Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Barney Frank’s Pro-Trans Flip Flop

dopeyfrank.jpg
A little over a week after endorsing an orientation-only ENDA, homo-politico Barney Frank’s changing his stance. The Representative from Massachusetts released a statement supporting colleague Tammy Baldwin’s trans-inclusive amendment.

The decision to offer such an amendment came out of a Caucus which Chairman George Miller held of the Democratic Members of the Education and Labor Committee. After some discussion, it became clear that offering such an amendment would offer us the best chance to achieve Speaker Pelosi’s goal of adopting in the House the most inclusive ENDA bill for which majority support existed.

we will now be able to [discuss the matter] in a procedural setting that allows us to maximize support for an inclusive bill without endangering our chances of getting any bill at all.”

So, he wouldn’t step up and fight for trans rights last week, but now that someone else did the dirty work, he’s all about it? Forgive us for not applauding.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Oct 19, 2007
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 44 Comments
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Of course, it’s hard to applaud with your heads up your ass. If young fruits should be able to tell, and appreciate, the difference between apples and oranges.

      Have you looked into intellectual growth hormone therapy?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      So Leland, My question to you, who gets to decide what the apples get and what the oranges do. And who is who? Ohh and WTF does that mean exactly?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      There’s nothing inconsistent in Barney’s actions or what he’s been saying. He refuses to jeopardize gay rights (and put them off for a generation) for the sake of trans rights. He is nonetheless supportive of trans rights; he simply sees them as much harder to pass.

      If the ammendment can pass/fail without affecting the gay rights bill’s ability to pass/fail, so much the better. If, on the other hand, Tammy’s ammendment fucks up the chances of passing ENDA, you can expect even more hell to break loose.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: At what point are we all in this together? To what point? What other parts of the community would be ok to leave behind?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      How about “apples” refer to wanting equal opportunity for all and “oranges” refer to what has more opportunity to be accomplished in the moment.

      I hope that Adam is right and, should ENDA fail entirely because of the psychotic machinations of those who can scream the loudest, gays and lesbians waking up to realize that the chance for job protection [however imperfect] was purposely ripped out of their hands by NGLTF, et al., will withhold future donations to their extinction.
      “What? My boss can fire me because you threw out the water because it wasn’t champagne????”

      Oct 19, 2007 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      praenomenal: If by *we* you mean the “community” that consists of LGBTQQAAAXYZ, I’m not sure. I hope that at some point the things we share will make us willing to fight alongside each other again, rather than the trans-faction being obstructionists.

      Certainly, the events of the past few weeks lead me to feel our era of common cause is over. Trans rights have been put ahead of gay rights by all our national advocacy groups.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: I think I can see where the disconnect is. You believe that by fighting for inclusion we are trying to put our rights ahead of gay rights, correct? If that is the case, I offer this, not ahead of, but on the same page as. Time and time again groups are told, “We will come back for you.” That rarely happens. The new enfranchised group just enjoys it’s new found freedoms and assimilates. We trans people stand up for gay marriage, we stand up for gay adoption, we stand up for anti-discrimination. Is it too much to expect the rest of the letters to stand up for us too?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      Leland, I am having trouble keeping up with your logic here. How is it psychotic to be upset that we do not rank apparently? You seem completely unable to see us as worthy of support. If it is fine to give rights to a few, but not all, how does this make your stance any different from that of the Right?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      I would not begrudge others finding justice just because society isn’t ready to give it to me.

      Will you stand up for whatever smaller fringe group tacks itself onto the end of our community initials should your trans-rights suddenly be acceptable to Congress? Would you say: “No, we mustn’t leave the, say, polygamists behind” and refuse your rights? After all, we’re all sexual outcasts.

      In my mind it’s not a matter of leaving anyone behind. The idea that no one can have equality till *everyone* does is silly on its face. No society ever has perfect justice or equality. If no one wins until everyone wins, then everyone loses.

      I understand “holding hostage” is a fairly radioactive term these days. I wish it was inaccurate. The trans-or-bust strategy *does* make gay rights contingent on the considerably more remote and complex trans rights.

