Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  REFERENCE SECTION

Handy Chart Shows You Just How Anti-Queer All The Presidential Candidates Are

The 2012 Elections are only 449 days away, so you should start boning up (tee hee) on each politician’s stance on LGBT issues. Marriage Equality USA makes it easy with this handy reference chart. Fred Karger is really the best candidate for LGBT issues, but his campaign is worse off then Newt Gingrich’s. It’s also satisfying that Santorum has slid down to the bottom (tee hee) right next to Thaddeus McCotter… wait. WHO?!!

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Aug 15, 2011
Tagged:

  • 38 Comments
    • Jess
      Jess

      Looks like the chart maker got a name wrong; I don’t know who “Ron Karger” is, but I would consider voting for Fred Karger!

      Aug 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      Why do you have a “Maybe” for Barak?? He has benn very clear that he feels that marriage is for a man and a woman.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Natch
      Natch

      @Jess: As part of an effort to capitalize on his relationship to Carmen Sandiego, a fellow gay icon, Fred Karger is starring in his own game called “Who in the World is…”

      Aug 15, 2011 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Auntie Dogma
      Auntie Dogma

      Nice. But Ron Karger is actually Fred Karger, the first openly gay candidate for US President.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 2:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Raphael
      Raphael

      There’s no difference between civil unions and domestic partnerships (either in terms of policy or in the views of a single candidate on the chart), so including them both distorts the differences among the candidates. You have similar correlation going on in the military issues, which are really just repeating the stances expressed elsewhere on the chart.

      Also, by ignoring education issues, you also make some of the more “moderate” republicans seem indistinguishable from the Bachmanns and the Perrys.

      Don’t get me wrong: I think the entire GOP field is atrocious on gay issues. But a chart like this is designed to polarize, not inform.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      Raphael, I agree. This chart is a bit simplistic and obviously meant to polarize vs. be substantive. But, I guess with any simplistic chart that’s easy.

      Even so, Obama has been “evolving” on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean that he’s doing anything about it or that he’s come around. It says “maybe” for marriage for Obama – but not for Ron Paul? I’d say that Ron Paul has evolved as much as Obama in this. Paul has said that he supports same sex marriage – so long as the relationship isn’t “imposed” on anyone else. Whether with heterosexuals or homosexuals, he believes in the free association of everyone. Obama, as of last month, still supports traditional marriage and wants the states to decide the marriage issue. He doesn’t see it as a civil right. So, although their views are different, Paul should also be a “maybe” with marriage – just the same as Obama is labeled as such. Neither are truly a convincing “yes” – and both show signs of it being it being a “no.” I’m not trying to be a supporter of Ron Paul. But, just to reveal how the chart has some errors.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      Actually, Ron Paul has not said “No” to gay marriage. Paul has said he believes it should be left up to the individual states to decide that issue. Ron Paul HAS very publicly said “NO” to America’s industrial military complex however. Paul is the ONLY candidate running for President that has said “NO” to America’s foreign Wars and entanglements….including the newly started and ongoing War in Libya that Obama got us involved in.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Just like HRC, now we see MEUSA excluding alternative parties thus conditioning voters to only see the 2party system as viable options.

      How appalling. Now matter how much the 2 party system fucks us over, why do mega LGBT groups keep pandering to them.

      When people whine that alternative parties can’t win, remember people used to think a black man would never be President and that openly-gay elected officials would never win.

      Break the abuse cycle and leave the 2 party system.

      Meanwhile, I guess I’ll have to make an alternative party inclusive chart and post the results on my YouTube page at jeff4justice.com soon.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bron
      Bron

      So, solely on gay issues, it’s just Karger and Obama we can consider voting for, with Gary Johnson and Ron Paul as secondary considerations.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      HA, since when does Ron Paul support the repeal of DOMA?

      http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/07/Ron_Paul_Supports_DOMA/

      He even condemned Obama for not defending it anymore.

      http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama’s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

      Ole Ron Paul can’t even get his “libertarian” views right. He’s a batshit crazy homophobe like all the other Repug candidates.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      As a Michigander, I know who Thaddeus McCotter is because I’m on his mailing list. Keep your friends close…+ so forth.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 5:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Politically Incorrect Thug
      Politically Incorrect Thug

      Hey, go ahead and vote for Obama because he’s friendly on gay issues (if by “friendly” you mean he publicly lauds us in an attempt to get campaign money, but in action is as ineffectual as tits on a bull), but unless you’re individually wealthy, you and your brand-new super-proud legal husband will be forking over more than half your paycheck so that Harry Reid can have his Cowboy Poetry Festival every year.

      I was about to suggest that we stop bickering over petty issues like marriage-vs-unions, then realized what website I’m on. So, by all means, continue your petty bickering. And fuck the status of the country, because getting that ring on your finger is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE WORLD.

      Jesus, will we ever stop being so narrow-minded as to stop believing we’re the center of the universe?

      Aug 15, 2011 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @jeff4justice: And which third party has a chance of doing anything? Certainly not the Libertarian party. They field a candidate every year in the presidential election, but have no hopes of winning. If they were really serious about changing things, they would devote all their resources towards winning a House or Senate seat. Having someone outside the two-party system in there would certainly shake things up and prove their viability. Why should I pay any attention to a party that has never ever won a single election at the federal level?

