Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
stage right

In Defense of Scott Brown: Why the Gays Should Embrace (Or At Least Not Smear) This ‘Anti-Gay’ Politico

hunk1

Whether you disagree with Christopher Barron, the chairman of GOProud, at least he’s not Pat Robertson, so there’s that. But Barron is on a tear lately, going after gays who criticize GOProud for its support of conservatives (while defending do nothing Democratic politicos). And now he’s going after critics of Massachusetts’ Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown, the Cosmo pin-up who’s facing off against the state’s attorney general Martha Coakley, who’s been going after DOMA.

Because y’all are sliming Brown as anti-gay, when he’s only been a little bit anti-gay! Writes Barron:

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

And besides, given Brown supports civil unions, doesn’t he have the same beliefs as wild progressive and former Rep. Joe Hoeffel had just six years ago?

By:           editor editor
On:           Jan 14, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 54 Comments
    • ken
      ken

      Poll: Scott Brown to Win MA US Senate Race by a Landslide http://wordstream.com/node/947

      Jan 14, 2010 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Stroup
      Brian Stroup

      Doesn’t matter what the guy’s own viewpoint is. Whether or not he is ‘anti-gay’, you can be 99.99% sure he will VOTE with the REAL ‘anti-gay’ Republicans. Nobody cares what he thinks, just what impact his election would have on our community.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      This man is my State Rep and is your typical teabagger Republican. Didn’t vote for him before and certainly won’t vote for him next Tuesday.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan

      Brian Stroup has a point.

      It doesn’t matter what they think. It’s what they do. What has the left done for us with their filibuster proof Senate and control of the House and White House so far? We got squat. We can count on Brown to pass legistlation that will economicly help the gay community. That’s more than we are going to get from what’s her name. His detractors in the gay community just want to be picked as the lefts new talkiong head…it’s that mentalitiy that is going to slow our progress to equality more than anything.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “We can count on Brown to pass legistlation that will economicly help the gay community.’

      Cool. A gay teabagger. Explain how this is going to be. I await RNC talking points about low taxes and starting even more unnecessary wars of choice.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I await to hear what Coakly is going to do for the gay community? But I think Same Crap has a chance to be the new talking head on CNN. Are you cameral friendly?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Yeah, lower taxes is such an extreme position…..But I think Same Crap has a chance to be the new talking head. You don’t need socialized medicine same crap…I will pay for your anti-psychotics

      I await to hear what Coakly is going to do for the gay community?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Ok. Got it. You’re one of those tax cut fetishists. They solve everything, like the Bush tax cuts coupled with the unfunded Medicare prescription plan and the $2 trillion clusterfuck that is Iraq. And Iran is next, right?

      Gays should support these policies as they clearly benefit the community economically.

      And you’re asking a pro-gay marriage candidate with an exemplary record on gay rights is going to for the gay community as a opposed to a social con teabagger? Really? You want to go there???

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Reality Check
      Reality Check

      Sounds fantastic….Can someone show me where Coakly said she is going to propose legislation to legalize gay marriage at the federal level?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “Can someone show me where Coakly said she is going to propose legislation to legalize gay marriage at the federal level?”

      Probably nowhere. She’s a really bad candidate who is still going to beat a tea partier who’s only draw is that he has 200K miles on his truck, or something.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      @Reality Check: She has already filed a lawsuit to challenge DOMA’s constitutionality. Read here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_07_08_doma&csid=Cago

      Jan 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Oh I get it, you’re one of those “everything is about Bush” people…..

      Do you really want to go there? The health plan will cut medicare funding and we are still in Iraq…where have you been?….On second thought, don’t answer that.

      There was a good question up there. WHere did what’s her name say she was going to propose legislation to legalize gay marriage?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Uh, who put us in Iraq? Is that not about Bush? I know everyone would like to forget the last eight years ever happened, but they did and we are paying everyday for it, literally.