      I cannot ask 10 to 30 million gays to decline an end to discrimination for the sake of others. There will always be another fight, and another and another.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • shivadog
      shivadog

      “our era of common cause is over”? As far as I can see every GLBT rights group and the ACLU are together in thier support for an inclusive bill. The only ones not are a couple of selfish “straight-acting” queers. I think it sucks to pass a bill that would only protect those who are least in need of protecting while excluding the trans-folk and femmes and such who are most in need of protection and have been in the forefront of the “gay rights” movement since stonewall. A lot of people think that there is a chance to pass an inclusive bill. I think we should at least try. If you are not willing to do that at least be honest,instead of saying “let’s get my rights first and then we’ll come back for you” admit that you are leaving trans-folk to rot, because we all know that thier only chance is as part of the GLBT community, they don’t have the numbers or political power to do it on thier own.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: I think what is most telling is your assertion that transpeople are a “fringe group” attempting to tack themselves on. Have you ever read about Stonewall? Do you know that most transpeople are also gay people? Your bigotry is showing.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Praenominal, the discussion might advance, you might even change my mind, if you spoke to what I write rather than twisting it to fit your preconceptions of what I believe. “Psychotic” preceded the word “machinations” not your or anyone else’s state of “upset.”

      But that state IS irrational when it is a reaction to something that is NOT being said, in this case, that you don’t “rank.” It’s not about ranking or even equality but votes, votes, VOTES.
      Frank et al., are only saying trans equality does not have the votes now. They are NOT saying Ts don’t deserve them; don’t rank; ad infinitum.

      HOWEVER, ENDA United, IS saying, “We DON’T CARE if there are enough votes to pass gay job protections or not. Even if there IS, we will KILL them until Ts’ job protections pass, too. If it never happens, YOU gays will never have job protections because of what WE, not the Right, not the Repugs, not James Dobson, not Romney, not Bush, are doing.” THAT, my dear, is psychotic.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      Leland: What it comes down to is this. We are stronger together than apart. Regardless of how you feel, what do you think will happen to us if the EDNA is passed the way it is. It would create by definition a new disenfranchised sub-class, one that does not have the numbers to stand on its own. Sure I will not be able to be fired because people perceive me to be gay, but what if they perceive me to be trans, what about butch lesbians and femme gays? They are suddenly at risk because of a loophole.

      I understand your frustrations that I am not getting your point, but the language you are using leads to the conclusions.

      Let me preface this question by saying that no matter what I support the EDNA, even if we are left in the dust I would support it but in the end. Why should transpeople care?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mrs Patrick Campbell
      Mrs Patrick Campbell

      Are there nude photos of Barney?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      It is not bigotry to wish a subgroup well, but feel little in common with them nor feel a part of their cause. We all pick our battles.

      I’ve used the Stonewall line myself when arguing for trans inclusion on other items in years past. Its historical accuracy is debateable, and it’s largely an irrelevancy. Certainly, people of mixed and indetirminate gender signals have been around since the beginning, and they deserve support. That doesn’t mean the strategy of taking what gains you *can* is misguided. Nor am I particularly moved by the idea that common enemies must make for friends–if that were true, I’d love, say, Al-Quieda, since the current administration is a clear political enemy.

      To the extent I consider transfolk a relatively fringe group, it has more to do with the state of our society than my own inclinations. Plus their consisting of, what, 1% or less of our “community”? Plus the fact that the trans umbrella actually consists of five or six subgroups itself, all with somewhat different needs, agendas, and levels of political acceptibility. Plus not knowing any myself, other than those screaming on the web for the past few weeks, though that’s something I’d like to change. (Not too likely however, with my being older and rural.)

      Oct 19, 2007 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      Don’t assume, shivadog, that I or anyone else is “straight-acting” simply because we feel protections based on sexual orientation are worthwhile–whether or not accompanied by gender expression protections. It is typical of this dicussion that you denigrate those who actually fit social norms as regresssive. If you dis anyone with traditional gender behavior, who’s the bigot?

