Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  platforms

Sen. Scott Brown: Let the States Decide Gay Marriage, And Let the Military Decide DADT For Me

Now that Scott Brown is the newest U.S. senator, everyone cares what he has to say about The Gays. Like whether he’s up for letting them get married, or serving openly in the military.

On marriage, Brown has the same position as President Obama: Let the state’s decide. That’s either a progressive stance for a Republican to have, or the natural one for a U.S. senator from Massachusetts to have, given his own state decided the gay marriage issue already — and he’s willing to let it stand. Unclear from this interview is how Brown feels about the Defense of Marriage Act.

And for the men and women in uniform (Brown is a National Guard vet), Brown isn’t making any calls yet — he first wants to hear from the military leaders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which, again, while not exactly what we want to hear, is a more nuanced approach to the issue than we’ve heard from almost any member of the GOP. It’s also the line Barack Obama keeps feeding us! And for a guy who supports the “big tent” approach to the Republican Party, maybe this means he won’t just be falling into line with GOP leadership, like House Minority Leader John Boehner, who just got done saying the president needs to take a break on his repeal efforts.

Does that make him our new BFF? Hardly. But at this point, we’ll settle for the “at least he’s not the second coming of John McCain.”

Or maybe Brown, who came out of nowhere to defeat Martha Coakley, is realizing that while he can score points with voters fed up with the Democrats’ handling of health care and the economy, he can score a few more with anyone tired of their gay rights management.

Elsewhere, it’s Florida’s Congressman Alcee Hastings who’s renewing last year’s pledge to force the White House’s hand and keep its promise.

By:           editor editor
On:           Feb 1, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 85 Comments
    • rf
      rf

      st lucia sucks

      Feb 1, 2010 at 9:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Artist
      The Artist

      St. Lucia is beautiful, this ad sucks and is very annoying.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ossurworld
      ossurworld

      After the lies told about Scott Brown by the Liberal Coakley campaign, Brown’s basic decency starts to show.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @The Artist: Sorry st lucia sucks:

      st lucia come visit, just don’t be a bottom

      Saint Lucia: Situation of homosexuals; availability of support groups and state protection (2006-2009)
      The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) indicates that homosexual acts are illegal in Saint Lucia (ILGA May 2009, 35; see also GlobalGayz n.d.; Canada 1 June 2009, Sec. 8). According to Section 133 of Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code, No. 9 of 2004 (Effective 1 January 2005):

      1) A person who commits buggery commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for –

      a) life, if committed with force and without the consent of the other person

      b) ten years, in any other case.

      2) Any person who attempts to commit buggery, or commits an assault with intent to commit buggery, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

      3) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anus by a male person with another male person. (ILGA May 2009, 35; Saint Lucia 2004, Sec. 133)

      Although there is no law specifically forbidding homosexual acts between two women (United and Strong Mar. 2009), Section 132 of the Criminal Code, regarding “Gross Indecency” states that “[a]ny person who commits an act of gross indecency with another person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for ten years or on summary conviction for five years” (ILGA May 2009, 35). Gross indecency is defined as “an act other than sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire” (ibid.). However, the Criminal Code states that this law does not apply when “committed in private between an adult male person and an adult female person, both of whom consent” (ibid.). In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a board member of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities (CVC), a coalition of community leaders and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which provides services for groups vulnerable to HIV infection (CVC n.d.), stated that as of June 2009 these laws are still in effect (CVC 10 June 2009). According to the CVC Board Member, the laws are enforced, although not always prosecuted (ibid.). This information

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      It’s total bullshit. He’s setting the stage for his ability to vote against anything President Obama supports AND claim that he’s not just voting with the Republicans. “I did my own research.” “The people I’ve spoken with…” It’s total bullshit. How hard will it be for him to find a few military heads in the field that don’t like gays? Or later, in business issues, oppose Democrat ideas? Not hard at all.

      It doesn’t matter what right-wing christian warriors in the field think of gay people. What matters is what the leaders of the military as a whole want to implement. Is he gonna turn to the military leaders in the field for EVERY decision he has to make or vote on?