      What’s her name is Senator Coakley. Brown winning is teabagger pipe dream. I can’t wait for the bitter tears of the baggers when they lose yet another special election, and this time to milquetoast candidate and lousy campaigner.

      The best thing for the Brown campaign to have done was fly under the radar and hope for a low turnout of dem voters. But, alas, no.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “@Reality Check: She has already filed a lawsuit to challenge DOMA’s constitutionality. Read here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…..;csid=Cago”

      But, but Brown is for civil unions and thinks gay marriage is settled law in Massachusetts. Isn’t that enough for us??? And tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. Also.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Gay equality segues into Bush and Iraq war. Who said he would get us out of Iraq and didn’t? I voted for Obama but I’m not voting for this woman.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Fine. She’s will be your senator and a rubber stamp for the guy you voted to be president. Happy?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      As for Coakly….Then why not just propose the appropriate legislation? What does Coakly have against proposing legislation to legalize gay marriage?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I wouldn’t vote for Obama again.. Maybe Ed Rendall will run. Are there any tea party people here? As close as the race is, Scott Brown has already won….If a moderate republican can even come close to winning here, that will cause waves that will reach across the country.

      I’ll save a real rubber stamper from having ot look it up..Ed Rendall is the (D) Governor from Pennsylvania

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “If a moderate republican can even come close to winning here, that will cause waves that will reach across the country.”

      Ah, moving the goal posts are you? Nice. Instead of outright victory, keeping the loss within say 10 points is victory. William Weld, a moderate, came close against Kerry. And guess what? Mass is still a Dem state and no ripples across the country.

      The cheek of you tea partiers gets me. In New York’s 20th congressional district, a Democrat won for the first time in 150 years. But that doesn’t mean anything, right? But a putative 9 point loss in a special election means that tea baggers are going to win everything. Oh please.

      Are you one of those bitter, disgruntled Hillary supporters? No one is going to challenge Obama on the Dem side in 2012. You will have to vote to Mittens, Huck or Palin.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Oh, an do you mean Ed RendEll? Ypu misspelled you favorite candidate’s name twice, so it’s not a typo.

      Geez. Who are fooling? If you’re a Repub, then say it. What’s the point of saying you were a Dem, but they pissed you off that you now support ever anti gay wingnut and mouth all RNC talking points. I know this is teh internets, but a little, just a little honesty, please.

      I’ll indulge your support of RendEll for a bit. What do you find so appealing about him?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      You are so extreme you think and Independent that does not rubber stamp what ever the democrats say is part of the tea party movement…. We independents make up 51% on voters here.

      I’m not moving any goal post. Scott Brown was always the under dog.

      I think Scott Brown has a real chance of winning. The sad part IF Coakly wins and doesn’t propose gay marriage legislation you will still be all gun-ho for her.

      I’m a realist. The gay community (apart from taxes) is going to benefit more from supporting candidates on all issues. ESPECIALLY when the (D) isn’t going to to try and get gay marriage passed. We don’t have gay marriage acrosss this country right this minute because we are willing to give anyone with a D next to their name a pass. WHen Coakly says she will propose legislation to legalize gay marriage as a Senator….get back to me..until then I (and the rest of us) have to choose a Senator that is more aligned with our other views.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      So despite Coakley filing a as brief AG challenging DOMA’s constitutionality, the standard is now, is going to propose legislation to overturn DOMA?

      You cite this a reason not to support her while backing an avowedly anti gay marriage candidate. Why not hold Brown to that same standard? Is he going to propose federal legislation to overturn DOMA? Hell no.

      It obviously doesn’t matter to you because he believes in lower taxes like you do.

      Maybe supporters of Coakley believe in Democratic principles and gay marriage legislation is not a be all end all. I have no doubt she will be a yes vote for ENDA, immigration reform, climate change legislation and other issues that are important to me.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Btw, why did you vote for Obama? He campaigned on HCR and letting the Bush tax cuts expire all throughout the election season, and now you are shocked, shocked that he wants to carry out his agenda. None of these are surprises. Sounds like you views are more more in line with McCain/Palin than Obama.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      The standard to get my support as a gay voter has always been if you are going to propose same sex marriage…but since even democrats won’t do that I have to vote on other issues that are important too.