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: Well, I will tell you what I told Leland. The fact is that many, some would say most, transpeople identify is lesbian/bi/gay or have at some point. Not all of them mind you, but for myself I do. So that is part of the reason I think so many transpeople are upset at this. Its not about common enemies, its about common values and roots. Transpeople are screaming mad, and it makes sense. If there were a EDNA that supported everyone except gays, lesbians, or bisexuals each group would be screaming too.

      At its core, these kinds of things should never even be up for debate.

      You should seek to get to know some transpeople, we as a whole love the community and are really willing to fight to preserve it.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      “If there were a ENDA that supported everyone except gays, lesbians, or bisexuals each group would be screaming too.” –praenomenal

      Very possibly, and as you say, understandably. On the other hand, when the ERA was attempting to pass in the late 70’s, who among us didn’t realize that sexual orientation protections deserved to be included as well? Yet gays and lesbians supported the women’s movement while being left behind, because we felt that its passage would change the political culture in a way eventually beneficial to ourselves as well.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: The 70’s were a very different time. Beyond that I have heard the ERA sighted over and over as a terrible thing to have let slide. More to the point the womens movement said the same rhetoric, come back for you. They never really did. 30 years, and many womens groups now actively work against the GLBT community.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • shivadog
      shivadog

      adamblast: I was not dissing people with “traditional gender behavior” My point was that the people willing to drop trans protections are most likely the ones who think that they themselves will be protected with out it. (by the way, men having sex with men is not “tradional gender behavior”)

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      A terrible thing to have let slide? As in: we should have demanded inclusion? I’d say it was a terrible thing to have *lost*–to have not passed–and its passage would have helped us tremendously.

      My views of the feminist community aren’t too dissimilar to my feelings about the trans community. We have much in common. We should work together. And we also have unique goals which don’t always overlap.

      For myself, I’m much more conservative (or libertarian) when it comes to workplace protections. I see huge complications in demanding trans equality in the workplace, and many compromises that may need to be made. Particularly since there’s so little consensus even *within* the community as to what it means to be trans, who is included in the trans umbrella, and what constitutes adequate employer response to the various trans types.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      (by the way, men having sex with men is not “tradional gender behavior”)–shivadog

      There is one of the cruxes of our disagreement, and one of the things transfolk have been saying alot in the past weeks that really ticks me off. It is in your vested interest to highlight my “abnormality” to keep us together. But I don’t feel abnormal in the least, nor do I think it is inevitable that society views me that way. On the contrary, I find gay rights gaining acceptance everywhere, and hope equality is right around the corner, and don’t want transfolk trying to put on the brakes.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: Where don’t the goals overlap.

      I would say that your views are not libertarian in the least in this issue, the moment you support any for of discrimination protection you leave the libertarian behind.

      The only things that should effect your job are work performance.

      Because it is difficult is not a reason not to do it. People thought it would be difficult to give equality to every minority at some point. That does not make it right.

      And I dont think there is any less consensus on what it means to be trans than what it means to be gay. Seriously. Give me an example here.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      >

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adamblast
      adamblast

      ((Thanks for the civil discussion, both of you, and I’ll try not to leave you hanging. Time to leave the office for the weekend. Actually, leaving for the theatre: I’m opening in a new show tonight and nervous as hell. I’ll try to get back to this Sat or Sun if you’re interested.))

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • praenomenal
      praenomenal

      adamblast: Please do.

      Break a leg!

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Frank, ever the greasy political hack, is backpedaling as fast as he can to catch up to HRC, trying desperately to deny responsibility for the gutting of ENDA. It’s a bit late – his reputation as a grubby latter day Benedict Arnold with zero credibility isn’t going away anytime soon.

      Frank and the Democratic Party shills, now that ENDA is just a toothless caricature of what it was, want to do an about face, to appear ‘reasonable’, to be exonerated. That’s delusional. There was a line in the sand and they crossed it. Their betrayal plowed that line so deep that it now looks like the Grand Canyon.