      Make no mistake, Brown is an anti-gay opportunist. The marriage issue is dead in Mass. That is the only reason he’s so “meh” about it.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      I want to know what he has to say about ENDA. DADT and DOMA are great door prizes, but ENDA is the big ticket item as far as I’m concerned.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      Scott Brown is not stupid. He played the Massachusetts political landscape like a pro. He took advantage of voter frustration and anger, but he also realizes that these emotions will not last forever and if he wants to be reelected in 2012, he’ll need to keep winning over the Massachusetts people. When it comes down to it, Mass is a liberal state. That has not changed. He needs to prove that while he’s fiscally a Republican, he’ll stand for progressive social issues. That’s a winning formula in Massachusetts.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greg Theron
      Greg Theron

      Isn’t he more of a Libertarian?

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      If it were a Democrat saying this you would describe them as hating us, but if is a Republican saying this, we are to say they are sort of an ally?

      I have noticed amongst liberal sort of people the tendency to seem too needy for the support of conservatives.

      It results in odd behavior like this article.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenluv1322
      greenluv1322

      You Queerty motherfuckers are such fucking assholes. This guy says nothing and you are cumming in your shorts for him…But nothing short of Obama officiating a gay wedding will please you. Seriously, you dudes are just simply fucking RACISTS! Check yourselves in the mirror. You are no better than the BIGOTS that you profess to hate but secretly want their dicks in your mouth. That is all!

      Feb 1, 2010 at 12:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @greenluv1322: What are you talking about? Nobody but losers are cumming in their shorts for Brown. He’s old and has a big nose. As for Obama, well let him do fucking SOMETHING and then we’ll talk.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dfrw
      dfrw

      Don’t be fooled! Scott Brown is a wingnut and he’s no friend to gays, which makes it surprising that some yuckus from Western Mass. went on-air with the Michelangelo Signorile to claim that he had campaigned for Scott Brown and claimed that Scott Brown is a really nice guy. Do you want to talk about the chickens voting for the Colonel?

      Feb 1, 2010 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      The bar is simply lower for any Republican than for any Democrat.

      That’s as it should be.

      Brown’s answers here seem to indicate that he knows his electorate. If he can hem and haw his way to reelection in 2012, he will do that. What happens after thatt depends on which way both the national and the Massachusetts winds blow.

      But as far as setting lower standards for Republicans…that’s appropriate. Far from racist.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      @Chitown Kev: Double standards are bogus,a nd as a gay man, I am stunned any one would advocate this. Since fro a common sense perspective, that’s exact what bigotry against gays is all about- a double standard. It is not racist, but it does show a weakness in reasoning skills to repeat the circular “this is how is, and this is as it should be” without justification for it. And no, discussing his constituency is not a justification since the same can be said of Democratic politicians. In that context, such statements are rationalizations. Don’t worry- this battered wife mind set is endemic amongst a lot of folks when it comes to conservatives. Ironically, much of what people here whine about with regard to teh Democrats comes from the exact same mind set. You are all victims and happy, just elated when a conservative throws you a crumb. There is nothing more pathetic than the high school outsider desperately seeking the approval of the in crowd. But that’s what so many people are reduced to around conservatives.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      No…

      The Democratic Party solicits the votes, the money, and the time for the gay community. In exchange, the Democratic Party says that the will enact legislation for our community.

      The Republican Party does NONE of that.

      So I do feel that as one of two major political parties, the Democrats DO have more of an ethical responsibility than the Republicans.

      I didn’t say that I liked Scott Brown’s answers here (Personally, I think he’s lying). And sure, it would be lovely to see the Republican Party to become more inclusive of gays(like their British counterparts, the Tories). And I am not excusing them, I am simply saying that realistically and politically speaking in this climate, the bar is, overall, lower for one political party than the other.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      @Chitown Kev: YOu can rationalize it as much as you want. You are essentially saying to the GOP “thank you god you don’t want murder me. Amen, you are so much better than the Democrats because you don’t want to murder me.” Again, there is nothing more pathetic, than someone with sweat on their brow begging for something. The point is not that the Democrats are great and wonderful. The point is don’t be so pathetic that you are going to troll around for whatever someone throws at you. Keep the same standard. Don’t be impressed that some GOP’er is saying I don’t want murder you. Otherwise, that’s just sad.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      No. I am not.