      I’m challenging your logic that not advocating gay marriage still enables you to be pro-gay She is not going to advocate gay marriage in the senate so supporting her as a pro-gay candidate is counter productive.

      I thought Obama would accomplish more (something) on the economy, pull out of Iraq, let health care debates be on C-span and several other issues.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      You mean 12 months into a 48 month term is enough to gauge whether he has accomplished enough on the economy despite inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression?

      And really, health care debates on c-span was a major enough issue to list? The only people who care about this pledge are wingers.

      You know, I did not vote for McCain. If I did and he became president, I shouldn’t act surprised if I suddenly found 300K US troops in Tehran and the US was in a nuclear stand off with Russia.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I just noticed the post where I misspelled Rendell…It was not a typo. I guess I didn’t know how to spell his name correctly off the top of my head. If only we could get all the bad spellers from the Coakley campaign to vote for Brown it will be a blow out!!! I do know how to spell Massachusetts.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I want to embrace Brown because of his pubes, basically. I love that hairy curly area just above it, especially as it contrasts with the white skin where the sun hasn’t been shining.

      His smile melted my heart and indicated a liking for me as well as a desire to share in his perfumed masculinity.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ponder This
      Ponder This

      I don’t believe that just because he posed nude or is with the GOP he should or should not be elected. It’s a freedom thing and he is a free man. Who cares if he was naked 20, 30 years ago or yesterday? I prefer a real republican (if that is what he is) as the republican platform is based on individual rights not group. Republicans have lost their way, democrats have lost their way. How do we take our country back from the elite if we don’t get involved by running for office and not just bitching from our cozy couches? We get further with individual liberty and it is how we keep our rights and freedoms.
      All American citizens need to stop voting party and vote principle. State rights are where we should all be moving toward. Check out the 10th Amendment Center. I want the government out of my pocket and out of my bedroom!

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      The only people who care about seeing the debate on potentially the most important issue of our time is only an issue for winggers? You really are a drone democrat.

      I didn’t expect everything to be fixed by now. I did not expect it to get so much worse either and I sure as h@ll did not expect to see so many thousands of more troops sent over seas. But wanting our troops safe at home is probably a wingger view too.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • william
      william

      HELLO!?!? Martha has a very pro-equality record, while Brown has voted against equal rights for gays time and time again. Brown is bad news.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Then what’s keeping her from (at least) saying she will propose same sex marriage in the Senate?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Coakley might be pro-gay marriage but she’s also part of the Democrat Party machine. At the federal level, the Democrats have been wary of us rather than embracing of us.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gabe
      Gabe

      Har. He may not be more anti-gay than the average anti-gay pol, but I had to lobby him for a gender identity protections bill and his office contained some kickin’ transphobic undercurrents. I can’t believe this guy represents me, even in the state senate.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @NATHAN and SAMECRAP.
      You have each made some good points. Now you are repeating yourselves. You are repeating yourselves. It’s hard to hear above the shouting. You won’t change the other guy’s mind. EVER.

      Request: please find a private locale where you can go mano a mano. Email works great for that. Debate outside of the nasty public forum. If you discover that you love each other, then great, please send photos from the honeymoon so we can revel in the healing power of love to transform bitter debaters into lifelong lovers and members of the Green party!

      Jan 14, 2010 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “I guess I didn’t know how to spell his name correctly off the top of my head.”

      Hey, if I wanted someone to challenge a sitting president in a primary, I would at least know how to spell that person’s name. Just sayin’.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 7:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan [Different person #1 using similar name]

      If I wanted to be the Senator from Massachusetts I would know how to spell it, or at least have someone around who did. Some one check her campaign head quarters, there might be some child labor law issues going down. Not everyone can just be a naturally bad speller like me.

