm still upset over the horses. Our horses are not native (they are aliens). Why? The "native american's" ate them to extinction.
You’re all a$$ where would one start!
That's what is awesome about states rights. Vermont voted in gay legislation the proper way. Just like California (80% for Prop
did the proper way too. Which one does the courts have the "right" to overturn? The one you don't agree with?
If I am a minority voter on gay rights in Vermont am I a victim? Doesn't my voice count?
Take it up with the Southern Democrats from the past. Those are your dominant boogeymen.
The next line is a doozy too. Doesn't that illustrate how far we have come? Shouldn't that be celebrated? Why are you dwelling on the mistakes of the past rather than marveling at our growth?
[...] Big Hollywood created an interesting post today on Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than ObamaHere’s a short outlineI 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, [...]
Wouldn't we have to create a gay supreme court? Or could they just be a Supreme Court Justice? I mean they have the gay Olympics because gays can't compete in the regular Olympics, or something, right?.
But, hey why don't you just decide what we all think and then argue with that cartoon you create in your head.
AG, you beat me to it. Below I made that very point about being closed minded. My point was that, when arguing, the Leftists want to argue with who they think we are; and not what we actually think. Ignore the points, argue the cartoon. They win every time!
Gays shouldn't marry…because marriage is between a man and a woman. Life isn't fair boomer…now go retire narcissist and get the F out of our lives
UHm. . . And life in Iraq was all sunshine and gum drop smiles before hand.
Sean Penn, is that you?
* MissQuinn*
If he's pro-life and a strict constructionist. . .he could be a gay swinger who likes BDSM and does it to Barbra Streisand records for all I care.
*MissQuinn*
What? No, seriously, what? There was tribal warfare, certainly, but never did another group of people come to the Americas and kill the people already there, other than the European invasion. That's why they call them natives; they were here first. Before anyone else.
And while it's true that the horses we commonly employ are not native to North America, and that North American wild horses died out between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago, there is no evidence to support your claim that Native Americans ate them to extinction. And even if they did, peoples of that time hardly had the same knowledge about animal species and preservation of animal life that we have now.
When the criminal act that you seek to punish is committed because of group status, it stands to reason that that motivation should be recognized, legally and socially. I don't see what that's such a big deal. No one wants special rights. If a man kills a man because the other man is gay, and the killer is recognized as a hate criminal, tell me how that gives anything to the gays that is not guaranteed to you by the simple fact that, if you are not a member of a minority group, you will not be assaulted or killed because of it? The recognition of crimes committed because of group status and the bigotry represented by such crimes is not a priveledge, it is a right. This is the reason Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany, and why such people are demonized here; to deny the Holocaust is to make it easier for it to happen again. The same goes for hate crime.
If you are a minority voter on gay rights in Vermont – yes, your vote and voice counts. But there are undoubtedly people (and I am in no way implying that you are one of these) who would seek to overturn gay marriage legislation in any way possible, including through the courts. If a person believes strongly enough in a cause, do they not have the right to fight for it any way they can? The problem here is that many of those who are opposed to gay marriage (again, not implying that you are one of these) seem to think that all people who are for it are for it only because they wish to pervert American values and destroy the foundation upon which this country was built. No one seems to realize that both sides are in it because they both think that they are fighting for that foundation.
My point is that we can't do that, especially not at this point in history. We've already quintupled our national defense budget, and look where that got us – massive debt, and, gosh, no money and no troops, either. We could theoretically reinstate the draft, but I'd hate to think about what that would do to the economy, what with no young people working.
Also – isn't Iraq your war? I don't see you in camo.
Actually, a lot of people around that time didn't even know how widespread a problem AIDS was, or what even was causing it. But isn't this the mantra of liberals?? To blame everything on Reagan, or Bush, etc.? I even saw an L.A. times review of a nightclub where the reviewer hurled insults at Reagan his "imperalism" (yesterday). They just can't let go of the hate, it seems!
