Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Hillary Gets More Gays!

hillary_clinton-1.jpg
The queers keep flocking to Hillary Clinton’s camp. The Democrat’s campaign released yet another list of pro-Hill homos. The Washington Blade reports that 21 gay “professionals and activists” are throwing their weight behind the Senator from New York.

Names on the list include H. Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition; Dana Beyer, who is transgender and a member of the Human Rights Campaign board of governors; and Rep. Patricia Todd, the first openly gay member of the Alabama House of Representatives.

“I am honored to have the support of these leaders in the LGBT community,” Clinton said. “Together, we can end the divisive politics of the current administration and renew the promise of fairness and equality for all Americans.”

No doubt the campaign’s tickled pink over the recent show of support, particularly Barney Frank’s rip-roaring endorsement.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Nov 14, 2007
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 17 Comments
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Guess who gave us Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act? Fair and Equal Hillary. BTW, although she wants to do away with DADT, she still supports DOMA. Also, in case you didn’t know, her lesbianism didn’t start a few months ago, this is how it has always been.

      http://bigheaddc.com/2007/10/31/la-times-sitting-on-an-explosive-prez-candidate-sex-story/

      I would drink my own piss before voting for Hillary Clinton, who would be an utter disaster as president. Not that she has a chance of winning the general election.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      VP, why should people base their choice on your personal vendetta against Hillary. These 21 powerful, successful people are realists. Who is most likely to win the nomination? Who is most likely to win the general election? Hillary. Her stance on gay rights is hardly different than Obama’s or Edwards (who, 14 years ago, would have supported DODT either).

      You can’t just burrow into a hole somewhere and wait for your Utopian gay-friendly candidate to appear; that’s not how things are accomplished. You go with the person who most RESEMBLES your stance on the issues AND can WIN, and that person is Hillary.

      The Dems might not yet support outright marriage equality, but in less than 1 year of controlling Congress, they’ve passed 2 major GLB legislations: Hate Crimes and ENDA. C’mon people, that’s with only 1 year in Congress. A lot will happen if we get one in the White House.

      As for the story you linked, Flynt only exposes republicans, so it wouldn’t even be a Democrat.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SeaFlood
      SeaFlood

      “Her stance on gay rights is hardly different than Obama’s or Edwards (who, 14 years ago, would have supported DODT either).”

      Right, but let’s remember that gays are anti-Obama because of the same stance you are saying she has. In fact, what people are saying is that… Hill is “better at it” than Obama… WTF?

      Hill doesn’t meet the criteria you established for me and others. Why does that have to mean folks are living in la-la-land? Why can’t it merely represent a difference in opinion?

      Besides, we aren’t even supporting that candidate who is ACTUALLY pro-gay. Which only goes to show that gay folks don’t have their best interests at heart, we still want to be liked by hets after all these years…

      Nov 14, 2007 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Sorry, I meant “Obama or Edwards who, 14 years ago, would NOT have supported DODT either.

      I mean you would be in la-la land if you desire an impetus for change in this country, yet refuse to support a realistic democratic candidate, or the democratic party, because they don’t fit your ideals, OR if you’re actually telling yourself Obama or Edwards are more gay-friendly than Hillary (ludicrous, especially the latter).

      Gay folks who support Hillary (or even Obama) DO have their best interests at heart! Our interest is an impetus for change and PROGRESS for our community. By not supporting either candidate, to not desire that impetus, is to resign yourself to the status quo, and THAT [DESPAIR] is the most self-hating thing you can do.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Mike, for one thing, I am no so egotistical that I think anyone should base his/her vote on what I say. I hope people get as much accurate and verifiable information as they can and base their vote on that. Secondly, what “personal vendetta”? Why are we getting personal here? I certainly am not. I loathe what Hillary stands for, that’s all. I am not the only one, and it doesn’t make me a mean-spirited person.

      For your information, of all the candidates of both parties, Hillary Clinton has, hands-down, the highest negative rating. That means when asked which candidate would you never vote for… Your Girl wins. What on earth makes you think she could win the general election?