      No, no..Lukas is right….I’ve made my case and there does seem to be a degeneration into just hurling insults back and forth.

      But I thinks it’s important to see that there are members of the gay community who will call anyone with a (D) after their name pro-gay and anyone else as anti gay.

      We don’t have an option to vote for someone who is going to go to Washington and advocate for gay marriage. THAT SUCKS. And we are not going to while we are willing to support those as pro-gay who are not willing to do so.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Herb
      Herb

      I didn’t realize the gay community was OK with Obama’s non-support for gay marriage. Thanks so much for clarifying that Christopher.

      I guess we also aren’t demanding Obama speak out against Prop 8 in the current trial of it’s legitimacy.

      Jan 14, 2010 at 10:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Herb
      Herb

      Nathan, you said, “We don’t have gay marriage acrosss this country right this minute because we are willing to give anyone with a D next to their name a pass.”

      You think if we had only elected more Republicans into office, then we would have gay marriage across this country right this minute? Really?

      Jan 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      The truth of the mater is at the federal level most people vote as a member of a body collective. The legislative party leader negotiates on the legislation to the point were he can corral his caucus to vote on it as a unit. By examining the voting records on hate crimes laws and other civil rights matters, the democratic body collective votes for civil rights and the republican body collective votes against them. What Scott Brown thinks about settled law in Massachusetts is negligible granted that as a senator he will not have an impact on Massachusetts state law, but on the federal level he will be voting on issues like DOMA with the party of no body collective.

      Jan 15, 2010 at 6:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • debbie
      debbie

      Politics will not be the force of change behind anything. Look at history, but more importantly common sense and use your brains. Black people didn’t get equality until the people stood up and took real action.
      Gays won’t get anything unless they start taking a real stance against discrimination. I haven’t seen any indication of this happening.

      STOP depending on a corrupt political system to change. And let’s make the change ourselves. It’s the ONLY way.

      ~peace*
      (and obviously i mean in a non-violent way…but effective)

      Jan 15, 2010 at 11:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dfrw
      dfrw

      I don’t know who Barron is, but I do know who Scott Brown is and he’s NO friend to gay people. He does not support same-sex marriage, he voted for the marriage amendment (which failed) in Massachusetts, and he’s publicly commented on gay people having children and adopting. He does not favor civil unions, does not believe that DOMA should be repealed, and does not believe that DADT should be repealed. On the other hand, Martha Coakley has been a friend to gay people and brought the suit against DOMA. Vote Martha Coakley on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010. Go Martha!

      Jan 17, 2010 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • disneybear
      disneybear

      This article is a misleading. President Obama does not support gay marriage but he does support civil unions on the national level and has stated that gays and lesbians should have the same equality as those that are married. Scott Brown only supports civil unions on a state by state basis which isn’t the same thing. Actually using the term “support” is misleading, Scott Brown has not promised to do ANYTHING that would promote civil unions or increase gay civil rights! Scott Brown voted twice in Massachusetts to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one women. He even supported the original Travers amendment which would have forbid civil unions President Obama opposed DOMA and voted against the Federal Marriage amendment. He was against the California amendment of the constitution. He has also promised to reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. While he may not have followed through on some of his promises yet, he has shown that he is at least interested in pursing rights for the LGBT community, while Scott Brown has remained silent. The big issue is that Scott Brown is not running against President Obama, but Martha Coakley! Martha Coakley has a measurable and outstanding record for supporting the GLBT community. She believes in marriage equality and has made history by filing a lawsuit to repeal DOMA. Even Martha Coakley’s Web site carefully specifies the gay and lesbian issues that still need work (a full repeal of DOMA and ’don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly, as well as protection against hate crimes and ending housing discrimination) . Scott Brown promise nothing to the gay community and has NOT supported it in the past. There is no way that someone who has done their research can say that Scott Brown isn’t bad for the Gay community. He has a definite, measurable record of being ANTI-GAY! To quote a friend, “Gays voting for Scott Brown is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders!”