      The tempo of the left/right divide in the movement is accelerating and deepening, mirroring events in society as a whole. As it deepens the activist arm of the movement, the overwhelming majority, will have to face up to the problem of independence from the Republicans and Democrats on issue after issue. Clinton’s election will guarantee that the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton legacy of DOMA, DADT, toothless civil rights bills, war against the Mideast, union busting, etc. will last at least four more years.

      As Gore Vidal said, “”We have no political parties. We’ve never had much of them — I mean the Democrats, the Republicans. We have one party — we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican” (Gore Vidal March 12th, 2003 on SBS Australia).

      If the political fighting means that right-wingers like Frank and Pelosi and those who unashamedly go on justifying the sleaze politics of the Democrats and Republicans get run over politically, so much the better.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 7:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hisurfer
      hisurfer

      Leland – The big issue for me is we DON’T have the votes to pass ENDA in any form. I don’t follow others’ logic that passing a bill and having it vetoed improves the odds for next year.

      What’s truly swung my opinion on this, though, is some of the raw bigotry towards transfolk that we’ve seen here and in other forums. It’s difficult for me to side with that level of hate.

      I’m surprised no one remembers the “Lavender Menace” when the lesbians were kicked out of NOW for endangering feminism. It’s an ugly chapter in the civil rights’ movement. I’m glad we didn’t repeat it, and I’m glad the Senator switched.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Welcome back, Bill. How was the Fags for Stalin Convention? We see you’ve still got a bag full of histrionics to grace us with. I’m curious? Were you a “red diaper baby”? If so, I guess it would now have to be pink or mauve since you claim to be gay in the name of stirring shit.

      Seeing as how you think so many agree with you, let us know when you’re moving to Massachusetts to run against Barney. I’d pay money to watch that landslide.

      Oct 19, 2007 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      As the tempo of Leland Frances’s rightward stumble towards openly reactionary politics speeds up he’s aping the tortured logic of the late, unlamented conservative William F. Buckley.

      He fraudulently declares that the movement wide breadth and power of the 300 or so groups opposed to the gutting of ENDA is ‘meaningless’. Not by any sane standard. He says that Frank and Pelosi are gutting ENDA because they fear they don’t have enough REPUBLICAN votes to pass it. Bullshit! The truth is that they don’t have enough DEMOCRATIC votes to pass it. Frank is pulling its teeth to oblige fellow Democrats in bed with the same bosses that pay us low wages. “Follow the Money” is first class political advice.

      In another post in Queerty on Thursday Frances dishonestly downplays Bill and Hillary Clintons’ DADT as a relatively less harmless extension of the military’s previous policy. It’s not a question of a few less or a few more lives ruined, pensions and benefits lost, beatings and murders suffered but the fact that Clinton singed this bigoted piece of filth into law.

      The family of Private Barry Winchell, beaten to death with a baseball bat, probably doesn’t think it was ‘harmless’. Neither does the family of Allen Schindler, the gay sailor brutally bludgeoned to death by his ‘shipmates’. Both were killed because the gaybashing intent of DADT ‘s segregationist policy is to label us as ‘unclean’, ‘sinful’, ‘degenerate’ ‘predatory’ ‘not quite human’, and that’s a green light for thugs to kill and maim.

      The same can be said of DOMA, Bill and Hillary Clintons gift to Republicans that insured their victory in 2004. While state DOMAs were on the ballot bigoted christian attack dogs were filling the airwaves with their filth and the number of beatings and lynchings increased.

      Now that Frances is in bed with John Sullivan, John Aravosis, Pelosi and Frank, watch for his thinking to become even more littered with bizarre ideas.

      Frances’s next home will be a log cabin

      Oct 19, 2007 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mean ol' tranny
      Mean ol' tranny

      Tacked on? Excuse me deary, trannies *started* this little shindig. If anyone got “tacked on”, it’s the likes of Frank and Frances.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 12:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      MEAN OL’ TRANNY – you’re talking out your ass.

      BILL PERDUE – you’re saying that Winchell was beaten BECAUSE of DADT? You think gay bashers care about DADT? They bash because they hate gay people. DADT does not CAUSE bashings. It is a stupid, demeaning law, but your cause/effect argument is spurious.