      I assure you, Pollyanna, two things will never occur if Hillary, by some miraculous twist of fate, gets to be president. The American troop level in Iraq will not substantially decrease, and the Defense of Marriage Act will remain intact.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      Am I missing something, or was Hillary already President? I mean, if we’re going to saddle her with “giving us” DADT and DOMA, then I guess SHE was POTUS during the 90s, and not her husband. Her sole high-profile foray into public policy was the healthcare catastrophe, for which she gets full points. The other stuff, though–I mean, she was First Lady, right? For all the lip-service about “two for the price of one” and that crap, she wasn’t a cabinet-level official or anything. So if we’re going to follow the one-flesh theory, then Edwards oughta get points for his wife’s support of gay marriage. Hillary is a 2-term Senator from NY: that’s her “experience”. Let’s just judge these candidates on their actual doings, and not saddle them with their spouses unless it cuts both ways.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawster
      Dawster

      didn’t we already discuss why the DADT and the DOMA arguments are not only not applicable, but with a sense of history and context… should not be the deciding factor in the primaries?

      i could be wrong, but the idea that this keeps coming up every time there is a picture of Hillary shows that this issue isn’t actually to further civil rights for the LGBT community, but a rather distinct hatred of the individual person.

      and i’m totally okay with that because i can’t stand Hillary. the gay masses aren’t going to be the “swing” vote for Hillary anyway (like women voters are).

      despite my first two paragraphs, i’m totally NOT going to be voting for her… period.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Proffesuh, would you like your piss stirred or shaken? In any case, you might lay off whatever other sauce you’re kin to because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

      FACT:

      With minor nuance, ALL of the positions of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards on gay-related issues about which they have each stated a position are IDENTICAL. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

      Our Golden Showers Queen is blowing his own urethra when he claims that Hillary “still supports DOMA.”

      There are three parts to federal DOMA. One defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Another says states don’t have to recognize same gender relationships legalized in other states if they don’t want to [but, de facto, could if they want]. The third part says that no federal benefits, e.g., tax breaks, can be given to same gender couples.

      Each of the three leads, including Hillary endorse repeal of that section and offering federal benefits to same gender couples. Realization of that would, by necessity, require the repeal of the definition clause.

      The part that the willingly blind Hillary Haters stumble on [given a strong push by the Obama campaign particularly] is her having said that she believes the states rights aspect is one that might be retained. Edwards would repeal the section BUT his position in that regard is moot because he still believes it “should be up to the states to decide.”

      Obama bashes Hillary on Section 2 but his campaign has also said that he, too, though he is for repealing Section 2, still believes in protecting what it says: that the states should be able to deny marriage equality if the want. In short, with or without federal DOMA, the three leads positions are functionally the same.

      Further, all of the attention Section 2 is getting is a fool’s argument anyway because it is a straw issue as it were. All but about 4 states have enacted their own bans on having to recognize residents’ relationships from out-of-state making federal DOMA’s Section 2 superfluous and, thus, its repeal meaningless.

      Access to federal benefits is what needs enacted and, again, Hillary and Obama and Edwards each support that.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 24play
      24play

      Um, why is Dana Beyer, an HRC board member who actively worked against passage of a trans-free ENDA, supporting Hillary “I Don’t Support Same-Sex Marriage” Clinton?

      Shouldn’t her unbending, absolutist, fuck-progress-I-want-it-all-now endorsement go to Kucinich or Gravel?

      Nov 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      ‘Mike’s’ arguments are fraudulent and dishonest. Like Little Mikey in the commercial he makes it his business to ingest anything put before him. He holds his little nose, closes his eyes and swallows.

      A quick look at Hillary Clinton’s web site will convince even dummies like ‘Mike’ that she runs on Bill Clinton’s record. Since she links herself to him and his record, and given that he ‘home trained’ Hillary, it’s reasonable to link them.
      Why would anyone give her ‘full points’ for her health insurance plan? According to the National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO it was written by health insurance executives as was the plan she currently supports. Rent a copy of SICKO by Michael Moore. Find our why Clinton is the all time leader in ‘donations’ by insurance companies and HMO’s. It’s because she’s a vulture feeding off the scraps left by the insurance industry and HMO’s.

      There are no personal vendettas here – just opposition to an open enemy of the GLBT movement. Why would ‘Mike” even claim that about ProfVP? I thought Frances was the only one who nagged like that.

      “Mike” says “You go with the person who most RESEMBLES your stance on the issues.”

      Fair enough. The Democrats brought us federal DOMA and the Republicans brought us state DOMAs and they RESEMBLE each other. A lot. Both of them supported the gutting of ENDA and they RESEMBLE each other. All day and all night. Bush brought us the war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton supports him unreservedly and they RESEMBLE each other. Like birds of a feather… chickenhawks in this case. Wake up and smell the napalm, ‘Mikey’.

      The Democrats bust unions, give tax breaks to the rich, deregulate businesses and support NAFTA. So do the Republicans and they RESEMBLE each other. That’s why they’re called the twin parties. They both oppose socialized medicine (except for Congress members) and they RESEMBLE each other. That’s why tens of millions of honest working people boycott the elections. They want to vote but they will not vote for their enemies.

      Frances the Spaz chimes in his usual creepy diatribe and admits that one Democrat is as bad as another. DUH! The rest of us have known that for a long time.

