Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  FORCED CELIBACY

Brian Moylan: Gay Men Should Never Sleep With Ken Mehlman

But we have to do something to punish Mr. Mehlman for all he’s done while still giving him credit for his accomplishments. I have a suggestion. As of this day, every gay man in the world (or at least America) should pledge that they will never sleep with Ken Mehlman. No kissing, no touching, no handies in the bathroom at a Log Cabin convention. Nothing! Yes, he is allowed to be gay and to fight for gay civil rights, but for his past sins, he should be rendered completely celibate.

– Gawker.com’s Brian Moylan suggesting a punishment fit for the Republican National Chairman chair turned GOP gay marriage advocate Ken Mehlman.

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Nov 7, 2011
Tagged: ,

  • 27 Comments
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      All members of GOProud should be FORCED to have sex with him. It’s a fitting punishment for KAPOS.

      Nov 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little Kiwi
      Little Kiwi

      amen, David ;-)

      I was at a fundraiser in NYC that Mehlman attended just around a year or two ago – he was complaining about the dismissive attitudes of pretty much all the gay men there toward him. I overheard him, and I explained it to him like this: “You can’t have made your career from the blood of the rest of us, then showed up at our party and asking everyone if we like your pretty red dress. we know what you did to get it and it’s shameful.”

      the man has a long long long way to go to right the wrongs he was complicit in. i believe everyone has the chance to redeem themselves, but Mehlman has a LOT more to do. a LOT.

      and while not as bad as the cowardly wimps that make up GOProud, he doesn’t frankly deserve the rewards earned by the Out and proud men and women who sacrificed and lost a lot so that his closeted ass could secretly drink from the well while screwing us publicly.

      atone, bitch.

      Nov 7, 2011 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • disco lives
      disco lives

      He and every other ugly self-loathing geiser will always have their paid escorts to fufill themselves…and yes David, any gay caught having sex with him should be punished by , well, having sex with him!

      Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @David Ehrenstein:
      @Little Kiwi:

      I have argued [with David and others] before that the term Kapo is not applicable in so many of the cases where it is used. The horribleness that created the term should not be diminished nor disrespected by the hyperbole that inaccurately compares a situation with the plight of Germany’s and Europe’s Jewish community at the hands of the Nazis.

      This is not one of those cases. Mehlman served his own personal agenda throwing off his scent by bashing fellow gays/lesbians. Frank Herbert wrote that it is not that power corrupts, rather it is that power attracts the corruptible; that certainly is an accurate portrait of Mehlman and is role in the Bush/Cheney White House and the RNC. Mehlman is and will remain a Kapo until such time as he exposes his crimes. And I think crimes is an acceptable term as there are many thousand who suffered physically, financially, and emotionally from the tricks and maneuvers Mehlman created and/or directed to feed his greed for power at the expense of his fellow LGBT.

      As the great Nelson Mandela forged, there can be forgiveness through truth and reconciliation. For me, there will not be forgiveness until Mehlman’s reconciliation bears the truth of his actions. And then, I will remember JFK’s admonishment: “Forgive your enemies; but never forget their names.”

      Atone, bitch — well said Little Kiwi.

      Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 4 · Mike in Asheville wrote, “I think crimes is an acceptable term as there are many thousand who suffered physically, financially, and emotionally from the tricks and maneuvers Mehlman created and/or directed to feed his greed for power at the expense of his fellow LGBT.”

      According to http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/m/ken_mehlman/index.html “Mr. Mehlman was in Mr. Bush’s inner circle in both presidential campaigns and ran his campaign in 2004, when the party courted Christian conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage. But Mr. Mehlman, in his work as chairman of the Republican National Committee and as head of Mr. Bush’s campaign, tended to personally avoid social issues.
      He was a leading figure in the Bush White House in pushing for the party to try to appeal to black and Hispanic voters.”

      The phrase “tended to personally avoid social issues” is not consistent with the claim that Mehlman was actively working an anti-LGBT policies. Rather, he seems to have ignored them – including ignoring what others were doing in pushing those policies.