      FYI, I am an independent.

      Second of all, I am speaking in terms of what the ethical accountability of political candidates and political parties are.

      The GOP has made the opinions on any number of issues quite clear (just as the Democrats have). Am I going to hold the GOP accountable for not enacting a Democratic Party platform? Of course not…and I have voted for very, very, very few Republicans because of that.

      But I do have every right to expect the Party that I usually vote for (but I am not bound to) to enact the legislation that they say that they will enact.

      We can agree to disagree on this by the way.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_cambrdige
      james_cambrdige

      my friends and family still cannot believe that a republican has been elected to anything in our lovely state. it’s like i went to sleep in massachusetts and woke up in alabama. serves me right for thinking coakley would win in a cake walk (last boston globe poll i saw said she was 15 points ahead and i didn’t bother registering…neither did anyone else i know). brown can enjoy his 2 years in the sun…since TED KENNEDY’S seat will be up again in 2012, a presidential election year, he’s gonna have a very short career as a senator. he’s seen as a fucking interloper and nothing more by a lot of us.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 2:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @ James#18: My brother lives in Northhampton, and that’s what he says, too. All his friends are scratching their heads over this and wishing they’d voted. The effects of mass unemployment will have really kicked in by 2012. Repubs don’t have any solutions to that or anything else. Brown is nothing.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @james_cambrdige:

      Why not?

      Prior to Deval Patrick, Massachusetts did have 4 Republican governors. (Weld, Celluici, Swift, Romney)

      @romeo:
      I suspect you’re right although I can also see Brown being reelected.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      A Allenesque film translation of Queerty and Chitown:

      “Oh thank God someone in the GOP likes us. Thank god. Wow. Thank you Brown for liking ups. We appreciate it. Those damn Democrats are not giving us everything we want. You at least are wiling to meet us less of the way. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ”

      Sad and pathetic no matter how many times you post Chitown. I don’t care whether you are independent or anything else you care to label this idiocy. I am not going to thank someone for being less crazy about attacking me than the rest of his party. I hold the GOP to the same standard as the Democrats. All my rights, and I am not willing to settle for less because they are “better” (whatever the fuck that means here) by some pathetic comparison you make to the worse. If you are willing to do this, you are nuts. It is the politics of the lowest common denominator.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_cambrdige
      james_cambrdige

      weld ran against a right-wing democrat (john silber, the president of B.U…if i was old enough to vote back then, i would have happily voted for weld as well) and won the liberal vote….he governed like a leftie as well and won a well-deserved relection. celluci was weld’s lieutenant governor and a carbon copy…without the style. romney ran as a moderate and didn’t seek reelection because he would have lost…he moved to the right trying to win the Republican nomination for president. you can be a fiscal moderate or conservative and win here if you’re a social liberal. brown is not really a moderate, he’s a conservative on both fiscal and social issues which doesn’t play well in this state.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @james_cambrdige:

      Oh, that’s my understanding of those republicans too from the little that I know. Scott Brown would HAVE to go to the left if he wants to be reelected.

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      Well…I think this is a good question to ask the rest of Queerty’s readership. Do you hold the Remocrats to a higher standard in securing gay rights than the Republicans and why.

      In terms of the ethics of the situation, I most certainly do…

      Feb 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      And I’m hardly a Log Cabin or a member of GOProud, those would be some of the gays that subsidize Republicans. I don’t.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      “””And for the men and women in uniform (Brown is a National Guard vet), Brown isn’t making any calls yet — he first wants to hear from the military leaders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. “””””

      Really? and what if the Generals on the ground said that Latinos and women shouldn’t be in the military. bigotry is bigotry.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      @Chitown Kev: You seem to think this is about labels rather than logic, which is why you keep pointing out irrelevant points like whether yourself an independent or a Log Cabin Republican.

      Let’s cap this: I DON’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT LABEL YOU WEAR. IT IS ABOUT THE IMPLICIT MEANING OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.