      We’re still not going to waste our support, time, money or votes on the twin parties of the uberrich whose candidates and actions RESEMBLE each other so much. The gutting of ENDA was a wake up call. More than ever the likelihood that GLBT enemies like Clinton or Giuliani is not being seen as a cause for celebration.

      Those who support these parties after this latest betrayal exhibit the sure signs of being just another over the hill right-winger who’s lost it. They’re on their way out of the movement.

      Good Riddance.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      “The rest of us have known that for a long time.” Don’t you mean YOU and your multiple personality disorder, Comrade Perdue.

      Bow DOWN, everyone to the World’s Greatest Hillary Hater. She could discover and cure for cancer, AIDS, and global warming tomorrow, grow a dick and fuck him in his stanky ass and he would STILL hate her!

      Why? And why ALL Democrats? And the evil rich? Because they have Power and he’s impotent. He’s the sooty, tinpot pseudo revolutionary with his runny nose presed against the window pane. Because they have money and he hasn’t a pot to piss in and Prof VP to drink out of.

      NOTA BENE: It’s ALWAYS about what he’s AGAINST not what he’s FOR. He rarely even mentions the imaginary “US Labor Party” anymore. He just keeps jacking himself sore and red and oozing over those who have what he’ll never have, even denouncing the millions of working people who DON’T boycott elections as, by definition, dishonest. Bill, Bill, Bill! You’re never going to create a Workers Paradise by demonizing the majority of workers.

      Oh, right, I forgot. Like your hero Stalin, if they disagree with all-knowing you you’ll just have the shot or disappeared. Problem solved.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ProfessorVP
      ProfessorVP

      Matt, Hillary herself is running on her record as First Lady. Take that away from her, and what has she got, really? Okay, 2 terms as Senator from a state she had never lived in until she got a big break- all of a sudden, having a philandering husband qualified you to run for Senator. And what did she do? She voted to authorize the pea-brained war on Iraq, certainly because she thought Bush/Cheney would win it, and it would look lousy is she had voted no. Yes, Hillary “Two Presidents for the Price of One” Clinton was in on all decisions made by Bill, DADT and DOMA certainly not exceptions.

      Leland, as far as I know, DOMA has two parts. 1) No state has to recognize the same-sex marriage of another, and 2) It defines the meaning of marriage, and it is that pernicious part that denies federal benefits. Hillary as well as every candidate should renounce both parts. Listen, schmuck, nobody said the other top-tier Democratic candidates were right and Hillary was wrong.

      And this needs to be said, Leland, and I cannot be the only one to conclude this: you are not witty. Any adolescent can write “piss, fuck, urethra, golden showers, stanky ass.” It ain’t brain surgery. What you need at long last to realize: you are not witty or remotely humorous, and- better sit down and get your smelling salts- not the intellectual you like to think you are.

      Anyone in agreement?

      Nov 14, 2007 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Perdue, and people like him, comment on online blogs because you are so marginalized it’s the only place you can anonymously chat about your nonsensical whims without anyone cutting you off. The rest of us, have more important things to do. You’re better fitted for an anarchist discussion board than a GLBT blog.

      If you hate both parties, why are you even talking about a presidential election?? You have nothing to do with it, and it doesn’t concern you. Go live like the Amish, or just back to the fringe and watch your life erode, which, by your own admitting, you enjoy doing.

      It’s bizarre, but you seem to revel in your own despair. Thank god the rest of us do not feel the same way, and that 99% of your fellow gays and lesbians think you’re crazy.

      Nov 14, 2007 at 10:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      “They’re on their way out of the movement.”

      What “movemenet”? Gay rights movement? Social justice movement? Bowl movement?

      Nov 14, 2007 at 11:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregg
      Gregg

      If you seriously think that Hillary has a chance at winning the general election – then you deserve what is coming in ’08 if people don’t remove their blinders.

      Nov 15, 2007 at 1:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt123
      matt123

      She got my votes. Maybe some change if we have a female president.
      A gay on findbilover.com

      Nov 15, 2007 at 5:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dana Beyer
      Dana Beyer

      Hey, 24Play,

      What in the world makes you think I worked for a stripped ENDA? Where would you get that idea? Might it not even enter your mind that the reason I’m with the organization is because I want to teach, to educate, to persuade, to build a better, more informed community, so that when we have a real chance for a law to be signed that it is trans-inclusive?

      I’m also on the boards of Equality Maryland, NCTE, and the VP for Maryland NOW.

      I just worked a trans civil rights bill — employment, housing, accommodations — through the Montgomery County Council. What have you done for the trans community lately?

      Happy Thanksgiving!

      Nov 22, 2007 at 11:54 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.