According to http://www.washingtonblade.com/2003/4-18/news/nat... the gay rights organisations aren't exactly thumping for this issue, either. I think the basic reason is that most people want the US to pull out of Iraq, and issues like this- eg Christians are increasingly targetted as well – will make it harder to do so. Hence the crickets. (A more devious reason might be that some hope Iraqi gays will seek asylum in Western countries and hence change the demographic/voting base. In the long turn it won't help as a political party basically has to chose between supporting gays or Muslims; it's one of the reasons the late Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders have many gay supporters)
Specifically where BOzo is concerned, he's basically concentrating on domestic policy – Changing America – instead of foreign policy.
Obama Bought The Presidency
<DIV>you're right life isn't fair…..get ready for a whole lot of unfair….if you don't like this country you are free to leave…by the way….last time i looked it was the losing side that had to leave…and you're on the losing side of history so man up and take your own advice…..
</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”>
<DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”>
Okay, that was pretty funny. I'll give you that. I was silly to expect a middle-aged (no matter how intelligent) man to move away from his own silly, pompous point-of-view. LOL. Bash away; you are entitled to your mid-life rant. Having a good snicker with some friends over this. I will continue to fight for human rights….you continue to do whatever it is you think you are doing. Peace.
Ah-hah! Your last reply to me sounded (sans the final "yawn") like you are a reasonable human being. Raise awareness as you can. If it takes being one of the shouting media, I guess that's what it takes (sigh). Good luck to you in this endeavor. I can appreciate the fact that you take a personal risk championing any type of GLBT issue within your "blog-o-sphere." If you snap out of some of your other ranting, I think there may be HOPE for you ; ) (Couldn't resist the liberal jab). Tata…I'm off to dance through the daisies (or whatever you imagine we bleeding-hearts do in our spare time…actually it's off to the farmer's market for some fantastic locally-produced cheese, then to work).
Thank You. The Holocaust was a crime against Humanity. Singular. Eveyone is the same. In your vision, gassing six million white middle class accountants would apparently be a lesser crime than gassing six million jews. In my vision, it woudln't.
You are now also directly contradicting yourseff:
"I have no desire to give harsher punishments to people who commit hate crimes; the whole point is better crime statistics."
"When the criminal act that you seek to punish is committed because of group status, it stands to reason that that motivation should be recognized, legally.."
Are you guessing on your facts? 3 Trillion? last time I checked, the emergency spending bills were over 600 billion for BOTH WARS: Afghanistan and Iraq. But just so you know, Iraq is slipping back to chaos now that Obama is in charge. So now that we spent just over $600 billion liberating 25 million people, are you ok with Obama letting it fall by the wayside? 6 years of war funding is 1/3 of what Obama spent in his first month!
It seems that you have a certain opinion of Conservatives that isn't based in reality. Nobody went to war for glory. We went there because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Your buddy Collin Powel didn't want to finish the job and stopped before we reached bagdad. Typical Liberal strategy, stop before we finish the job to show that we are kind. There was a truce with conditions. Saddam broke 17 of those conditions which brings us back to war because the contract was broken. When a truce is broken, war continues but Clinton ignored Iraq and did nothing after Saddam kicked out our inspectors. After 911, we were in no mood to overlook our enemies actions so we gave them many chances to comply. They didn't. Congress including the DEMOCRATS voted to use force not once, but TWICE! So drop silly pretend scenarios. You may be willing to pretend these things never happened but there are many who will not. This country went to war for good reasons.
Recognizing hate crimes legally does not mean giving out harsher punishments. It simply means recognizing the classification of motive.
If those six million Jews had been gentiles, they wouldn't have been killed. That's the point. The crime of killing six million non-Jews would be just as horrible as killing six million Jews, but it would not be classified the same, historically or legally. Everyone is the same, really, but there are plenty of people who would disagree with that sentiment. Hence the Holocaust. Hence Darfur. Hence the killing of gays in Iraq. Hence Matthew Shephard. Hence racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc. Recognizing that there are people who kill because of racism is one way of attaching a well-deserved stigma to racism. It goes the same for homophobia.
Thank you for this Ammo! I am so grateful to you! I am going to hammer the liberals now!
This marks the first time I have witnessed a leftist trot out "love it or leave it." Wow.
[...] being said appalling is not a strong enough word for this: Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is neck-deep in the gay butchery themselves. Interior [...]