      Let’s try this for the last time: By having a lower standard for the GOP rather than the Democrats about what rights you want to have, you are setting yourself up to achieve less because you seem a) desperate and b) basic negotiation asking for less will get you less. Ask for the same thing consistently gives you a better chance of winning than telegraphing to the Democrats (which is also what you are doing) that you will accept what the GOP has to offer so why should the Democrats have to work harder for your votes? Forgetting the emotions of desperation that you are projecting here, the other element is piss poor reasoning about what this tells the politicians. That’s why this is the politics of the lowest common denominator. By saying the GOP is okay to go for less, you are setting up the standard for what rights you are going to accept. What happens if the GOP and Dems come together to give you the minimal while ignoring the higher standard you hold for the Democrats? Where are you going to go go whine about how you really wanted what the Dems say they won’t to do, but don’t?

      I don’t give a shit what the readership here or you think. Herds can be stupid so the fact a group of you gets together to regurgitate a stupid premise is not persuasive. What’s persuasive is what all of this means in context.

      It comes across as desperation.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      I agree that the republican party does not have the same platform as the democrats and the bar is set higher, but I also believe that elections have consequences, and the democrats have the house, senate, and white house they should be allowed to govern. By this I don’t mean they should let them just railroad a far left agenda through, but they should negotiate instead of obstruct. For example with health care, single payers is the fancy of the progressive base, that was scrapped for a more middle left public option competing with private industry the answer is no, the public option was scraped for a centrist policy that should have been more than acceptable in getting votes in both parties yet the republicans have corralled there members into being obstructionist in order to knee-cap democrats at the expense of the country. The question is will Scott Brown adopt an older style of negotiating (supporting a incremental approach to full repeal of DADT), or the new style of toxic partisanship (weaken then kill anything put forward)? As a pragmatist I would be supportive of an incremental approach with a certain end date for full repeal as the end game, and if the republicans were moral, ethical, or believed in democracy this is were the negotiation would wind up in the end. An intelligent, methodical, systematic, and centrist approach which would enable one to get facts on the ground of how implementation was affecting the military at each increment and make conducive changes were necessary.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @james_cambrdige: Check out the Morning Goods from today, lunatic Michael Letterman is back under a new guise, trying to beat down a 15 year old……..

      Feb 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      I’m not saying don’t hold the Republicans accountable.

      I am saying that we already hold the Republicans to the extent that we have political power.

      I am saying that the Log Cabins need to be held responsible for the 2-5 NY Senate votes that they said they would be able to deliver and did not.

      @reason:

      But it the Democrats are the party of the gays, then they REALLY don’t need to be trafficing in the homophobia that they do.

      It’s not as if I want the Republicans to do the same, heaven forbid. But the bar for the Democrats in that respect is higher.

      And the bar for Scott Brown will probably be higher than the avg. Republican. Or else he won’t be reelected in 2012.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      @Chitown Kev: No party is the party of gays. This is where you sound confused. Minority groups rarely have a party when they are fighting for their equality. If you look back at the black civil rights, the movement was not of the Democratic Party although the party paid lip service through most of the 50s to being interested in helping the African Americans. LBJ is often cited as a great man, and he was. It took courage to pass the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s. But, he also contributed to a lot of attempts in the 50s to compromise with racists in the Democratic Party. We idealized history, and , thus these complicated histories are lose. The movement for gay rights is not about any particular party. The parties are a tool. Both of them are. The idea that you are setting this one party supports us thus our standards should be higher, and one party does not, thus, the standard should be lower, makes a fool out of you politically. Have the same standard for both parties, and require them to earn your vote either way even as you have to compromise you are then keeping your eye on the ball rather than being so easily manipulated by a few words that mean nothing.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Chitown Kev:

      Completely correct, the Democratic platform is more supportive of civil rights, but I am sure you are well aware of the complications that comes with large tent politics. I am sure that if you don’t already believe, if you examined it you will believe that there are benefits to this large tent phenomenon. Some of these blue dogs moderate over time and change there views because since they are in the same party they will work together and listen to each other respectfully. If they actually stay in their area they become a leadership voice that explains the new reasoning to there constituents bringing more people along. You can argue the reasoning behind Harold Ford’s awakening, but he is probably bringing some of his ardent Tennessee supports along as he explains why ending DADT and DOMA are the right thing to do; if they respect him they will at least hear him out. But this whole purity test thing that republicans are touting is dangerous for their party and the country; it stifles individual thought and common scenes approaches to problem solving: it also pushes people like me away from all of their candidates. Furthermore, if the Democrats were to conduct a purity test beyond fracturing the country someone like me would have no one to vote for.

