LKsimcoe....GREAT POST. You have my respect.
As far as outing those public positions I say GO FOR IT. Once a person runs for public office it is my opinion that they are fair game.
Full Version: Wave of outings hits Congress
That, plus if gay, they have to know that sooner or later, and its usually sooner, they will have to deal with this issue. It will come up.
The question is, how are staffers hired, and how are they assigned to a particular House or Senate member? If a gay staffer has a say as to which one he works for, or is hired directly by the member of Congress, and he goes to work for one of these anti-gay bigots, out him. If not, well...
QUOTE
William1865:
Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, \"Hey, I'm gay and I want a job,\" and you got it, brother.
If jobs on the Hill are the only ones for which they qualify, perhaps they should apply for SSI instead.Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, \"Hey, I'm gay and I want a job,\" and you got it, brother.
Earth to William: There's life outside the Beltway. Sapient life forms even. Get used to it.
QUOTE
William1865:
To clarify something for the slow-witted, my understanding of this campaign is that staffers are ordered not just to come out to their bosses, but to quit their jobs and go work for somebody else who digs gays and stuff. The theory, as I understand it, is that a gay individual, closeted or not, who works for an \"anti-gay\" legislator is a hypocrite and worthy of scorn, hatred, contempt, etc. until they leave that particular job and get one of which the gay community as a whole can approve.
WTF have YOU been smoking? Where was it ever HINTED at that people were being ORDERED to come out? And who died and made you God? Your rants (and that is precisely what they are) sound like they came directly from the id of the "Christian" coalition. If there had not been previous posts from regulars indicating that they know you in person, I would strongly suspect that you were a plant. Hell, you might be anyway.
To clarify something for the slow-witted, my understanding of this campaign is that staffers are ordered not just to come out to their bosses, but to quit their jobs and go work for somebody else who digs gays and stuff. The theory, as I understand it, is that a gay individual, closeted or not, who works for an \"anti-gay\" legislator is a hypocrite and worthy of scorn, hatred, contempt, etc. until they leave that particular job and get one of which the gay community as a whole can approve.
To answer a previous question by JIP...
congressional staff, both on the Hill and in the home district ofice, are hired by each representative/senator's office. They are not hired en masse and then distributed/assigned.
To address William's "slow witted" comments....
Dearest William,
NO ONE is suggesting that a Hill staffer position is easy to come by or something that can be provided on demand. Has anyone suggested that? I think not.
your comments were
anyway... no one has said what you state above.
Your insistence that we espouse something that no one has stated is fairly amazing. somewhat akin to Cheney insisting on the existence of WMD caches.
To be blunt my dear friend, the \"slow witted\" comment would be more apt in describing your bullheadedness.
let me reprint what I said previously
are they hypocrites? you tell me. Would a jew working for an anti-semite organization be a hypocrite? Would a blackman working for the aryan nation be a hypocrite? Could said blackman be defended by saying "well... jobs are hard to come by"? Is a gay man working for a homophobe any different? You tell me.
I hope this suffices even for the slow witted. If not I will be glad to spell it out for you in the future.
congressional staff, both on the Hill and in the home district ofice, are hired by each representative/senator's office. They are not hired en masse and then distributed/assigned.
To address William's "slow witted" comments....
Dearest William,
NO ONE is suggesting that a Hill staffer position is easy to come by or something that can be provided on demand. Has anyone suggested that? I think not.
your comments were
QUOTE
The theory, as I understand it, is that a gay individual... who works for an \"anti-gay\" legislator is a hypocrite ... until they leave that particular job...Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, \"Hey, I'm gay and I want a job,\" and you got it, brother. These staffers you guys want to f**k with have it so easy, as you all seem to understand.
I don't know what your qualification is to address the ease/difficulty in obtaining Hill positions. Do you work there? Hve you ever been an LA? Do you know what you're talking about? Well guess what? I do. In fact, SFHoya and I both know what it's about. anyway... no one has said what you state above.
Your insistence that we espouse something that no one has stated is fairly amazing. somewhat akin to Cheney insisting on the existence of WMD caches.
To be blunt my dear friend, the \"slow witted\" comment would be more apt in describing your bullheadedness.
let me reprint what I said previously
QUOTE
Those Hill staffers/members who are closeted say, \"Being gay is so unimportant that I don't need to come out\"
well ... tell you what. Let's out you guys and see what the reaction is to your newly revealed status from others including your bosses.
If your gayness is truly THAT INsignificant, NONimportant to all involved, then you don't have anything to worry about.
If however, you get fired for being gay.... then you'll realize that for people who hate fags, your gay status is significant. and if your gayness causes you to lose your job, maybe you'll then realize that homosexuality and homophobia aren't so trivial after all. Maybe if you get fired by a homophobic congressman or C.O.S. then you won't so easily dismiss being part of the anti-gay machine.
Do you understand my point? If the gay thing is truly as trivial as the "closeted-gay slash homophobe-in-public" says, then he has no fear of repercussion due to his outed status. If he does get fird simply based on gayness, that person will then know the true measure of homophobia extant. well ... tell you what. Let's out you guys and see what the reaction is to your newly revealed status from others including your bosses.
If your gayness is truly THAT INsignificant, NONimportant to all involved, then you don't have anything to worry about.
If however, you get fired for being gay.... then you'll realize that for people who hate fags, your gay status is significant. and if your gayness causes you to lose your job, maybe you'll then realize that homosexuality and homophobia aren't so trivial after all. Maybe if you get fired by a homophobic congressman or C.O.S. then you won't so easily dismiss being part of the anti-gay machine.
are they hypocrites? you tell me. Would a jew working for an anti-semite organization be a hypocrite? Would a blackman working for the aryan nation be a hypocrite? Could said blackman be defended by saying "well... jobs are hard to come by"? Is a gay man working for a homophobe any different? You tell me.
I hope this suffices even for the slow witted. If not I will be glad to spell it out for you in the future.
QUOTE
danimal:
Earth to William: There's life outside the Beltway. Sapient life forms even. Get used to it.
Earth to whoever you are: Some people might actually want to work in politics, and they might even be interested or knowledgable on an issue on which they agree with Republicans, not Democrats, and thus might want to work in a Republican, not Democrat office. You can get used to it or not, I really don't care.
QUOTE
William1865:
Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, \"Hey, I'm gay and I want a job,\" and you got it, brother.
