How is my response to Wright’s (false) claim that the US government created HIV/AIDS to kill Black men indicative of me being an “ANGRY WHITE MAN?” I don’t take offense because I’m, as you claim, a racist — I take offense because I’ve had several friends die of AIDS-related medical issues. Little do you know, but I volunteered EVERY Saturday with a DC AIDS organization, despite working 60+ hours a week on the campaign. Of course, since you’re the supreme fact-checker, you’d know that African Americans make up approximately 14% of the US population, but account for over 49% of infected individuals… If I were really an “ANGRY WHITE MAN,” I wouldn’t put myself in a position where’d I’d be helping the African American community. Grow up, all Republicans — WHITE Republicans — aren’t racist.

Wright is clearly delusional, and so are you for coming to his aid. Bravo, moron.

But I guess out of anger you chose to ignore that?

And who would you rather have from Obama’s chest of religious allies, Reverend Wright, who famously alleged the US Government created HIV/AIDS to kill black men, or Donnie McClurkin, the self-professed “ex-gay”?

I wonder if Japhy will take note of that the next time he interviews his hunky nerd conservative boyfriend.

At any rate — I’ve been reading his blogs lately… I’ve been commenting on them, too.

They’re really not bad — it’s sort of like people — having and intelligent discussion about politics and current events.

I like it… and I’m a libertarian (well… sort of… it’s complicated).

If I read you right, I’m perfectly aware that the Democrats promise more to Gays than the Republicans, but I have already said repeatedly that both parties have a lot to answer for AND the fact that Dems don’t actively work to DEPRIVE Gays of their rights and appoint less insane, reactionary judges to the Supreme Court will help us much more in the long run.

To imply that my domestic rights are at risk simply because the Republicans are more vocal about War with the Muslims or whomever is BS. Name a Democratic president who let a foreign power walk in and take over the United States! Further, if you’re so worried about Muslims, remember that the Congress & Presidency has been controlled by the Republicans for 16 of the last 24 years so who let most of the Muslims into this country? Does any reasonable person feel the war in Iraq is mostly a success these days? Check out THE WEEK magazine, hardly partisan – their most recent issue has an article by former military operative who says 1/4 of all injuries/fatalities of our US Soldiers in Iraq are revenge killings by Muslims because of torture of Muslims at Guantanomo. So much for “get tough” policies of the Rethugs.

Further, the military routinely dismisses qualified Gay Arabic translators and then howls they have a shortage and said shortage compromises national security! Get real – the military is more afraid of Gays than terrorists? But let me guess who forced Don’t ask Don’t tell… the Republicans. Yes Bill Clinton signed it but only because he was backed into a corner by the Rethuglicans.

I can’t go on, either you get it or you don’t.

Jaroslaw – you’re playing into our REAL opponents hands when you choose the party that PANDERS to you but really DOESN’T ACTUALLY support your rights and FIGHT the only party that’s willing to vocally oppose people who would KILL YOU and DO kill people JUST LIKE YOU every day (fanatical, fundamentalist, violent Muslims — a small but extremely dangerous part of that beautiful, peaceful religion). :)

Regardless, Alan Brickman is exactly right. He’s super gorgeous.

I feel sorry for the guy being strung up in Iran, but realistically what can I do about it? We collectively as a country can theoretically vote for people who support our foreign policy objectives but unless we are going to invade every country that doesn’t bow to our whims, then Iran is going to have to be allowed to run their own country.

While I understand your basic point that people don’t have to think exactly alike just because we are in a group, you must understand the difference between Dems & Repub don’t you? Dems allow abortion (however distasteful to some – including myself) but I don’t need to FORCE my views on others through law. OR try to take rights away. BIG difference.

“Christianists would like to see religious law, not secular, enforced by the State. They seek to establish a religious totalitarian system, much like those we find in many Islamic country’s, just based on “christian” and “biblical” “values”, so that makes it ok. Its just that they’re the same values in each case.”

While I know a good number of people that this DOES apply to, this isn’t a black and white issue. As a Christian, I would very much prefer our government to NOT be “a religious totalitarian system”. Separation of church and state not only benefits those who don’t want to be affiliated with a certain religion, but also those (like me) who don’t want their religion to be twisted and warped into something it isn’t – which unfortunately has already been done quite a lot. America is supposed to represent freedom, whether that be in the from of legalizing gay marriage, or protecting what being a Christian means to me.

What you fail to grasp as evident by your condescending post is that being a Democrat doesn’t necessarily tie you to advocacy of abortion on demand, an “impotent” American foreign policy, socialism and protectionism. Our tent is large and encompasses everyone from the most liberal San Franciscans to blue dog conservatives in Virginia. It’s your party that’s shedding its middle and retreating to the extreme right where America doesn’t want to be.

Have you seen the 2008 electoral map by chance?

That “us against them” attitude of exclusiveness is a central reason why your party is in shambles.

I think this attitude stems from an absolute refusal to look at politics as something beyond the personal. Yes, the Republican Party has had the wrong stance on gay rights. But, could it be, possibly, that there are issues and ideas out there that are more important than YOU?