      Jan 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      I hope Coakley isn’t Croakley on Tuesday! But, Brown will win simply because Snow is expected on Tuesday and Democrat voters are traditionally more lazy (but less crazy!) Republicans will fly by helicopter to vote! Too bad for Ted Kennedy’s legacy but it is a referendum on Obama and we see which way the wind is blowing…

      Jan 17, 2010 at 7:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Silas Kain
      Silas Kain

      What the LGBT community doesn’t seem to want to admit is that most reasoned LGBTers are quite conservative on government fiscal matters. Scott Brown is the ultimate Log Cabin Republican candidate. He’s no gay basher and has done a good job trying to reach out to the LGBT community in a sea of activist sharks. The Democrats need a good shake up. Should he win tomorrow, it will send shock waves through both major parties. Those members of the GOP who’ve been lurking in the shadows in fear of the Far Right whackos will be empowered to come out and take their party back. In the meantime, the Democrats are going to have to take a long hard look at themselves which may result in major leadership changes. As another Martha says, “that’s a good thing.”

      Jan 18, 2010 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Disneybear
      Disneybear

      Silas…..What? Scott Brown has NEVER reached out to the LGBT community and has not come out on his own for ANY legislation to support them!

      Jan 18, 2010 at 9:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @Silas Kain:

      Great point. Agree. This shake up is needed.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeJohn
      MikeJohn

      @Brian Stroup: This kind of uninformed, group-think, demonization is why the gay activist agenda is often so discredited. Hysterical Repub-Phobia is preaching to the Kool-Aid swilling choir, not a cogent or effective method of advancing a cause to those who may be persuaded with some intelligent argument and dare I say, compromise Gay activism is not advancing some theological truths. It is primarily a political enterprise. It should stop acting as if held the TRUTH and all who do not bow to it should be burned at the stake. This writer implies gays have only one legitimate political choice, Leftist Democrats. That just makes us weaker, a kind of pathetic mascot to one party. African-Americans have painted themselves into that corner. A lot of good it has done them. Stable family households were destroyed because of welfare. Even Pres. Clinton admitted that. Urban blacks have made no true advances by most metrics even though they have given democrats nearly 100% control of policy making targeting them since the 1960’s. It is time for some of us to grow up and stop stamping our feet like a little spoiled brat. That can be more fun. Indulging anger and lazy intellectual endeavors, however, builds walls, shuts us out of the larger society and makes us look like self-righteous asses. The very kind of people who love to hurl our epithets at.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeJohn
      MikeJohn

      @william: What votes, please? Does gay rights equal what the Gay activists say they are? Rights that are asserted through political power are not rights. They are legislated grants or Court Ordered rulings. The real rights we have are those that precede any human made law. The problem with saying someone is anti-gay as you do is to equate someone not supporting a piece of proposed legislation as being anti-gay. That assertion really means that the individual voting against the desired result of the law could have no other possible reason than his or her HATE agaisnt gays. This allows you to put on the White Hats for the good guys, black hats for the bad guys and end of debate. No consideration how the other side thinks, its arguments,concerns, etc. It is all so simple. All this does foster the very entity you assume is already there: Satan! No one person or entity is wise enough to be certain some law is truly wise and just. But we must try and that is way the sloganeering, bumper-sticker, entitlement mentality is so dangerous and predictive of never-ending controversey.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeJohn1309
      MikeJohn1309

      @dontblamemeivotedforhillary: Legacy. That is a real bit of nonsense. His whole legacy is having fostered all kinds of legislation that has damaged our nation in many ways. The Immigration Reform he sponsored in the 60s when he was just starting out in the Senate is a perfect example. The “Legacy” is not what he claimed at the time. That the chain migration would not in any way disrupt American culture and demographics. The mess that immigration has become is the true Legacy fostered by this most destructive politician. The mess is as large as his ego. Don’t talk to me Legacy. It is too absurd and unmindful of the reality.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeJohn1309
      MikeJohn1309