If jobs on the Hill are the only ones for which they qualify, perhaps they should apply for SSI instead.Because, of course, jobs on the Hill are really easy to come by, you just walk into an office and say, \"Hey, I'm gay and I want a job,\" and you got it, brother.
Earth to William: There's life outside the Beltway. Sapient life forms even. Get used to it.
Maybe they could get jobs at the RNC, they're a big tent.
Do Enron or Halliburton have offices in DC?
Do Enron or Halliburton have offices in DC?
Some gay couples might actually want to be married too, but the FMA would prevent that from happening for a long time. And I could see a staffer wanting to work with a Republican, because they agree on most issues. It kind of sucks that they could lose their job over one issue, because of a hang up by their boss. I see this as troubling as the fact that their boss would be voting for the FMA.
Edited to delete my entire comment. I have nothing nice to say about William's first post, so I won't reference it at all.
I will say this, I had moral problems with a previous job. I followed my conscience and quit. I took a new job with lower pay and it has taken me 2 years to get back to my previous level. I don't regret a minute of it and I'm a better person for it.
[ July 13, 2004, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: DC_guy ]
I will say this, I had moral problems with a previous job. I followed my conscience and quit. I took a new job with lower pay and it has taken me 2 years to get back to my previous level. I don't regret a minute of it and I'm a better person for it.
[ July 13, 2004, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: DC_guy ]
Yeah, but that's a decision you made, not one someone made for you.
These gay dudes are schlubs just doing a job. I can't imagine it's a picnic for them working for someone anti-gay, but that's their cross to bear, not one for anyone else to dump on them.
The problem I have with outing is: you have no idea what the gay staffer's position is. They may be on their way to quitting. They may need a good recommendation from their present employer. You may be f**king up their chances of moving on. And on and on. Anyway, B-Man has all the best arguments against it at the start of this thread--as he noted, you can't force integrity.
These gay dudes are schlubs just doing a job. I can't imagine it's a picnic for them working for someone anti-gay, but that's their cross to bear, not one for anyone else to dump on them.
The problem I have with outing is: you have no idea what the gay staffer's position is. They may be on their way to quitting. They may need a good recommendation from their present employer. You may be f**king up their chances of moving on. And on and on. Anyway, B-Man has all the best arguments against it at the start of this thread--as he noted, you can't force integrity.
I'm actually against the outing, I think it's a bad way to make a point. However, I get tired of people acting like quitting a job for moral purposes would just be making them a huge martyr. It happens all the time and it can be done. I was able to get over my selfishness and realize that I needed to make a change and be a better person.
You're right, no one did make that choice for me, and I don't think it should be made for anyone.
You're right, no one did make that choice for me, and I don't think it should be made for anyone.
QUOTE
Frankly, that's way more important to me than the marriage issue ... not just because I'm single in every sense of the word, but because marriage doesn't do much good if you return from the honeymoon to find you've been fired, evicted, and turned down for a mortgage ... and that it's all perfectly legal in your state, as it is in the majority of states (and in all but one county of mine).
Actually, thank you Danimal for saying in a paragraph what would have taken me several pages.It always amazes me, the number of gay people who seem to think that marriage will "fix everything;" that the right to marry is somehow more important than the right to not be turned down for a job or a mortgage, etc., simply because one is gay.
What good does it do to say to a single gay man in a state like Texas (for instance): "So what if you were fired because you were gay and you have no recourse to the law? Cheer up, you can get married! Yay!" Seems rather cruel to me.
It's my very humble observation that relatively FEW gay men of any age, income level, race, religion, etc. will ever marry*; but ALL are vulnerable to some kind of discrimination, either overt or covert, throughout their lives. That's very easy to forget when one lives in a state which has an anti-discrimination law (since 1990, thank you very much).
*Lesbians are another story, of course.
[ July 13, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Jerzoid ]
Follow up article to the gay guy who works for Senator Inhofe: when he was outed, the Senator's office backpedaled like mad. Instead of saying, yeah, so? they qualified it by saying the gay guy works for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, and not for the Senator's office. The official statement on the outing flat out said, “Senator Inhofe does not hire openly gay staffers due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda."
Amazing that he didn't quit right then and there. But there's a bit of a disconnect between who the staffer thinks he works for and the official statement. After he was outed, the staffer said, "The senator knows I’m gay and it’s not changing his position and he’s not firing me. So my question to [the outers] is: Are you going to let it drop?"
It's not like the Senator could fire him. After all, he doesn't work for the Senator personally, as the official statement takes pains to makes clear. But it's sad that he wouldn't have been hired by the Senator's office, and yet he's so happy to chirp that the Senator's not firing him.
I do think outing is wrong. People like this staffer must feel like real tools as it is. But the decision to quit is something they have to decide for themselves, not something others who have no idea where they stand on the issue and what they're doing about it should force on them....but I have to admit, sometimes, when I'm feeling pissed off about the amendment, I totally see why outing some of these sad f**kers is a good thing in the end. At least the debate is. To actually do it: well, I would feel like scum doing it.
Amazing that he didn't quit right then and there. But there's a bit of a disconnect between who the staffer thinks he works for and the official statement. After he was outed, the staffer said, "The senator knows I’m gay and it’s not changing his position and he’s not firing me. So my question to [the outers] is: Are you going to let it drop?"
It's not like the Senator could fire him. After all, he doesn't work for the Senator personally, as the official statement takes pains to makes clear. But it's sad that he wouldn't have been hired by the Senator's office, and yet he's so happy to chirp that the Senator's not firing him.
I do think outing is wrong. People like this staffer must feel like real tools as it is. But the decision to quit is something they have to decide for themselves, not something others who have no idea where they stand on the issue and what they're doing about it should force on them....but I have to admit, sometimes, when I'm feeling pissed off about the amendment, I totally see why outing some of these sad f**kers is a good thing in the end. At least the debate is. To actually do it: well, I would feel like scum doing it.
QUOTE
Jerzoid:
It always amazes me, the number of gay people who seem to think that marriage will \"fix everything;\" that the right to marry is somehow more important than the right to not be turned down for a job or a mortgage, etc., simply because one is gay.
But I think people see the marriage issue as symbolic. If society can allow gays to marry (with all the legal and social entitlements), then it's a sign that gays are seen as equal, and therefore entitled to all the rights and protections that others have.It always amazes me, the number of gay people who seem to think that marriage will \"fix everything;\" that the right to marry is somehow more important than the right to not be turned down for a job or a mortgage, etc., simply because one is gay.