What concerns you more? That you can’t get married or that some guy just like you in Iran is getting strung up in the town square for being gay?

This is offered in contradistinction to believing that the party that invests in using government to promote rights and benefits for particular sgements of the population is so favorable. In the latter case, as you see now, we all have to take our turn, take one of the cabinet seats typically relegated to the next emergent political consituency, like Labor or CEQ or Agriculture.
And we are not supposed to ask for too much. Obama says “Gay marriage, like the Beadle in Oliver Twist says, “More?”

Perhaps Richardson is far too queer to understand the power of fundamentalist religion. Perhaps James never read a single article on the power of fundamentalism in the US or in the Middle East. Perhaps James is so self-absorbed and upper class to never have met one of them in person or ever had a discussion with one, either face-to-face or online. Maybe he’s never been the target of their exceedingly Medieval tirades. I suspect James Richardson has never sampled real life. Ever.

You see, the Republican party is the party of fundamentalist religion. And fundamentalists are nearly 100% in agreement: queer is bad. Queer can be cured. Not ALL of them are that way, but the VAST majority of them are.

I suspect James has not set foot in a church recently either.

The Republican platform has in it for 2008 an anti-gay plank based on ‘traditional marriage’. Good luck, James. You support a party that refuses to recognize our partnerships legally.

You’re pathetic because you’re ignorant.

Either leave that party or start your own, because you’re going to be relegated to the abject stupidity of the Log Cabin Republicans. Or, you’ll end up simply trying to create a schism.

Just because they were for Obama doesn’t mean they were for gay equality.”

Your response is right. Let me add that competence was a factor in the small group of Republicans who were for Obama. This election, incidentally, was not a cross over election. Obama won because of the Democratic base and Democratic leaning independents, but not because of moderate Republicans. The number of moderate Republicans has declined as well.

Well Ryan, if you’re chastising me for not using the man’s entire quote, I shall do the same:

My advice: First, reject these sophomoric antics like ‘call into work gay’ and instead assume your obligation to make a positive case for equal rights. As someone who worked for the RNC and, by proxy, McCain, I can unequivocally say that shamelessly attacking the enemy rarely helps in these situations.

He referred to call-into-work-gay as sophomoric and considers that day of protest antics, rather than protests. Next, it’s obvious he claims we are attacking straight people by calling in gay, simply because he equates that day of action with political attacks on “enemies”.

You can see that he meant that he has seen how shamelessly attacking the enemy didn’t help his own party and that the same tactic will not help us. It’s sound advice, not a condemnation.

Sorry Ryan, but the way it looks to me, he is claiming that attacking McCain to get him to change was futile, just as gays protesting to get change is futile. He was on the receiving end of attacks and it appears he would like us to believe they do not work, therefore we should drop them. Now, whom will be in the WH for the next four years and whose career is finished?

But looking at the fact that there was a whole group of Republicans called “Republicans for Obama”, it tells me that not all of them are closed minded and are ready for a more central perspective.

Just because they were for Obama doesn’t mean they were for gay equality.

Didn’t he notice who lost seat after seat in November?

No–the Republican party is more dominated by right-wing psychopaths than ever!

Except as you say, anti immigrant, anti woman, anti poor, anti fairness costs something – in prison costs, wasted human lives and potentials which doesn’t get figured into the bottom line. And most of what I read say Republicans actually raise taxes more than the Dems. So who really knows?

Oh I see.

– “As someone who worked for the RNC and, by proxy, McCain, I can unequivocally say that shamelessly attacking the enemy rarely helps in these situations.” –

You can see that he meant that he has seen how shamelessly attacking the enemy didn’t help his own party and that the same tactic will not help us. It’s sound advice, not a condemnation.

As someone raised in a politically split family, I’ve had Democratic and Republican views taught to me, so I suppose you could call me a centrist more than anything. But looking at the fact that there was a whole group of Republicans called “Republicans for Obama”, it tells me that not all of them are closed minded and are ready for a more central perspective.

Surely you know there is a LONG list of things Democrats in Congress have failed liberals and Gays specifically on…..

One of my historical favorites is when the Dems had the majority for 20 some years (just prior to Reagan?) they failed to protect labor unions from hiring scab labor. And it hasn’t been rectified to this day.

Both parties have lot to answer for in my view.

On the other hand, it’s hard not to find your timing suspicious. Where were you two months ago during the campaign on Prop 8, or during any of the anti-marriage campaigns in any number of states during the last six years? Where was the Republican voice for equality? Where was this alleged equal-minded Republican leadership who should have moderated their political strategy in respect for basic human rights?

I thank you for your vacuous after-the-fact sympathy. When you’re ready to actually provide something more than pretty rhetoric, I’ll believe you’re not just positioning yourself for relevancy in the new political climate and welcome your support. Until then, thank you, but piss off.

I can unequivocally say that shamelessly attacking the enemy rarely helps in these situations.