      He apparently didn’t participate in the “crime” but was more like someone who knew a crime was in progress and did nothing to stop it, not even as much as calling the police.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little Kiwi
      Little Kiwi

      what you permit you promote.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 1:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 6 · Little Kiwi wrote, “What you permit you promote.”

      That’s what the fundamentalist Christians say about San Francisco’s tolerant attitude towards gays and its tolerance of a couple of adult-oriented street fairs.

      The idea is not reasonable – there’s a difference between promoting something and ignoring it.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 2:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PTBoat
      PTBoat

      I’m not so sure about his being a little above GOPROUD. Mehlman is not only the architect, but the promoter of so many of the hate campaigns that have gone around the country. One could say that we would be a decade ahead of this debate if it weren’t for him. He is a Benedict Arnold of the first degree and deserves no harbor.

      @Little Kiwi:

      Nov 8, 2011 at 9:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PTBoat
      PTBoat

      B. He was the GOP strategist during the time when the GOP was at its most virulently anti-gay. To say that he avoided social politics is just preposterous. One cannot be a fundamental part of creating, organizing, promoting, and implementing policy and action and then separate himself from it. That is just silly.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 9:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Say what?
      Say what?

      In the book, “The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power,” the authors wrote “In the 2004 presidential election, Mehlman played the senior role in promoting anti-gay marriage amendments in eleven states. In Ohio, Mehlman worked closely with Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell on passage of Issue One.”

      Ohio, as it often is, was a key battleground state in 2004 and getting social conservatives to the polls was a primary task of Bush’s 2004 campaign manager — Ken Mehlman. Promoting Issue One, Ohio’s antigay marriage amendment, was one tactic that was used by the Bush campaign to get those voters to the polls.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @B: Accomplices to a crime are equally guilty of the crime. Per your own references, Mehlman acknowledges that he was an accomplice. Per @No. 10 Say What, has references showing that Mehlman was more than just an accomplice, he led the national GOP anti-gay effort, personally involving himself in various state efforts demonizing us. Et tu B?

      Nov 8, 2011 at 10:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roger Moore
      Roger Moore

      Mehlman is a piece of trash!

      Nov 8, 2011 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Say what?
      Say what? [Different person #1 using similar name]

      In his autobiography, “Decision Points,” George W. Bush made a single reference to Ken Mehlman calling him “my brilliant campaign manager who had organized a historic effort to turn out the vote.” See page 295 in that book.

      The purpose of the 11 anti-gay marriage initiatives that were on ballots in 2004 was to draw social conservatives to the polls who would, in turn, also vote for Bush. According to George W. Bush, Mehlman organized that effort.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 10 · Say what? wrote, “In the book, “The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power,” the authors wrote “In the 2004 presidential election, Mehlman played the senior role in promoting anti-gay marriage amendments in eleven states. In Ohio, Mehlman worked closely with Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell on passage of Issue One.””

      Now, that’s the *first* reference you’ve managed to produce, so at least that is progress. Now, what exactly did Mehlman do? Was he trying to figure out how to get Issue One passed, did he try to get it on the ballot, or was he merely trying to “get out the vote” for likely Bush supporters? Did Mehlman actively help get Issue One passed or did he simply try to get the organization pushing Issue One to put ‘elect George Bush’ fliers in with their other handouts?

      My guess is that his “senior role” was along the lines of getting out the vote and ended there – whether Issue One passed or not did not matter to Bush as what mattered was simply winning the election. Bush cynically dropped his anti-gay position after he won, although it came back two years later for the mid-term elections, a trick they managed to pull multiple times.

      BTW, if you look at http://books.google.es/books/about/The_Architect.html?hl=es&id=wAmrSGSMrdIC (a short review of your own reference), it clearly indicates that Karl Rove as the guy behind it. He got the support of the Christians while being actually (and privately) a non-believer and he pushed an anti-gay agenda while hiding a “family secret” about his step father being gay. Yet all you guys seem to be giving Rove a “get out of jail free” pass.

      Unfortunately, in No 13, you attribute a statement to Bush without any sort of documentation. It doesn’t describe what Mehlman actually did – try to get out the vote or actively push for the passage of anti-gay initiatives.