      HISURFER – your non-understanding of the logic behind Frank’s strategy does not make him wrong. It simply shows that you don’t understand it.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Sorry to have to enlighten you once again, Comrade Perdue, but Buckley is, unfortunately, still very much alive. The ability to distinguish between who is dead and who’s alive is the least of your problems; it’s the dead ideas you embrace that makes you a virtual necrophiliac. And, despite all the sound and fury currently around the idea of an “all or nothing” ENDA, the resurrection of that long discredited and decayed NONstrategy will last about as long as one of the briefly resuscitated cadavers on the TV show “Pushing Daisies” before it’s buried once again as it should be.

      Given how often you try to put words in others’ mouths, one can only conclude your sex life is pretty nonexistent. That’s understandable given how badly you fuck up facts and concepts. It’s as if you throw a bunch of bumper sticker cliches and hyperbolic polysyllables into a microwave, press “HIGH/5 Minutes” and then scoop the resulting, gooey, exploded mess onto your computer screen.

      As I recommended to another, ask some of the more than 100,000 gays and lesbians who were discharged before DADTDP, some only after being forced into a military psychiatric wards, which policy is better. Stating that is not to defend its continuation, despite your dishonest attempts to claim otherwise. And, thanks to Gregg for pointing out your retarded blaming of the deaths of Winchell and Schindler on DADTDP.

      And, yet again, you ludicrously speak of things as having been enacted by Bill AND Hillary blah blah blah. That’s directly out of the Republican playbook. And, why, dear readers, would anyone claiming to believe in progressive politics and civil liberties resort to that? Because Comrade Perdue is just as much a “I know what is better for you than you do” fascist as Bush and Buckley and their Brooks Brothers Brown Shirts are. Loony Left ideologues are just as ruthless and dangerous as Loony Right ideologues. Most of you are probably too young to recognize the smell, but, trust me, the stink coming off of Perdue’s lies and hysterical histrionics is the same that would have turned your stomach in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. The “red” in the one-man “rainbowRED organization” that he usually appends to his name like a phony college degree refers,—when you scrape off the thick layers of cheap cosmetic slogans about “workers’ rights”—to communism, you know, that loving ideology that, even after the fall of the Soviet Union, is still brutalizing gays from the bloody streets of Moscow to its former satellites and China and Cuba.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rt. Rev RES
      Rt. Rev RES

      First of all, it would be fair to say that my disappointment with Barney Frank began when he spoke at a Canadian-US LGBT conference in Toronto prior to our victories.

      Barney Frank sat with true Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament, gay, who fought for our rights without compromise with the fascist right wing. To surrender an inch to these cretins, is to surrender a mile that takes generations to correct.

      Barney Frank is a pragmatic centrist. HE IS NOT A LIBERAL. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council. Barney is pragmatic and poll-driven, and will never take a stand that is not compromisory.

      Barney Frank is a longtime US congressman from MA. MA has legal civil marriage rights. Barney Frank has a longtime life partner. He and Barney are still legal strangers with no intention to marry. Every major Democratic politician with life partners married them. Even that horrid Jesse Helms self-loathing gay activist married his spouse of thirty years.

      You will say that marriage is their decision? What a canard. Frank wants to go to the US Senate.
      He would have contested a special election seat if Kerry had won the presidency. He now looks at the seat held by Ted Kennedy and knows that independents are conservative Catholics who are not too happy with Teddy, divorced and remarried without annulment, right to choose, etc….

      Barney let Tammy Baldwin fly in the wind while he played two-sided politics with the DLC leadership.
      How I dislike the HRC and Barney Frank’s behaviours.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      By now everybody knows that Frances litters his posts with garbage to sidetrack attention from his shoddy right wing politics. He pretends that the Clintons DADT and DOMA and the Frank/Pelosi gutting of ENDA are somehow favors that the Democrats did for us. They weren’t favors, they were backstabbing assaults and no amount of buzz will change that – it’s senile to think otherwise.