Also marriage is easier to "quantify" than protection from being fired (or not hired in the first place), for example, because such things relate to discrimination which is difficult to prove/disprove. People are not hired for many reasons (gender, appearance, ethnicity, religion, weight, education, whim of the employer, etc.) with very little recourse.
And it's difficult to draft legislation that will stop this.
But it's easy to draft legislation which will allow gay marriage.
Also, with all the presidential and other rhetoric going on about "family values" and "traditional definition of marriage," it's really the anti-gay forces which have pushed this issue into the forefront. They're the ones who've issed the fighting words, and we need to stand up to them.
Have any of you looked at the blog?
Here's a page of it.
http://blogactive.blogspot.com/2004/07/goo...lways-sooo.html
Here's a page of it.
http://blogactive.blogspot.com/2004/07/goo...lways-sooo.html
QUOTE
TomFord:
\"The senator knows I’m gay and it’s not changing his position and he’s not firing me. So my question to [the outers] is: Are you going to let it drop?\"
Let what drop? The guy is a public official. Voting citizens have a beef with him. What makes it worse is that voting won't get rid of him as he's appointed rather than elected. I think this is getting lost in the arguement from both sides. Congressional staffers are publc servants. The public has every right to object to the continued employment of public servants they consider contrary to their best interests. If this guy is that secure in his employment, he has nothing to worry about. If he isn't, well.... that's the point, isn't it?
\"The senator knows I’m gay and it’s not changing his position and he’s not firing me. So my question to [the outers] is: Are you going to let it drop?\"
QUOTE
Jerzoid
It's my very humble observation that relatively FEW gay men of any age, income level, race, religion, etc. will ever marry*
*Lesbians are another story, of course.
I don't see what you can possibly base this conclusion upon, Jerzoid, given the fact that THOUSANDS of proud, gay Americans chose to tie the knot in San Francisco, Oregon, New York, New Mexico and Massachusetts, albeit in small numbers in several locales (NY and NM, in particular) before the local officials put a halt to the ceremonies....that fact notwithstanding, the decision by these loving, committed couples to have their relationships formally recognized is even more compelling when you take into consideration that with the exception of the latter New England commonwealth there were well-publicized impediments that, in most cases, have yet to be resolved and major doubts as to whether these nuptials would be "invalidated" shortly thereafter....anyone who believes that the number of same-sex couples (and this includes both females AND males -- your preconceived notion regarding the desire of lesbians to marry as compared with gay men is quite puzzling, to say the least) who will choose to wed if (or should I say WHEN) gay marriage eventually becomes legal in more and more states will be a miniscule or "insignificant" number clearly has not been paying attention.It's my very humble observation that relatively FEW gay men of any age, income level, race, religion, etc. will ever marry*
*Lesbians are another story, of course.
As for your analogy comparing gay marriage with the hundreds of other equally important issues (housing, employment, insurance, inheritance, adoption, etc.) I think you misinterpreted my original point, which Danimal was responding to in his post....that is, the 1000+ federal benefits and privileges associated with the institution of marriage (including the ones you referenced) that the FMA, if passed, would permanently deprive us of....your post seems to imply that these are two "separate, isolated" matters, all of which directly affect a LARGE segment of our community long-term, when in reality they are one and the same....the sad fact is that not only do far too many bigoted politicians and heteros, in general, fail to recognize this but based upon the views that several Outsporters have recently expressed on this board a shocking number of supposedly gay men are either oblivious to or ignorant of the damage that they are inflicting upon THEIR OWN community by supporting such an unconscionably discriminatory piece of legislation.
[ July 13, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]
Tom Ford,
Just to be off topic, you should definitely copy the picture at the bottom of this page into your profile! You get a sign and everything:)
Just to be off topic, you should definitely copy the picture at the bottom of this page into your profile! You get a sign and everything:)
HA! DC_guy--but that Tom Ford is "A Reformer Father. Husband. Respected attorney." And not bad looking.
Back to the program.
Back to the program.
QUOTE
TomFord:
HA! DC_guy--but that Tom Ford is \"A Reformer Father. Husband. Respected attorney.\" And not bad looking.
Back to the program.
that gives whole new meaning to legal briefsHA! DC_guy--but that Tom Ford is \"A Reformer Father. Husband. Respected attorney.\" And not bad looking.
Back to the program.
anyway--I see nothing wrong with the outing campaign
these people support those who want to deny GLBTs their basic rights
make them stand up for what they believe in--if they want to be openly gay and be against basic civil rights for the rest of them--why should they be shy about it
[ July 13, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: theodoresdaddy ]
jqueer, good point. I tried making a yes, but... to it and failed.
MSUBobcat: here's something good from that blog about these would-be victim staffers are:
[ July 13, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
MSUBobcat: here's something good from that blog about these would-be victim staffers are:
QUOTE
I have a number of friends who are high level staffers in NYC politics. None of them finished government studies in college, went to an employment agency and was assigned to a politician at random. They aggressively sought internships with people they liked, they worked hard on campaigns they believed in the thre fundraisers to get certain elected officials attention. In short they actively sought a job in the office of those who they liked. The staffers being outed are conservatives who wanted to work for and help right wingers. John Tolman in his previous job criticized gay AIDS activists and defending the horrible actions of the worst drug companies. He directly undermined our efforts ... He is not a good man stuck in a bad job. They are all happy and proud of who they work for. ... There are many innocent victims. None of these staffers are among them.
[ July 13, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
William1865:
Earth to whoever you are: ... I really don't care.
Then what are you still doing here? Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Earth to whoever you are: ... I really don't care.
QUOTE
TomFord:
jqueer, good point. I tried making a yes, but... to it and failed.
I have that effect on people. wink
jqueer, good point. I tried making a yes, but... to it and failed.
Speaking of the outed, I read today that John Aravosis outed Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, because she was silent on FMA, and she promptly announced that she will vote against it. As far as I know, Mikulski didn't admit to being a lesbian--but then she didn't deny Aravosis's claim or threaten to sue either.
Though Maryland has elected Republicans and has a Republican governor, would Barbara Mikulski really suffer if she admitted to being a lesbian? Don't she and Sarbanes usually win handily?
Though Maryland has elected Republicans and has a Republican governor, would Barbara Mikulski really suffer if she admitted to being a lesbian? Don't she and Sarbanes usually win handily?
Is it that hard to figure out Mikulski's a lesbian? I mean....Come on! It's so obvious.