      Finally, regarding No. 11 where Mike in Asheville wrote, “@B: Accomplices to a crime are equally guilty of the crime. Per your own references, Mehlman acknowledges that he was an accomplice.” Hint: Bernie Maddolf’s receptionist did not go to jail even though she was an “accomplice.” The question is whether he is more of an accomplice or more of a bystander, or even like a priest who didn’t ask any questions when someone like John Gotti wanted to make a large donation (they didn’t throw priests in jail along with this mafioso either).

      Nov 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Say what?
      Say what? [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @B: Let’s note that you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to support your assertions. The language in both books means exactly what it says, not what you “guess” it means or what you would like it to mean. Your defense of Ken Mehlman is done, B.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 15 · “Say what?” wrote, “@B: Let’s note that you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to support your assertions.”

      I gave you a URL http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/m/ken_mehlman/index.html to a New York Times article that stated, “Mr. Mehlman, in his work as chairman of the Republican National Committee and as head of Mr. Bush’s campaign, tended to personally avoid social issues.” The idea that this is not a “shred of evidence” is comical – it’s if anything more credible than the book you cited, which was really an expose on Karl Rove, and most likely not an impartial account. If anything, I’d trust the New York Times report more.

      Now, I can believe that Mehlman worked on getting the “Issue One” people to send “pro-Bush” messages to the people on their mailing lists, or whatever else would directly help the Bush campaign. Given that he tended to avoid social issues, however, I doubt that he tried to get anti-gay initiatives on the ballot: if you look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/26/ken-mehlman-gay-marriage-republican , Mehlman stated that “George Bush was not homophobic, but that he [Mehlman] was aware that Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove had co-ordinated efforts to use anti-gay legislation and referendums to boost Republican turnout.”

      Then you really went off the deep end by saying, “Your defense of Ken Mehlman is done, B.”
      Wow. Do you think comparing Mehlman to someone who saw a rape in progress and did nothing, not even making a call to the police, is defending him? It’s not. It’s just suggesting that (given the lack of really convincing evidence) you should blame him for something else than what you are.

      Finally, everything I could find, and even your own citations, clearly state that the anti-gay tactics used Bush’s elections were due to Karl Rove. Yet none of you are criticizing Rove. Why is that?

      Nov 8, 2011 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Say what?
      Say what? [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @B: Yes, he “personally” avoided social issues which says nothing about his professional work. George W. Bush said and the book about Rove make clear, Mehlman played a “senior role” in passing those anti-gay marriage amendments. Just as the quotes I posted speak for themselves, your cite speaks for itself. And, to be clear, your cite is a reporter’s characterization of Mehlman’s work, not a quote from Mehlman.

      So where is your evidence, B? You’re defending Ken Mehlman by claiming he was a bystander. Prove it. Don’t tell us what you guess. Don’t speculate. Don’t make some analogy. Prove it.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 11:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 17 · Say what? wrote, “And, to be clear, your cite is a reporter’s characterization of Mehlman’s work, not a quote from Mehlman.” I provided paraphrase of a quote from Mehlman (the reporter had talked to him.

      Meanwhile, you are taking a single book as the absolute truth. Yet you’ve provided no details – not one concrete thing he did (e.g., something like “arranged funding for X so they could gather signatures for an anti-gay initiative”). Meanwhile, if you check various news sources (mainstream, high-quality ones like the New York Times), you find that he was not comfortable about social issues.

      It’s unlikely that he did anything beyond turning a blind eye and dealing with these anti-gay groups for purposes such as sending Bush mailers to their supporters, possibly offering the standard fee for doing that. It’s like that Roy Ashburn guy – the gay Republican California State Senator caught for DUI after leaving a gay bar. He voted the party line on anti-gay legislation, but he never introduced any, never argued in favor of any, and didn’t even want to be in the room if such legislation was being discussed. He was so closeted and uncomfortable, that he was afraid that his discomfort would be so obvious that everyone would quickly figure out that he was a closet case. So he did next to nothing beyond voting the party line – his self-loathing and fear of discovery prevented him from doing much damage (and none of the votes were so close that a single vote would have made a difference). He was like the Cowardly Lion: “I can’t sleep.” “Why don’t you count sheep?” “They scare me.”