      The Clintons DOMA and DADT laws cement our second-class status in law; both are based on bigotry, on claims that we’re predators, that our sexual and emotional lives are depraved and both encourage thugs to come after us, just as Nixon’s claim that antiwar students were anti-American bums led to the murders at Kent State and Jackson State. Just as the Republican campaign for the Clintons DOMA led to an increase in violence during the 2004 campaign. Even the Department of Justice admits, in its report DOJ Publication NJC187249 that “hearing degrading language about women, gays and lesbians… creates an atmosphere that permits conduct to escalate from mere words to stronger words, to threats, and ultimately to violence.”

      Hate speech and hate laws, whether from the Clintons, Bush or Nixon are the first steps to violence and gays bashing. Excusing them by downplaying them or denying their linkage is inexcusable, but predictable for senescent reactionaries like Frances and Buckley.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES

      Well said, Bill, and know that our family prays for the miracle of conversion from spiritual violence in the United States, so that freedom and justice for all can be more than lies, but a reality.

      It is hard to believe that our neighbour, the wealthiest industrialised nation on earth, can’t provide medical care for its citizenry, not even its most vulnerable children and elderly without expensive copays to their corporate rapists. It is the only immature nation not to provide even the modicum of federal rights to its LGBT citizens.

      Oct 20, 2007 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      Leland who?

      Oct 21, 2007 at 1:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      (lol)

      Oct 21, 2007 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES

      It is easy to understand why your opponents, and in this case, very real enemies, hate you. It is difficult to accept the fact that your allies, and in this case, acquaintances more than friends, enable your enemies and their nihilistic but incrementalist agenda.

      When Congressman Barney Frank and life partner refused to marry legally in MA in 2004, and furthermore, had no plans to do so, the silence was deafening.

      Militant state legislators, including now Suffolk Co. DA and then state Senator Barrios and his spouse and children rushed to the altar. Barrios has similar Harvard credentials. Former Governor Weld’s main staffer was married by him. An infamous and self-loathing Republican homophobe and Jesse Helms worker married his partner of three decades in the presence of their children.

      Congressman Frank would have been speaker of the House, according to Tip O’Neill, had be been straight. Since Kerry put his Senate seat in play during the 2004 election, the thought of Senator Frank required a guy capable of keeping his base and getting the conservative blue collar independent and Democrat to vote for him if he contests the seat when Ted Kennedy retires.

      Frank is a pseudo-liberal, a DLC Democrat in Name Only on most issues as this centrist and poll-driven pragmatist always compromises with anyone–even the most virulent enemies of the community.

      The Canadian REALITY proves that when you refuse to accept defeat from the jaws of victory, you have a full LGBT ENDA law and you have marriage and not second-tier civil unions.

      Oct 21, 2007 at 7:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Ah, putrid winds keep blowing from the north as well as from Las Vegas, the home of fake homo and real socialist stealth operative Comrade Perdue who doesn’t really give a damn about DADTDP or DOMA, he only attempts to use them as weapons to beat Democrats, ANY Democrats, over the head. His moldy Socialist Worker Party tactics are not about any of these issues, any more than the Communists genuinely cared about Black civil rights as Black gay icon Bayard Rustin finally recognized in the 40s. Political parasites like Perdue are only interested in stirring shit, and they will expell entire mushroom clouds of gaseous lies and distortions to do it. Next he’ll be claiming that Matthew Shepard was beaten to death as his murderers screamed, “Down with gay marriage!!! Gays out of the fox holes!!!!”

      The quickest way to smell the stink, read hollowness, of anyone’s argument with another is the speed with which the first resorts to character assassination. Frank and his partner haven’t chosen to marry? Shocking! Counter-revolutionary! He must be self-loathing! Of course, he is none of these, but how nice of you, Ms. Canada, to resist mentioning that Frank is also a Jew. And if MA conservative Catholic voters, et al., are so powerful/dislike Kennedy so much, why does he keep getting re-elected, you Royal Mounted ‘tard? Your fantasy that MA voters who have known Frank was gay for some two decades and have allowed their state to be still the only one to have legalized gay marriage would not vote for him for Senator if he got married shows you’re beyond retarded — you’re fucking brain dead. By the way, you need to take a refresher course in the Party Line of the Gay Lunatic Fringe for, in lieu of throwing rice at Frank and his partner, you should be throwing roses: to the Luney Tunes [sic] “marriage” is “assimilationist.”