QUOTE
MarcusF:
Who are you, Maureen Dowd? Taking out most of what I wrote completely changed its meaning. Point was I don't care whether or not you accept or acknowledge the fact that some people actually want to work in politics or public policy and enjoy it, but the fact that they do is still, in fact, a fact.
QUOTE
William1865:
Earth to whoever you are: ... I really don't care.
Then what are you still doing here? Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Earth to whoever you are: ... I really don't care.
You need to go to this site and read the original cover boy story. This guy Jonathan Tolman says answers the question:
Where do you want to be twenty years from now?
This way:
Happily settled down with a city house,
a vacation house, and a job doing something that
doesn’t just make money but also helps people,
like running a small nonprofit.
Now he's working for a HOMOPHOBIC guy, I think it's fitting that he was outed publicly for everyone. He is a hypocrite..
[ July 14, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]
Where do you want to be twenty years from now?
This way:
Happily settled down with a city house,
a vacation house, and a job doing something that
doesn’t just make money but also helps people,
like running a small nonprofit.
Now he's working for a HOMOPHOBIC guy, I think it's fitting that he was outed publicly for everyone. He is a hypocrite..
[ July 14, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]
I'm not a big fan of outings, but some of the stories in this week's Washington Blade caused my jaw to crash to the floor. The guy who is the subject of most of the first article comes across as unbelievably confused.
Anti-gay Senate candidate has two gay advisers
One of my two senators, I'm sorry to say:
[url="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/7-23/news/national/leaderout.cfm"]Leader of GOP Senate effort is outed
Allen’s former chief of staff refuses comment[/url]
Anti-gay Senate candidate has two gay advisers
One of my two senators, I'm sorry to say:
[url="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/7-23/news/national/leaderout.cfm"]Leader of GOP Senate effort is outed
Allen’s former chief of staff refuses comment[/url]
I disagree with this even more strongly now
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
It would be totally different to me we were talking about Rick Santorum or President Bush, but we're not.
I agree it's hypocritical, dangerous, for closeted gay men to serve the side of Evil, BUT I promise you the greater side effects of this kind of outing will result in more politicians - and more athletes - staying IN the closet, and starting to cover their tracks.
It's exactly this kind of righteous indignation that creates a situation like... gee, I dunno, a pro hockey player allegedly trying to kill someone who knows he's gay.
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
It would be totally different to me we were talking about Rick Santorum or President Bush, but we're not.
I agree it's hypocritical, dangerous, for closeted gay men to serve the side of Evil, BUT I promise you the greater side effects of this kind of outing will result in more politicians - and more athletes - staying IN the closet, and starting to cover their tracks.
It's exactly this kind of righteous indignation that creates a situation like... gee, I dunno, a pro hockey player allegedly trying to kill someone who knows he's gay.
QUOTE
The B Man:
I disagree with this even more strongly now
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
It would be totally different to me we were talking about Rick Santorum or President Bush, but we're not.
I agree it's hypocritical, dangerous, for closeted gay men to serve the side of Evil, BUT I promise you the greater side effects of this kind of outing will result in more politicians - and more athletes - staying IN the closet, and starting to cover their tracks.
B-man, what are you talking about? This battle is NOT over. FMA was temporarily defeated IN THE SENATE (not in the House), but the House just passed a law forbidding any federal court from ruling on the legality of DOMA or similar laws! So basically, these right-wing scumbags (from both parties, though led by the GOP) are trying to circumvent the separation of powers as delineated in the Constitution. They have vowed to bring the measure up again, and anti-gay marriage measures are on the ballot in several states, including Missouri. It absolutely is not over!I disagree with this even more strongly now
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
It would be totally different to me we were talking about Rick Santorum or President Bush, but we're not.
I agree it's hypocritical, dangerous, for closeted gay men to serve the side of Evil, BUT I promise you the greater side effects of this kind of outing will result in more politicians - and more athletes - staying IN the closet, and starting to cover their tracks.
Second, whose life has been \"wrecked\" or \"destroyed\"? Certainly not any of the people who've been outed, including the man who was at Regent University shilling on behalf of George Allen, or James Inhofe's staffperson, whom Inhofe publicly disavowed. Seriously, has even one of these people working for the anti-gay Congressional folks had his life \"destroyed\"? No. Was Senator Barbara Mikulski's life \"destroyed?\" Not a chance.
Florida GOP Representative Mark Foley, who was outed, also was bombarded with phone calls thanks to Michael Rogers, Michelangelo Signorile and John Aravosis, and you know what? He voted AGAINST it. These folks who think it's fine to work for the very people--not just GOP, mind you, because there are Democrats who support our oppression--don't deserve anyone's pity.
Go after the White House, the Catholic hierarchy and religious fanatics from other faiths next.
QUOTE
t's exactly this kind of righteous indignation that creates a situation like... gee, I dunno, a pro hockey player allegedly trying to kill someone who knows he's gay.
Uh, no, that's HOMOPHOBIA and HETEROSEXISM. If it were totally okay for people to be openly homosexual, no one would kill another person because he or she were outed as being homosexual/bisexual. Also, the hockey player was trying to kill his...extremely controlling manager and...(according to some reports) ex-lover.
[ July 25, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
but the House just passed a law forbidding any federal court from ruling on the legality of DOMA or similar laws! So basically, these right-wing scumbags (from both parties, though led by the GOP) are trying to circumvent the separation of powers as delineated in the Constitution.
Well, thank goodness that it takes the House AND the Senate to make law in this country. Those simpletons in the House can pass any "law" they want, as long as it's as impotent as a hundred year old eunch...BTW, Thomas, according to a survey conducted here in Missouri (since you mention it), 64% of residents polled would favor a state-constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I would think the numbers would break down similarly all throughout the nation's mid west region.
I sincerely hope the federal courts have the last say on the matter -- not individual states. Because if that's the case, we're screwed (in a nonpleasurable way, of course).
NewBlackCity.com Tune in and listen from 7 - 10am Mon - Fri. for Blk/Gay controversial political talk radio with host T. Evans (yes, that would be me.)
[ July 26, 2004, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Lil J ]
QUOTE
The B Man:
I disagree with this even more strongly now
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
I don't see lives being destroyed. Rather I see cynical conservatives making policy for their employees protecting them from anti-gay harrassment and discrimination as long as they further an agenda of harrassment and discrimination in the greater public. The fact that the NRSC has an inclusive anti-discrimination policy while promoting an agenda of discrimination makes them more reprehensible, not less. It is much like African-American conservatives who can thank affirmative action for their positions calling for an end to affirmative action. "I've got mine. Why the hell should I care if you get yours?"I disagree with this even more strongly now
The marriage amendment was defeated, and no doubt lives were wrecked, if not totally destroyed, by this outing business.