      Nov 9, 2011 at 12:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No. 17 · Say what? – one other thing I should have mentioned. The rhetorical question, “You’re defending Ken Mehlman by claiming he was a bystander. Prove it. Don’t tell us what you guess. Don’t speculate. Don’t make some analogy. Prove it.”

      Fact – there is no way of proving that anyone was a bystander via producing citations unless you are operating under the “closed world assumption”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_world_assumption for a short explanation. This issue comes up in the context of databases and formal logic. There is no reason to believe that the closed world assumption holds in this case.

      You are making the claim that Mehlman did something really, really bad. Yet nobody has produced any concrete evidence – memos, letters, emails, etc. showing that. What we do have are books where various people spouting off were quoted, but those were people who were into politics and had their own agendas and (as is typical of people involved in political campaigns) a history of lying in most cases.

      Of course a lot of people are angry about the anti-gay legislation – all of us are. But, if you jump to conclusions and crucify people based on innuendo, the result will be that other closeted people won’t come out and spill the beans. We have a lot more to gain by having those beans spilled than we do by making life uncomfortable for some hapless guy who finally saw the light.

      Nov 9, 2011 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @Say what?: You can’t argue with Kool-Ade drinkers, and B has had way too much Kool-Ade.

      Chairmen of national political organizations and campaign managers for presidential nominees ARE NOT BYSTANDERS. They are the planners and implementers, the schemers and plotters.

      B, you are either a fucking idiot and moron thinking otherwise, OR just another self-denying hypocrite also covering up your cowardice to embrace your sexuality.

      Nov 9, 2011 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 20 · Mike in Asheville wrote, “[childish drivel snipped] Chairmen of national political organizations and campaign managers for presidential nominees ARE NOT BYSTANDERS. They are the planners and implementers, the schemers and plotters.”

      This, of course, is the logical fallacy called equivocation – the use of the phrase “are not bystanders” in two different meanings. As the chairman of the RNC and his position in Bush’s campaign, Mehlman’s required ‘planning and implementation’ centered around getting Republicans elected, and Bush in particular. That is centered around fund raising, how to market Republican candidates, and generally how to manage the budget to get the most votes for each dollar spent. It is not centered around state issues such as various initiatives, anti-gay or not.

      The anti-gay initiatives were clearly Karl Rove’s idea (see all of the citations above) as a tactic to get out the vote. Once one the ballot – and you would have to get that done pretty early – there’s nothing more to do, and plenty of reasons to stay clear of it: staying away from that helped avoid giving the Democrats a campaign issue to exploit that might have helped turn out more liberal votes in other parts of the U.S.

      Rove’s the guy you should be blaming. As a shadowy political operative, he could take care of getting these initiatives in place while letting the campaign itself proceed without being blamed for divisive tactics and bigoted policies.

      Nov 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @B:

      Wow, you really are fucked up to the max, B.

      Not even Mehlman himself distances his chairmanship and campaign mangership as being on the side-lines. And, as quoted from Bush, Bush acknowledges Mehlman’s active role. What fucking difference does it make whether the ideas were Rove’s, it was under Mehlman’s direction that the anti-gay ideas were implemented. HE IS A FUCKING KAPO! Again I ask, Et tu, B?

      Nov 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 22 · Mike in Asheville reduced himself to mindless obscenities by saying, “Wow, you really are f—– up to the max, B.”

      No, Mike. You are. Even the sources you guys quote don’t back up your claims. If you do a google search for “Republican National Committee” “Issue One” you find page 45 of that book. It states, “Rove actively exploited the issue by sending campaign operatives to Ohio to facilitate turnout and support Issue One.” “Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who fueled his ambitions for governor by closely courting the religious Right, took the lead among elected officials supporting passage of Issue One.” “In Blackwell, Rove saw an instrument of his greater design.”