Mr. Richardson has just described the entire RNC play book with those two comments above; yet chastises us for taking the same steps.

Does James remember the Republican protesters picketing outside the VP’s home in 2000 demanding Al Gore move out? Does he remember Republicans standing on the steps of the House with purple finger tips? Does he remember, “With us, or against us”?

By listening to a Republican shill and taking his advice all we are doing is giving them the opportunity to win. Ignore them–they lost the last election and the support of the public. If we follow Mr. Richardson’s advice all we are doing is making his job easier in taking back the WH and the senate.

This is the new, kindler, gentler Republican trying to get the sympathy of the voters to retain power. But guaranteed, if they get power again, everything Mr. Richardson has written and said will be forgotten like Bush’s walk onto the USS Abraham Lincoln, and they will all be back to trashing us.

Lastly, does James really think the Republican party will give up bashing gays? It’s not about politics as he has already stated in this interview, its about money. The more they scare the right into believing LGBTQ’s are monsters the more donations they can collect and the Repubs are not about to let go of that teat.

The need for social conservatives to understand that gays aren’t bad people is as great as the need for gays to understand that social conservatives aren’t bad people.

The difference is James, gays don’t want to take away the rights of anti-gay people. I can’t say the same for anti-gay people and the equality of gays.

After the disheartening losses in California, Florida, and Arkansas, the LGBT community doesn’t have the novelty of excluding support from groups and individuals you broadly deem as hostile.

Nor can we trust the people who act hostile towards us. They came after us, not the other way around. For someone who denounces pandering, James sure as hell wants us to do a lot of it.

I’ve found it’s easier to earn allies and build a coalition by addressing issues, not rhetoric. If the gay rights movement is to succeed, they’ll do the same.

You lost the election and the senate, James, why should we take your advice? If James can point to one issue where he brought a coalition of diverging ideas together to benefit all Americans and helped equality for LGBTQ’s, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, he’s just blowing smoke.

…protest was overwhelmingly seen by (moderate) Republican strategists as a childish, counter-productive move.

And that’s why the protests worked, James. If we are pissing off the “strategists” then we are doing the right thing. The strategists control the party and their base, not America at large.

In the end, James is still talking and writing as if the Republicans are in power. They are not. They lost and continue to lose–money, the culture war, the hearts and minds of voters. Jame’s entire approach to gay equality is, “Be more like Republicans!” In the end, Jame’s opinion doesn’t mean a damn thing.

The RNC saw that 27% exit poll figure of gays who voted for McCain and sent Clark Kent out to solidify the support. This guy’s a plant.

I think that is the key quote. The Republican Party won’t change any time soon, 5 to 10 years. The anti-gay schtick is a vital part of the Party’s survival, just as the Southern Strategy of using anti-black vilification for 40(!!) years was crucial for Republican success.

That said, given the rest of the GOP’s wretched platform, why should anyone want to be a part of it? Talk of limited government in the face of Bush & the GOP’s shredding of the Constitution with wild support by the base just adds to the hypocrisy.

@Wayne:
There’s a difference between someone who says he’s not for gay marriage and someone who actively seeks to create laws that prevent or remove that right. I’d go over the rest of Obama’s pro-gay rights platform but hasn’t that been done for the last year? What other president-elect in his acceptance speech has ever mentioned gay people and their aspirations directly?

When this guy can make it through the Republican primary process and get nominated as their candidate for president while espousing these ideas, then your comparison might fit. Until then I’ll take Barack Obama’s record on civil rights over John McCain’s any day of the week.

Nobody said he was bad. It’s his political party that’s bullshit. The party, the majority of those in it (who look more like the posters at freerepublic.com than him), the people they nominate for president and other leadership positions and the wealthy assholes and organizations that fund their campaigns.

“Nobody can deny that there does exist a loose alliance of radically fundamentalist Islamists throughout the world who espouse a religiously bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, anti-modern, anti-democratic, apocalyptic worldview…”

Can also be said about Christian fundamentalists right here in the U.S.A.:

“Nobody can deny that there does exist a loose alliance of radically fundamentalist Christianists throughout America who espouse a religiously bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, anti-modern, anti-democratic, apocalyptic worldview…”

James Richardson does espouse a view that is conservative but not religiously fundamentalist:

“I view my support of equal rights measures as fundamentally in sync with the GOP’s cause of limited government interference, not to mention basic human values. Depriving simple rights like loving the partner of one’s choice is, in my eyes, a gross dereliction of human decency. It is only when we apply these asinine social conservative “culture war” filters that we run into problems of this nature…”

The conservative argument in favor of equal marriage rights for same sex couples is that the government should not be in the business of regulating or policing love relationships. This is oppositional to the fundamentalist Christian or Islamic mindset which would like to see a theocracy established. Christianists would like to see religious law, not secular, enforced by the State. They seek to establish a religious totalitarian system, much like those we find in many Islamic country’s, just based on “christian” and “biblical” “values”, so that makes it ok. Its just that they’re the same values in each case.