[...] supremely uninterested in posing.” Calling what’s happening in Iraq a pogrom, Simpson wonders at the latest media obsession of the gay left: And somebody wake up Perez Hilton. Bigger problem here than Miss California, methinks. See [...]
[...] RELATED: Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama [...]
[...] Reagan a Better Friend to Gays than Obama Fascinating article from John Simpson laying out Obama’s utter hypocrisy and politics of division that has left many in the gay community crying foul. The groundwork Simpson lays out that Reagan was in fact a far superior friend to the gay community is certainly a bold look at that era, but quite possibly correct as well. Big Hollywood
<font color="#FF0000">win3rb</font>
<font color="#FF0000">نسخ ويندوز,برامج بورتبل,برامج,كراك,كل برامج بروتبل
all portable,carak</font>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">
<font color="#FF0000">توبيكات</font>
http://www.tupicss.com
/>
توبيكات,توبيكات حب ,توبيكات غرام , توبيكات رومانسية , توبيكات اسلامية , توبيكات
اجنبية , توبيكات غرامية , توبيكات حزينة,توبيكات
</font></span>
<font color="#FF0000"> </font><span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">عالم
الشعر والقصيدة</font></span>
<font color="#FF0000">http://www.sh3r.cc
/>
عالم الشعر والقصيدة,شعر,شعرب عربى,شعر حب , شعر رومانسى ,شعر خليجى ,شعر مصرى,شعر
كويتى ,شعر سعودى,شعر عربى</font>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">
دليل عرب سايتس</font></span>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">http://www.arbsites.info
/>
دليل مواقع,دليل منتديات,دليل مواقع شخصية , دليل مواقع اسلامية,دليل اعمال,دليل
عرب سايتس</font></span>
<font color="#FF0000">win3rb</font>
<font color="#FF0000">نسخ ويندوز,برامج بورتبل,برامج,كراك,كل برامج بروتبل
all portable,carak</font>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">
<font color="#FF0000">توبيكات</font>
http://www.tupicss.com
/>
توبيكات,توبيكات حب ,توبيكات غرام , توبيكات رومانسية , توبيكات اسلامية , توبيكات
اجنبية , توبيكات غرامية , توبيكات حزينة,توبيكات
</font></span>
<font color="#FF0000"> </font><span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">عالم
الشعر والقصيدة</font></span>
<font color="#FF0000">http://www.sh3r.cc
/>
عالم الشعر والقصيدة,شعر,شعرب عربى,شعر حب , شعر رومانسى ,شعر خليجى ,شعر مصرى,شعر
كويتى ,شعر سعودى,شعر عربى</font>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">
دليل عرب سايتس</font></span>
<span lang="ar-eg"><font color="#FF0000">http://www.arbsites.info
/>
دليل مواقع,دليل منتديات,دليل مواقع شخصية , دليل مواقع اسلامية,دليل اعمال,دليل
عرب سايتس</font></span>
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.
<a title="العاب" href="http://games.5y5.cc/">العاب – <a title="العاب بنات" href="http://www.5y5.cc/">العاب بنات
good
<span class="style2"><span style="background-color: #800080">
<font size="7" color="#00FF00"><a title="توبيكات" href="http://www.2pik.net/">توبيكات</font></span></span>
<span class="style2"><font size="4" color="#FF0000">
<a title="توبك" href="http://www.2pik.net/">
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00">توبك</span></font></span>
<font size="5"><a title="مركز تحميل" href="http://www.mlffy.com/">مركز تحميل</font>
<p class="style1">
<span class="style2"><span style="background-color: #FF00FF">
<font color="#FFFFFF" size="7">
<a title="توبيكات ملونه" href="http://www.2pik.net/">توبيكات ملونه</font></span></span>
<p class="style1">
<a title="توبيكات" href="http://www.2pik.net/">توبيكات
<p class="style1"><span style="background-color: #008000" lang="ar-sa">
<font size="7"><a title="توبيكات شعرية" href="http://www.2pik.net/cat6.htm">توبيكات شعرية</font></span>
You must be logged in to post a comment.