On the other hand, if the RNC is so inclusive and welcoming, why is anyone complaining about the outings? It can't possibly affect their livelyhood. If you don't want your personal life being an issue, don't participate in public service.
Today's NY Times reports on the Washington outing controversy, but in apparent deference to what they describe as "an unofficial but generally accepted journalistic practice of not disclosing a person's sexuality against his or her wishes," doesn't name any of the "outees" other than Lynden Armstrong, who agreed to be interviewed.
Regarding the Washington Blade's decision to identify Mel Martinez' gay staffers John Dowless and Kirk Fordham, the Times quotes Blade executive editor Chris Crain.
[ July 25, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
Regarding the Washington Blade's decision to identify Mel Martinez' gay staffers John Dowless and Kirk Fordham, the Times quotes Blade executive editor Chris Crain.
QUOTE
Crain said there were heated exchanges among editors and reporters over running the article. \"Some of the people involved in all of this are friends. But we wouldn't stop to think about whose feelings we were hurting in almost any other area of journalism. And in most cases, these aren't people who are struggling with being gay. These are people who are leading double lives. I don't think it's the obligation of any media to protect double lives.\" - Proposed Marriage Ban Splits Washington's Gays, NY Times, 7/25/04
Meanwhile, blogger Mike Rogers on Friday outed Pete Meachum (one of the "Fifty Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill") as another openly gay man working for a congressional homophobe, in this case Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), a co-sponsor of the FMA and a long-time enemy of gay equality. The sports connection: Meachum is also apparently a member of the Washington Renegades RFC.[ July 25, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
This whole issue reminds me of one of the plots in Angels in America. When Louis discovers that man that he is having an affair with, Joe Pitt, is a clerk for a conservative Federal judge, and likely wrote anti-gay rulings on cases.
It's disillusioning to realize that some of the people that are working against us are gay. And you have to wonder how their conservative values override their gay values and allow them to continue to work against their own people.
I don't believe in outing myself. But hypocracy needs to be pointed out. And if people are working against us, then we need to combat them whether they are straight or gay.
It's disillusioning to realize that some of the people that are working against us are gay. And you have to wonder how their conservative values override their gay values and allow them to continue to work against their own people.
I don't believe in outing myself. But hypocracy needs to be pointed out. And if people are working against us, then we need to combat them whether they are straight or gay.
I watched the ESPN special on Arthur Ashe a few weeks ago and was struck by the discussion of his HIV status, and how he was literally forced to go public. I guess I'm left wondering what IS private. What does any public figure have a right to expect to be kept private?
What kind of "chilling effect" will outings have on the access of gay women and men to public office. Will Dem and Repub elected official now pass over LGBT applicants, specifically in order to avoid scandals like this?
Let's not forget that the armed forces and FBI denied kept gays OUT exactly for this reason. If I could scream this, I would: there are far-reaching consequences for outing that no one seems to be considering!
I believe firmly that people have a right to discretion and confidentiality. History has a way of working these things out. See, for example, Herbie Hoover.
In the meantime, I have to believe there must be some sort of "higher road" that can be, indeed MUST BE, taken. Further, it really does seem to me that we are deriding Roy Cohn at the same time we are becoming Roy Cohn. That really troubles me.
What kind of "chilling effect" will outings have on the access of gay women and men to public office. Will Dem and Repub elected official now pass over LGBT applicants, specifically in order to avoid scandals like this?
Let's not forget that the armed forces and FBI denied kept gays OUT exactly for this reason. If I could scream this, I would: there are far-reaching consequences for outing that no one seems to be considering!
I believe firmly that people have a right to discretion and confidentiality. History has a way of working these things out. See, for example, Herbie Hoover.
In the meantime, I have to believe there must be some sort of "higher road" that can be, indeed MUST BE, taken. Further, it really does seem to me that we are deriding Roy Cohn at the same time we are becoming Roy Cohn. That really troubles me.
QUOTE
The B Man:
History has a way of working these things out. See, for example, Herbie Hoover.
What good did it do to learn about Hoover after he died? He couldn't do any more damage by that point, so it's just gossip. The truth about him should have been revealed while he was alive and in power.
History has a way of working these things out. See, for example, Herbie Hoover.
QUOTE
The B Man:
I watched the ESPN special on Arthur Ashe a few weeks ago and was struck by the discussion of his HIV status, and how he was literally forced to go public. I guess I'm left wondering what IS private. What does any public figure have a right to expect to be kept private?
Hey B Man, I'm not sure how old you are, but I can recall a brief period in the late 1980s and early 1990s when some AIDS activists were \"outing\" people with HIV! This was at a time when the public view of HIV disease was much less tolerant than today. I recall Terry Dolan, the founder of NCPAC, the ultraconservative lobbying organization, being outed both as a closeted gay man and as a PWA. Ashe actually dealt with his outing very well, and did a great deal to improve the public view of PWAs, though I also remember that his supporters strongly emphasized that he had contracted it through a blood transfusion. With Magic Johnson, you'll recall, he made it quite clear that he had been a heterosexual \"playa.\" Now, people have become rather blasé about AIDS, but overall, the outing of some early figures (like Rock Hudson, Ashe, etc.) did have a positive effect.I watched the ESPN special on Arthur Ashe a few weeks ago and was struck by the discussion of his HIV status, and how he was literally forced to go public. I guess I'm left wondering what IS private. What does any public figure have a right to expect to be kept private?
QUOTE
What kind of \"chilling effect\" will outings have on the access of gay women and men to public office. Will Dem and Repub elected official now pass over LGBT applicants, specifically in order to avoid scandals like this?
QUOTE
I believe firmly that people have a right to discretion and confidentiality. History has a way of working these things out. See, for example, Herbie Hoover.
History doesn't work these things out, people and changing social contexts do. J. Edgar Hoover probably wouldn't have been able to destroy as many lives as he did had the public known about his lifelong relationship with Clyde Tolbert. Think about that.
Also, I do agree with discretion, but the issue changes when you're a public figure. No one blinks an eye when heterosexuals parade around with spouse after spouse, engage in adulterous affairs (except if you're the Democratic president of the USA), and so on. Hell, a heterosexual man can murder an entire family, then get married without a hitch while in prison and hardly anyone says a word. Yet homosexuals are supposed to cower in fear of admitting the truth of our desires, our relationships, our families, our lives? We're supposed to simply accept anti-gay laws, anti-gay rhetoric, anti-gay people who seek to make their names based on our oppression?