      Then it said, “Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee contacted Blackwell directly to press the case in Ohio.” “And Melhman made it clear that a strong voter turnout for the gay marriage ban was important in ‘determining where Ohio’s electoral votes will go,’ a message the secretary of state sent to supporters in a letter.”

      So, what we have is Mehlman contacting Blackwell about trying to get out the vote for likely Bush supporters, and Blackwell writing something of unknown factual accuracy to supporters regarding his conversation with Mehlman, possibly spinning it for his own purposes. Credible evidence? Give us a break.

      Curiously, the rest of the chapter clearly indicates that Rove was in charge, not only providing ideas but micromanaging the operation. One person, Patrick Guerriero, a gay Republican, was quoted as saying that the only thing that could have stopped Rove was Bush personally telling Rove that he just couldn’t do an anti-gay campaign.

      The book claims Rove hand-picked Mehlman to runt he Republican National Committee, but it doesn’t say why. Could Rove have simply thought that Mehlman would work hard but was too timid to oppose Rove in any way? Regardless, there is hardly anything in that chapter about what Mehlman actually did other than talking to Blackwell about getting out the vote.

      So, as I said, if you want to show that Mehlman really was going after gays, provide the documentation. That book simply isn’t it.

      Now, if you want to make a case about what happened under “Mehlman’s direction”, produce the documents showing what precisely those directives were, not wild-ass guesses as to what those directives were. Otherwise some of us are simply not going to take you seriously.

      Nov 10, 2011 at 3:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @B: Oops, I do know better — I’m an idiot, I’m arguing with a moron.

      Nov 10, 2011 at 10:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 24 · Mike in Asheville reduced himself to a grade-school insult.

      I guess there’s nothing else for someone so immature that he can’t simply discuss the evidence – what’s known, what’s being assumed, whether a person making a statement might have an agenda, whether you should believe statements made to supporters by a political operative who, if he behaves as most would, would very much like to claim support from the White House, etc.

      Some of you really need to grow up. It’s counterproductive to lash out at people when they are simply trying to make sure that decisions are based on factual information, not figments of one’s imagination.

      Nov 10, 2011 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @B: The evidence is clear and even Mehlman acknowledges his very own involvement. You, B, ignore the obvious, whine about showing documentation, yet do not accept what has been plainly offered. Rove, Bush and Mehlman all point to Mehlman + the anti-gay schemes were schemes designed to promote the GOP = Mehlman is a hypocrite and KAPO. And defending him the way you do with your ridiculous denialism, makes you an ass sniffing brown-nosing moron.

      Nov 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 26 · Mike in Asheville wrote, “@B: The evidence is clear and even Mehlman acknowledges his very own involvement. You, B, ignore the obvious, whine about showing documentation, yet do not accept what has been plainly offered.”

      The problem is that what was “plainly offered” were claims that were not even backed up by the book that was cited – I went through the relevant chapter using Google’s on-line copy and it barely mentioned Mehlman at all: once simply calling him Rove’s lacky, but blaming Rove for getting all the state initiatives on the ballot. At the other point, he called some guy behind “Issue One”, with the content of that discussion not provided, but rather a statement about a letter from the Issue One guy to his supporters. Such letters are typically spin. Mehlman was probably just trying to make sure this guy would try to get his supporters to back Bush. Mehlman may also have lied to this guy about Bush’s support of an anti-gay-marriage amendment (Bush was “in favor” of it before the election, no doubt knowing that it had no chance of getting passed by congress, and then decided it was not necessary after the election occurred, and Mehlman undoubtedly knew that Bush was going to flipflop after the election). Regardless, none of you have produced the sort of documentation that would justify treating Mehlman as public enemy number 1.

      Then you made a real fool of yourself by saying, “And defending him the way you do with your ridiculous denialism, makes you an ass sniffing brown-nosing moron.” In fact, I compared Mehlman to a person who saw a crime (e.g., a rape) in progress and did absolutely nothing, not even so much as a phone all to the police. If you think that is “defending him”, what does this imply about your standards regarding your personal behavior? Your continual use of grade-school insults is a pretty good indication as well.

      Nov 11, 2011 at 3:39 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.