      If you discount them, then what other third party candidates should we include in our discussions?

      The Communist Party USA? Not bloody likely.

      Green? Sorry, Nader isn’t a viable candidate and doesn’t even want the job.

      Constitution Party? Nah, they’re just Dominionist republican shills.

      The Pirate Party? Would be nice, but they don’t even have ballot access in a single state.

      So why, again, should we include third parties as if they were serious about it?

      Aug 15, 2011 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cj
      cj

      Yet again, this is labelled “LGBT”, yet only includes the LG and B. Does anyone know where these candidates stand on Trans issues?

      Aug 15, 2011 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Markie-Mark
      Markie-Mark

      @jeff4justice: Thank you very much for pointing that out. And thank you in advance for posting an inclusive chart on your site in the future.

      Aug 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jcknck
      jcknck

      lol. fred’s campaign slogan is “fred who?” but this chart makes it seem like it should be “who karger?”

      Aug 15, 2011 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • xander
      xander

      The fundy/Teappropster people are having candidates sign pledges. Why aren’t “WE” doing the same?

      Those lemony “maybe” boxes are a hot mess. Too unclear if that placeholder is based on recent or ‘evolving’ statements of the candidates, OR presumed partial or conditional approval: ++federal vs state rights, and ++”if X occurs, I’ll do Y.’

      What we do know is that candidates will make different promises to different groups, will be purposefully non-committal, and then change their minds midcourse.

      I don’t trust any of them to give LGB issues much thought, and as for T concerns, those are quite likely not even on the radar for the compilers or the candidates—because y’know, that would muddy up the graph with too many colours or columns

      Aug 16, 2011 at 2:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Markie-Mark: You’re welcome. On my YouTube series Conversations for Connecting I talk with Cindy Sheehan and Richard Winger (the Richard interview should be up tomorrow) about why alternative parties are suppressed by media blackout (including LGBT media) and bias/unfair election laws. Check it out under the Interviews for Understanding tab at jeff4jsutice.com

      Aug 16, 2011 at 3:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Markie-Mark: You’re welcome. On my YouTube series Conversations for Connecting I talk with Cindy Sheehan and Richard Winger (the Richard interview should be up tomorrow) about why alternative parties are suppressed by media blackout (including LGBT media) and bias/unfair election laws. Check it out under the Interviews for Understanding tab at jeff4jsutice.com@Riker:

      Riker

      What has the 2 party system done other than ruin the country. They tax us more and more, give themselves raises, and cut social services.

      Why do you want to reward them by continuing to vote for them.

      It’s bewildering to watch liberals whine about Obama (aka GWBs 3rd term) while continuing to ignore Greens, Libertarians, and Peace & Freedom.

      Alternative parties aren’t winning because you don’t vote for them. It’s that simple. Also, there’s the issue of 2 party stem serving & corporately-controlled media not covering alternative parties and unfair election laws.

      For a better reply, check out:

      Why do Americans keep voting for Republicans and Democrats no matter how bad the country gets?
      http://www.progressive-independence.org/diary/906/why-do-americans-keep-voting-for-republicans-and-democrats-no-matter-how-bad-the-country-gets

      Aug 16, 2011 at 3:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Riker:

      What has the 2 party system done other than ruin the country. They tax us more and more, give themselves raises, and cut social services.

      Why do you want to reward them by continuing to vote for them.

      It’s bewildering to watch folk whine about Obama (aka GWBs 3rd term) while continuing to ignore Greens, Libertarians, and Peace & Freedom.

      Alternative parties aren’t winning because you don’t vote for them. It’s that simple. Also, there’s the issue of 2 party stem serving & corporately-controlled media not covering alternative parties and unfair election laws.

      For a better reply, check out:

      Why do Americans keep voting for Republicans and Democrats no matter how bad the country gets?
      http://www.progressive-independence.org/diary/906/why-do-americans-keep-voting-for-republicans-and-democrats-no-matter-how-bad-the-country-gets

      Aug 16, 2011 at 3:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wacky lemon hello
      wacky lemon hello

      That Michelle Bachman info is a little bit incorrect. Granted she’s a batshit crazy, hypocritical bitch she did say she supports NY’s decision to allow same-sex marriages and supports individual state’s rights to allow gay marriage. On the other hand she also said that she would support an amendment to the constitution barring gay marriage.

      Ultimately her tea party ass can’t figure out what she actually wants the federal government to do, I guess when it just involves things that are icky to her is when she wants the government to step in.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 6:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wacky lemon hello
      wacky lemon hello

      That Michelle Bachman info is a little bit incorrect. Granted she’s a batshit crazy, hypocritical bitch, but she did say she supports NY’s decision to allow same-sex marriages and supports individual state’s rights to allow gay marriage. On the other hand she also said that she would support an amendment to the constitution barring gay marriage.