QUOTE
In the meantime, I have to believe there must be some sort of \"higher road\" that can be, indeed MUST BE, taken. Further, it really does seem to me that we are deriding Roy Cohn at the same time we are becoming Roy Cohn. That really troubles me.
How is anyone "becoming" Roy Cohn? Please explain. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but like your rhetoric on "destroyed" lives, I'm missing something. You do realize how horrible Roy Cohn was, right? And J. Edgar Hoover as well? (Herbert Hoover wasn't a bad person, just an ineffective president who presided over the start of the Great Depression.)
Re: Hoover, yeah, I f**ked up. I have always confused those two.
Re: Roy Cohn, yeah, I know how bad he was. This isn't the first time, though, that I've steered the conversation in this direction. We have no right to police whether people are out or not, period.
This kind of thing will keep people in the closet, I am absolutely 101% sure of it.
Re: the reason I mentioned the marriage legislation, it was my understanding that the outings were launched in direct response/relation to the proposed legislation. There are other ways to address anti-gay rhetoric and laws besides outing people who have made the decision - for whatever reason - to not be out.
That aside, people are being now being outed just because. From the Blade: Florida Congressman Mark Foley ® has vowed to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but gay activist John Aravosis said he decided to out the congressman anyway because Foley supports the re-election of President Bush.
Hmmm. Foley is towing the Gay Community Line, and no doubt risks the wrath of the Republican leadership, and he STILL gets outed? It's not cool, and it takes me back to allusions to Gay McCarthyism.
Are we saying that to be in public service of any sort, you have no right to privacy? Is there no grey area for an aide or finance manager vs. a publicly elected official? I think these are valid concerns. Apparently I'm the only one. I get the message.
Re: lives being wrecked, who says they're NOT being wrecked?!? Do we know for sure whether Mikulski will be re-elected (if she's even running)? Do we know for sure whether anyone else outed has NOT had a rough time of things since? Honestly, I feel like I can't even make a compelling argument here for fear I might unintentionally get someone in trouble.
Re: gay candidates for positions experiencing discrimination, I meant openly gay people applying for staff positions in any given Senator's or Representative's office. I wouldn't be surprised if public officials and their chiefs of staff start thinking, "Well why hire a gay applicant for my budget position and risk having gay activists target our office, for whatever reason. You know, I hear those gays have sex in public places... I'd rather not have my office associated with that kind of element."
I got a little sass talk about this in a previous response, and I'm happy to take as good as I give. I have to say it's ironic that no one here has commented about The Victory Fund, the organization I've presented links for! The Victory Fund supports elected gay officials and candidates for public office.
Bottom Line: everyone else but me thinks it's OK for closeted public officials and those who work for them to be outed. I don't. I can't think of another way to present my case.
Re: Roy Cohn, yeah, I know how bad he was. This isn't the first time, though, that I've steered the conversation in this direction. We have no right to police whether people are out or not, period.
This kind of thing will keep people in the closet, I am absolutely 101% sure of it.
Re: the reason I mentioned the marriage legislation, it was my understanding that the outings were launched in direct response/relation to the proposed legislation. There are other ways to address anti-gay rhetoric and laws besides outing people who have made the decision - for whatever reason - to not be out.
That aside, people are being now being outed just because. From the Blade: Florida Congressman Mark Foley ® has vowed to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but gay activist John Aravosis said he decided to out the congressman anyway because Foley supports the re-election of President Bush.
Hmmm. Foley is towing the Gay Community Line, and no doubt risks the wrath of the Republican leadership, and he STILL gets outed? It's not cool, and it takes me back to allusions to Gay McCarthyism.
Are we saying that to be in public service of any sort, you have no right to privacy? Is there no grey area for an aide or finance manager vs. a publicly elected official? I think these are valid concerns. Apparently I'm the only one. I get the message.
Re: lives being wrecked, who says they're NOT being wrecked?!? Do we know for sure whether Mikulski will be re-elected (if she's even running)? Do we know for sure whether anyone else outed has NOT had a rough time of things since? Honestly, I feel like I can't even make a compelling argument here for fear I might unintentionally get someone in trouble.
Re: gay candidates for positions experiencing discrimination, I meant openly gay people applying for staff positions in any given Senator's or Representative's office. I wouldn't be surprised if public officials and their chiefs of staff start thinking, "Well why hire a gay applicant for my budget position and risk having gay activists target our office, for whatever reason. You know, I hear those gays have sex in public places... I'd rather not have my office associated with that kind of element."
I got a little sass talk about this in a previous response, and I'm happy to take as good as I give. I have to say it's ironic that no one here has commented about The Victory Fund, the organization I've presented links for! The Victory Fund supports elected gay officials and candidates for public office.
Bottom Line: everyone else but me thinks it's OK for closeted public officials and those who work for them to be outed. I don't. I can't think of another way to present my case.
QUOTE
Re: gay candidates for positions experiencing discrimination, I meant openly gay people applying for staff positions in any given Senator's or Representative's office. I wouldn't be surprised if public officials and their chiefs of staff start thinking, \"Well why hire a gay applicant for my budget position and risk having gay activists target our office, for whatever reason. You know, I hear those gays have sex in public places... I'd rather not have my office associated with that kind of element.\"
B Man: this wouldn't be anything new. See “Senator Inhofe does not hire openly gay staffers due to the possibility of a conflict of agenda" above.
QUOTE
The B Man:
Re: lives being wrecked, who says they're NOT being wrecked?!? Do we know for sure whether Mikulski will be re-elected (if she's even running)? Do we know for sure whether anyone else outed has NOT had a rough time of things since? Honestly, I feel like I can't even make a compelling argument here for fear I might unintentionally get someone in trouble.
SINCE you insist on making yourself look oblivious... Sen Mikulski has been outed at least once each election cycle for the last 20-odd years. Doesn't seem to affect her chances of getting re-elected the least bit.
Re: lives being wrecked, who says they're NOT being wrecked?!? Do we know for sure whether Mikulski will be re-elected (if she's even running)? Do we know for sure whether anyone else outed has NOT had a rough time of things since? Honestly, I feel like I can't even make a compelling argument here for fear I might unintentionally get someone in trouble.
If I'm going to be blasted for being oblivious, let it be for confusing Herb and J. Edgar. Mikulski was just an example, I could have inserted any politician, I chose Mikulski simply for the fact that she had been discussed here.