      @disneybear: What BS. The Professional Homosexual view of the world. Coakley meets the gay standard. Just forget every other issue that looms before the nation. The ratioale seems to imply that as long as one has the right record for gay advocacy, one needn’t consider anything else about the candidate, like his or her character, principles, positions on minor issues like national defense, fiscal responsibility, the proper size and role of government, etc. It would seem that a proper candidate in the professional gay view must not just have an absense of anti-gay actions, he must be a big advocate, propose legislation, fall in line with the activisit agenda, oppose Federalism, etc. What nonsense. There is no hope for better government when every consideration is narrowed to Special Interests. All we will get is a surplus of charlatans, who are only to happy to make use of useful idiots.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Silas Kain
      Silas Kain

      @Disneybear: Obviously you haven’t taken the time to talk to Scott Brown or a member of his staff. The broad strokes of defamatory paint coming from the Far Left and the Coakley camp are yet further examples of why the Democrats need a political cataclysm. Barack Obama has been President for just about a year. How much has he really delivered in fulfilled campaign promises? Now, in assessing his record, consider that he has had the joy of a Democrat controlled Congress for his term thus far. Republicans are not Barack Obama’s ultimate enemies — he’s got plenty of his own in Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Hoyer.

      A Scott Brown victory will be spun by the MSM as a tragic defeat for the Obama Administration. I look at it in quite a different way. Should Brown win tomorrow in Massachusetts, Barack Obama has an opportunity to seize the day. It’s time he stood before Congress and gave it right back to each and every member regardless of party affiliation. In the final analysis, I see a Brown victory as a win for moderate Republicans who want to take the party back from the white-trash neoconservative far right Christians who have poisoned the entire political process. To me people like John Ensign, Pat Robertson, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are as dangerous to our democracy as Osama bin Laden.

      Jan 18, 2010 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dfrw
      dfrw

      @MikeJohn1309 and others

      I must have overlooked the rule that states that I cannot vote in my own interests. Gay issues are my interests. Everyone, including me, cares about the economy. This election we’re having may have been framed on the economy and health care, with little to no mention of gay issues, but it is clear which candidate would be supportive of gay issues and which candidate would not. You can be certain that if Scott Brown is elected and the repeal of DOMA, the repeal of DADT were to come up for a vote in the Senate, Scott Brown would vote against repeal. Thanks, but I’ll take my chances with the “liberal Democrat.” Either one elected will work on the economy, but there’s more at stake than just the economy for some of us.

      Vote Martha Coakley! Go Martha!

      Jan 18, 2010 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • disneybear
      disneybear

      @ Silas! No, I would love to talk to Scott Brown! I don’t need to talk to him though to look up his voting record! He voted twice for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts, including in 2007 after marriage was already legal. The first time he supported the original Travers amendment which would have banned civil unions too! Look it up! Scott Brown has made zero promises for the gay community and has actively voted against them. Scott Brown is the worst candidate for gays and lesbians when we have a pioneering choice in Martha Coakley!

      Jan 18, 2010 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Janet
      Janet

      The public radio broadcasts here in DC reporting the election results from Massachusetts, sound as if Sara Palin had been elected president overnight as a direct reproof that Brack Obama hasnot done everything everyone dreamed he would do. THe very same public radio that takes money from Monsanto. I think its time for us to stand up as citizens against corporate greed, especially monsanto (genetically engineered soybeans) and reebok (your only source for NFL fan gear ). But meanwhile notice the lack of logic and continuous reframing that goes on..isn’t massachusets one of the first states that voted for required health insurance for all the citizens there? Which is just forcing everyone to feed the greedy insurance companies..remember the crying child being told by mean ol mommy “shut up or I’ll give you something to cry about..” well where was Scott on that one? Or is it just he’s a republican and all he has to do is show up and do what they say.

      Jan 20, 2010 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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