      Whether one accepts at two-faced value your descriptions of groups he allegedly belongs to doesn’t mean he’s wrong about ENDA. By the way, your tactic is known as McCarthyism.

      But all the McCarthyism and name calling and histrionics with no sense of history won’t change the fact that some protection for some now is better that no protection for anyone. Or are YOU, for example, prepared to tell the blue collar lesbian mom working an assembly line in Alabama or slinging hash at a greasy spoon owned by “Christofascists” that she has to celebrate giving up the opportunity for even minimum-wage job security and continuing to feed herself and her kids while you stuff your mouth with lies and your belly with self-righteousness?

      Finally, the latest thing to make the dishonest tactics of those with Mad Tranny Disease more transparent and shameful by the day are their mounting attacks on the ENDA bill itself as being weak, useless, blah blah blah blah blah. IF it’s so bad, then WHY are they willing to destroy the movement in order to be included even in the language of the bill? Or — how many saboteurs try to blow up a house they want to live in?

      Oct 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      “The quickest way to smell the stink, read hollowness, of anyone’s argument with another is the speed with which the first resorts to character assassination.” Frances.”By now everybody knows that Frances litters his posts with garbage to sidetrack attention from his shoddy right wing politics.” Frances on Perdue; “fake home, fag, stealth Republican, Communnist, Brownshirt, Facsict. Stalinst, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party tactican.”

      And i got off easy, he describes women as cunts and bitches, makes unashamedly racist statements like

      Oct 21, 2007 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      continued “(referring to Obama) like “Black churches have influenced him, the majority of which rabidly oppose gay rights.” Queerty . Sep 21, 2007.
      On August 23rd, 2007, in another blog Leland said, referring to those who insist on full equality, “And reinforcing that popular misconception among hoi polloi only adds to the ‘all or nothing,’ mind set that could doom us in November 2008.” (Hoi polloi: ordinary people, as opposed to the wealthy, well-educated, or cultivated elite.)
      Frances is a basket case. He’s contirbutions are now exclusively limited to destroying straw men and building a log carbin to retire in.

      Oct 21, 2007 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ann M Knittel
      Ann M Knittel

      Gregg! You said:
      you’re saying that Winchell was beaten BECAUSE of DADT? You think gay bashers care about DADT? They bash because they hate gay people. DADT does not CAUSE bashings. It is a stupid, demeaning law, but your cause/effect argument is spurious.

      “I am not a gay basher, i also served in the military! I believe that DADT should of never been in effect. I believe it should be reversed. Your correct, that is it is a very hateful law for anyone serving and is a member of the GLBT.”

      your non-understanding of the logic behind Frank’s strategy does not make him wrong. It simply shows that you don’t understand it.

      ” I just wonder what Benedict Frank Arnold is going to do when HRC looses their 501(c)3 due to the fact that they can’t follow the policy that they set forth to get tax exempt. It will happen, cause there is a push going on.”

      Oct 21, 2007 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
      Rt. Rev. Dr. RES

      Where do you begin addressing Leland Frances? Ah yes, the ad hominem troll that everyone learns to treat with appropriate disgust.

      I do not have to repeat the points previously made in my exposition of Mr. Frank. I have no problem with the fact that he is an observant Jew insofar as it does not malign his psychosexual orientation. I again truly believe that Congressman Frank, who supported civil unions, would have had such a document when marriage was refuted, as he wanted, in MA.

      Let us be clear, Mr. Frank stated clearly that he agrees with the DLC position of supporting civil unions and not civil marriage for all human beings.

      All in all, Leland Frances proves the theory that just because you share a psychosexual orientation with someone, that nothing else has to become a reason for agreement. As a Christian who must love his neighbour, in Leland and Barnie’s case, I do not have to like or condone their behaviour.

      Oh, grow up with that F Bomb and all those curses and vulgar ad hominem attacks…..please grow up.

      Oct 21, 2007 at 9:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.