I disagree with this issue. I've said all I can. I'm done.
I disagree with this issue. I've said all I can. I'm done.
You can walk out of KMart with a rifle. You have to have a permit for a handgun.
"Concealed weapons" are regulated (or illegal)because the fact that they can be concealed makes them more dangerous.
A guy walking toward a crowd with a rifle can be noticed, stopped, his identity and motives questioned. A guy with a handgun hidden in his pocket gets into the crowd.
I'll have to think more on this whole issue. But I can't shake the analogy.
"Concealed weapons" are regulated (or illegal)because the fact that they can be concealed makes them more dangerous.
A guy walking toward a crowd with a rifle can be noticed, stopped, his identity and motives questioned. A guy with a handgun hidden in his pocket gets into the crowd.
I'll have to think more on this whole issue. But I can't shake the analogy.
In general, I don't believe in outing. There are many roads to take when it comes to finding one's self-confidence and self-acceptance, many roads with many different time-tables, if you will.
As we've all experienced in our lives, when we chase something, or someone, too hard, it (he/she) usually runs the opposite direction. Demanding someone admit and deal with their sexuality is rarely successful. Again, in general, I simply don't believe in outing.
When an elected official is trying to take away my rights, my EQUAL rights (whether fully granted yet or not), under the law as an American citizen, then the questioning of his/her integrity and their staff is completely valid and necessary. Simply outing a staff member of a discriminatory politician doesn't get the job done. Questioning their integrity, and the obvious contradiction between a homophobic politician and his/her homosexual staff member, is, again, perfectly valid, and a must in the current political era.
So, perhaps this discussion is more about methods and context than simply about outing.
As we've all experienced in our lives, when we chase something, or someone, too hard, it (he/she) usually runs the opposite direction. Demanding someone admit and deal with their sexuality is rarely successful. Again, in general, I simply don't believe in outing.
When an elected official is trying to take away my rights, my EQUAL rights (whether fully granted yet or not), under the law as an American citizen, then the questioning of his/her integrity and their staff is completely valid and necessary. Simply outing a staff member of a discriminatory politician doesn't get the job done. Questioning their integrity, and the obvious contradiction between a homophobic politician and his/her homosexual staff member, is, again, perfectly valid, and a must in the current political era.
So, perhaps this discussion is more about methods and context than simply about outing.
In general, I believe outing is wrong and serves no purpose, but what is going on here has my full and unqualified support.
And when these anti-gay politicians acknowledge hiring gay employees - I'm sorry, but a "refusal to comment" is a confirmation in my book - and there is no way any political campaign, particularly a for a social conservative, would not confirm the heterosexuality of a campaign worker - outing their employees only exposes the politicians has hypocrites themselves, and that is fair game. If you are on the Senate floor arguing that gay relationships are so bad for society that they must be banned, it is damn well news that you have a significant campaign/staff worker who is gay, and likely in just such a relationship.
As for Dowless, he especially deserves to be outed. He works with the very people who spread vicious, malicious and slanderous lies about gay people, inciting a huge amount of prejudice. He is sharing stages and working with men and women who have made it their life's work to deny us rights, and not just marriage rights. What they do is beyond any political campaign or piece of legislation, and any openly gay person who has the gall to work with them should be outed.
QUOTE
I agree it's hypocritical, dangerous, for closeted gay men to serve the side of Evil, BUT I promise you the greater side effects of this kind of outing will result in more politicians - and more athletes - staying IN the closet, and starting to cover their tracks.
That's just it - these people are not "closeted" - Mark Foley takes his partner to dinner parties - and not just as "friends", for God's sakes - and all the other people mentioned are open in their private lives, and apparently a few are open in their professional life as well. If you're out with boyfriends, openly dating and acknowledging your sexual orientation in your private life, you really no longer can have any expectation that your sexual orientation is a secret. And when these anti-gay politicians acknowledge hiring gay employees - I'm sorry, but a "refusal to comment" is a confirmation in my book - and there is no way any political campaign, particularly a for a social conservative, would not confirm the heterosexuality of a campaign worker - outing their employees only exposes the politicians has hypocrites themselves, and that is fair game. If you are on the Senate floor arguing that gay relationships are so bad for society that they must be banned, it is damn well news that you have a significant campaign/staff worker who is gay, and likely in just such a relationship.
As for Dowless, he especially deserves to be outed. He works with the very people who spread vicious, malicious and slanderous lies about gay people, inciting a huge amount of prejudice. He is sharing stages and working with men and women who have made it their life's work to deny us rights, and not just marriage rights. What they do is beyond any political campaign or piece of legislation, and any openly gay person who has the gall to work with them should be outed.
I think The B Man has some good points, and it is an ends/means kind of issue. I'm not in favor of outing either. But how can we get through to gay people who are working against the gay community?
My husband and I have been talking about the outings, and we both agree that if you are gay, in the closet, and working for an Anti-gay politician, then you are fair game.
It reminds me of one of my neighbours when I was a kid. Mr and Mrs Faschenberg (not sure if that's the right spelling) were an elderly couple who were both survivors of the camps. She had survived 3 years at Auchwitz-Birkenau, and he had survived 3 years at Bergen-Belsen. They were married before they were sent to the camps.
I remember G'ma Ida (as a kid that's what I called her) talking about everything that happened, and she was openly angry at the neighbours who turned them in to the Nazi's. What made her angrier, to the point of tears, were neighbours who were partly jewish, turning jews in, and keeping their partial jewishness a secret.
I remember G'ma Ida telling me that those neighbours were the first to try and convince them not to re-settle back in their town when the war was over. They were the first ones to force G'ma Ida and G'pa Abe out of the town, and led the people that drove them out.
When I asked them why they didn't identify them as also being Jewish, I was told that two wrongs don't make a right. My thought was that if you had been through what they had been through, you were entitled.
Luckily they got permission to emigrate to Canada, as G'pa Abe was a doctor. They never had any children, as a result of the years in the camps.
According to Ida, the people who helped drive them out of the town after the war, were SO ashamed of being partly jewish, that they relished in the destruction of their fellow townspeople.
The reason I mention this is that I see that as a parralel. There ARE gay people who are so ashamed of who they are, that they will work with the enemy to destroy us.
To those people - NO MERCY.
To the people who are working for them because they are a Republican, and beleive that what they do has the good outweighing the bad - If you are THAT f**kING STUPID, then NO MERCY.