      Ultimately her tea party ass can’t figure out what she actually wants the federal government to do, I guess when it just involves things that are icky to her is when she wants the government to step in.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 6:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @Fitz:

      Because it is clear that this publication is biased against and hates Republicans. Shame on them and thanks for making me not proud to be gay.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little Kiwi
      Little Kiwi

      Then yo’re just like your GOP-voting parents, Gay Republican. They’re not proud that you’re gay, either. In fact they’re ashamed that you’re gay. They HATE that you’re gay, and you know it. That’s why you still suck up to them, “mommy, daddy, i promise to vote Republican with you, do you think you’ll ever love me again?”

      They won’t. You will always be a disappointment to your father, Gay Republican. ALWAYS.

      You say this site is biased against Republicans. Hilarious. Republicans are biased against you.

      We’ll call you a coward, a wimp, an Uncle Tom. But at the end of the day we’re still fighting for your Equality.

      Your fellow Republicans, and indeed your own family, may pretend they accept you, but they don’t. They smile sweetly, they kiss your forehead, but they dont’ love or accept you, and they in no way fight for your Equality.

      This is because your parents are ashamed of you. And they always will be. Not because you’re gay, but because you’re such a gutless little wimp about it.

      Your father and mother are ashamed of you. It’s not the fault of Liberals.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little Kiwi
      Little Kiwi

      the irony of wimpy-ass gay republicans is this: they always say “Oh, look! Look at how unaccepting you liberals are! Oh, you can’t handle a different point of view!”

      Uh…your fellow GOP allies and your own fucking families consistently vote against your equality as a human being. I know. It’s sad. Your family doens’t love you. Either wise up and grow some balls, or do your parents the favor they’ve wanted from you your whole life and off yourself.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @Little Kiwi:

      Hahaha… My parents are both Democrats!!!

      Aug 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @Politically Incorrect Thug:

      Couldn’t have said it any better.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html

      Barack Obama opposes same sex marriage. Says it right here. But the publication says that he is maybe. Get your facts straight!!! This is why I can’t stand these types of gays.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      Gay Republican: The site you reference is three years old. It does not necessarily reflect his current views.

      I think it is possible that your President is intelligent enough to support equal marriage on principle even if it is not suitable for him personally. If I were a US voter, I would evaluate him on his position in the next election, not the last one.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kathlene
      Kathlene

      @tjr101:

      You’re absolutely right about Ron Paul. He wasn’t a congressman when DOMA passed but he has frequently said that if he were, he would have voted for it. And why the hell is there a “maybe” for no job discrimination for private workers? That should also be “no.” This is the same man who said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act either because he believes that the private sector should have the right to discriminate against anyone, be it on the basis of race or sexual orientation/gender identity. Considering how much he loathes the federal government I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks they ought to be allowed to discriminate too. Sloppy work, marriage equality usa.

      @Gay Republican:

      You’re an idiot.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @David Gervais:

      To be honest with you I could careless about what our dumb ass president’s view on Same Sex Marriage is. I just want the Same Sex Marriage supporting cry-babies to know that their president opposes Same Sex Marriage. Here is the funny part if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin changed her opinion on Same Sex Marriage you would trash them for that but that website is three years old and all….so what… Obama opposes Same Sex Marriage. Just goes to show how biased the Liberal Gays are.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @Kathlene:

      You calling me an idiot… I take that as a compliment. Thanks.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Gay Republican: If Dog Face Bachmann and Palin changed their views about gay marriage, that would mean they supported it. Gays would be okay with that. Duh?

      Aug 16, 2011 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Republican
      Gay Republican

      @Henry:

      When you make fun of people or call them names… I don’t take your comments seriously.

      Aug 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      Gay Republican: Thanks for replying to my post.

      I really object to you demeaning the campaign for Equal Marriage by saying Gay Marriage as if it were somehow different.

      You continue to give the haters of the world first move advantage by campaigning for Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, etc. (LGBT et al included) which allows them to claim that you are looking for “Special” rights. You must campaign for Equal Rights, Equal Marriage, etc.

      What we and our writers have forgotten or ignored is the power of language. Meanwhile, those who would hurt us are trying to use that power against us.

      And BTW
      You “could careless about” Marriage Rights? How much less? (not making fun of you, I make lots of typos too.)

      Aug 17, 2011 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      “if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin changed her opinion on Same Sex Marriage you would trash them”

      No I wouldn’t, I’d be very pleased to know that the Ex-Bigot movement has some well known examples of success.

      Aug 17, 2011 at 1:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      I found this version of the chart with FRED Karger at the top.

      http://www.marriageequality.org/election2012

      Aug 17, 2011 at 1:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lemonz
      Lemonz

      We, the LGBT community, would most likely be best off with Ron Paul on the Repulican side of the election. Since he is a libertarian, it’s not “possible” for him to be anti-LGBT, since libertarians see people as individuals and not groups – in theory anyway.

      According to himself, he voted “no” on marriage, civil unions and domestic partnership due to him wanting the states to make that decision themselves and not the Federal Government.

      He voted “maybe” on the “no discrimination”, due to him believing the private market can make up their own descisions about whom they want to work for themselves, within reason (excluding abuses).

      Jan 20, 2012 at 3:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to 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.