Your country is fast sliding into the politicization that enveloped the Weimar Republic. It is a politics of scapegoats, and one-upmanship.
And any of our community that help them deserve to be outed.
And if they lose their jobs, their connections, their expense accounts - too friggin bad. Welcome to the REAL world.
It reminds me of one of my neighbours when I was a kid. Mr and Mrs Faschenberg (not sure if that's the right spelling) were an elderly couple who were both survivors of the camps. She had survived 3 years at Auchwitz-Birkenau, and he had survived 3 years at Bergen-Belsen. They were married before they were sent to the camps.
I remember G'ma Ida (as a kid that's what I called her) talking about everything that happened, and she was openly angry at the neighbours who turned them in to the Nazi's. What made her angrier, to the point of tears, were neighbours who were partly jewish, turning jews in, and keeping their partial jewishness a secret.
I remember G'ma Ida telling me that those neighbours were the first to try and convince them not to re-settle back in their town when the war was over. They were the first ones to force G'ma Ida and G'pa Abe out of the town, and led the people that drove them out.
When I asked them why they didn't identify them as also being Jewish, I was told that two wrongs don't make a right. My thought was that if you had been through what they had been through, you were entitled.
Luckily they got permission to emigrate to Canada, as G'pa Abe was a doctor. They never had any children, as a result of the years in the camps.
According to Ida, the people who helped drive them out of the town after the war, were SO ashamed of being partly jewish, that they relished in the destruction of their fellow townspeople.
The reason I mention this is that I see that as a parralel. There ARE gay people who are so ashamed of who they are, that they will work with the enemy to destroy us.
To those people - NO MERCY.
To the people who are working for them because they are a Republican, and beleive that what they do has the good outweighing the bad - If you are THAT f**kING STUPID, then NO MERCY.
Your country is fast sliding into the politicization that enveloped the Weimar Republic. It is a politics of scapegoats, and one-upmanship.
And any of our community that help them deserve to be outed.
And if they lose their jobs, their connections, their expense accounts - too friggin bad. Welcome to the REAL world.
Whoa!
Your neighbors' experience in Nazi Germany was terrible and there is no question about it.
But being reported by partly Jewish neighbors was not common. Most people who turned in Jews were Gentiles and they really hated the Jews.
It was rare for partly Jews to turn in other Jews, because the Nazis had access to census records and the Nazis knew who was Jewish and who was not in the general population. For partly Jews to participate in the roundup of Jews, it would have risked exposure because other Jews could also point the partly Jews to the Nazis and provide documentation, too!
However, inside the Jewish ghettos in Warsaw and other beseiged cities, the Nazis often appointed Jews to manage life within the ghettos. That was life inside the ghettos - and at the end, both the Jewish managers and the other Jews ended up in the showers.
Now back to the point about outting gays in Congress; I agree with the original premise: if you are gay, if you are in the closet and if you work for anti-gay organizations, you deserve to be outted!
However, if you do not have the third condition (working in anti-gay organization), you do not deserve to be outted at all.
Mikestead
Your neighbors' experience in Nazi Germany was terrible and there is no question about it.
But being reported by partly Jewish neighbors was not common. Most people who turned in Jews were Gentiles and they really hated the Jews.
It was rare for partly Jews to turn in other Jews, because the Nazis had access to census records and the Nazis knew who was Jewish and who was not in the general population. For partly Jews to participate in the roundup of Jews, it would have risked exposure because other Jews could also point the partly Jews to the Nazis and provide documentation, too!
However, inside the Jewish ghettos in Warsaw and other beseiged cities, the Nazis often appointed Jews to manage life within the ghettos. That was life inside the ghettos - and at the end, both the Jewish managers and the other Jews ended up in the showers.
Now back to the point about outting gays in Congress; I agree with the original premise: if you are gay, if you are in the closet and if you work for anti-gay organizations, you deserve to be outted!
However, if you do not have the third condition (working in anti-gay organization), you do not deserve to be outted at all.
Mikestead
Wow.
Now the world seems to make a little more sense, although in a non-sensical kind of way. Remember the tried and true saying, "I'm not a homophobe, I have friends that are gay." This is how hateful people can somehow have friends that they openly discriminate against. Unbelieveable.
As for the outings. Yipee skippy. Its not like they are making a very strong effort to stay closeted. And as we all know, gay sex is no longer illegal, so reporting someone as gay should be about as exciting as reporting someone is CANADIAN. Now who would do something like that?
Now the world seems to make a little more sense, although in a non-sensical kind of way. Remember the tried and true saying, "I'm not a homophobe, I have friends that are gay." This is how hateful people can somehow have friends that they openly discriminate against. Unbelieveable.
As for the outings. Yipee skippy. Its not like they are making a very strong effort to stay closeted. And as we all know, gay sex is no longer illegal, so reporting someone as gay should be about as exciting as reporting someone is CANADIAN. Now who would do something like that?
QUOTE
orsino4:
Wow.
Now the world seems to make a little more sense, although in a non-sensical kind of way. Remember the tried and true saying, \"I'm not a homophobe, I have friends that are gay.\" This is how hateful people can somehow have friends that they openly discriminate against. Unbelieveable.
As for the outings. Yipee skippy. Its not like they are making a very strong effort to stay closeted. And as we all know, gay sex is no longer illegal, so reporting someone as gay should be about as exciting as reporting someone is CANADIAN. Now who would do something like that?
There is a semi well known radio talk show host up here in Toronto called Michael Corren, who is an evangelical christian. He has always used the line, "I have gay friends, BUT :Wow.
Now the world seems to make a little more sense, although in a non-sensical kind of way. Remember the tried and true saying, \"I'm not a homophobe, I have friends that are gay.\" This is how hateful people can somehow have friends that they openly discriminate against. Unbelieveable.
As for the outings. Yipee skippy. Its not like they are making a very strong effort to stay closeted. And as we all know, gay sex is no longer illegal, so reporting someone as gay should be about as exciting as reporting someone is CANADIAN. Now who would do something like that?
1 They don't want to get married
2 They don't see the need to march in Pride
3 They don't want to teach in primary schools
4 They don't know whether they chose to be gay
So his view is that since his 2, repeat 2 closeted, uptight evangelical christian gay friends beleive a certain way that all gays should have the same rights, or lack of them.
Yah, Right!!
Oh, and isn't it Philly who generally is the cockroach when it comes to thinking because a person is Canadian that they are idiots about the US?
Or is it MIB that's the cockroach
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.