      NoDoubleStandards: the way things are going right now in the GOP it seems like the two party system is now completely under the democratic tent. The compromise that are being made under that tent between the two factions are the only ideas that are even remotely applicable. Some of the conclusions that they are arriving at would have come from bipartisan efforts of the olden days, the GOP’s elephant has slipped into the abyss.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      How many Republicans in the House and the Senate will vote with LGBTs? On anything?

      The alignment of the parties during the struggle for black civil rights was a bit different.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      @Chitown Kev: Jesus, look man, this is about you lowering your standards. Not the parties. Why can’t you get that through you fucking thick skull? The example I gave was that the black civil rights movement was a thing that happened separate from whatever the parties were doing, and they did not lower their standards of wanting full equality based on whatever the parties were willing to do.

      To put another way, marriage equality and repealing DADT are the right things outside of the parties. Just like equal under the law was a concept that the black civil rights pushed to achieve. I will not lower my standards about what I want by pretending that a less friendly to my cause example is good because of how I am pissed with the other party. It is still lowering your standards regardless of why you are doing it. The only exception to this is if one is trying to send a political message about power. That’s not what you are saying here. You are saying you are happy a Republican does not want you dead.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      Then win enough Republicans over, dude…My standards have not changed (nor would I have voted for Scott Brown either).

      Oh, MLK wanteds the voting rights act in the civil rights act of 1964. LBJ refused (because of the election) and would have delayed delayed delayed until Selma happened.

      MLK didn’t compromise on “full equality” but it definitely happened incrmentally.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @NoDoubleStandards:

      See, I will have the opportuninty to vote for a Republican who’s better on gay rights than Scott Brown in Mark Kirk. I will also probably have the choice of voting for a candidate who supports full LGBT equality.

      I’m haven’t said for one minute that Scott Brown was good for the cause. All I said was with brown I know what I am getting and I know what I am working with.

      And besides, even he said that gay marriage in Massachusetts was “a done deal.” Not that I believe him…

      I suggest that you and I end this conversation now because we have reached an impasse and now you’re starting to come out of your mouth the wrong way at me.

      @reason:

      Uh…fuck Harold Ford.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tyler
      Tyler

      Brown voted for the Mass. constitutional amendment to eliminate same-sex marriage in 2007.

      http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events07/concon_0614/rollcall.html

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Tyler:

      Yes he did. He also made some highly bigoted comments to some lesbian, can’t remember her name or the specific comments but it had something to do with her not really being in a family with her partner…

      With this interview I have to acnowledge…I don’t know if it’s even progress, it’s moreso awareness of who the fuck he’s representing.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      I’m confused. Should we be lobbying this guy? If we want his vote we need to tell him. I think he’ll listen to us – everybody please call or email him. That’s the only thing that works.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Victor:

      Of course we should.

      And if he votes against us, he should be made to to pay. The stakes are very high now and I have a feeling here that he’s hedging in this video because of that but he’s not centrist as far as gay stuff is concerned.

      But in order to be reelected, he’ll have to be, IMHO.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Larry Kramer is right..less blogs and more marching…

      Feb 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      Scott Brown is Hot…Oh, wait it’s John Hamm playing Senator Scott Brown!

      BTW – Who’s Larry Kramer?

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      @alan brickman: I think that’s the way to win – we need to lobby like crazy and we need to march anywhere and everywhere. Politicians need to hear from us so we should call a few times a day and send several emails a day. We should march and let everyone know we are not going to take this anymore. I marched in Washington DC and I know it works. I should have been making more calls and sending more emails.

      I am going to work harder now. Does anyone know how many emails or calls will get Scott Brown to support us? In the next month I can call 100 times and I can send 500 emails? Is that enough?

      We should all be doing this. This will work if we just keep hitting send and keep hitting redial.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      First off, when he talks I smell bullshit.

      Second, if he wants to talk to the commanders on the ground (with the evangelical bug spreading through our military like a new STD), then I’m worried. Very.

      http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/01/why_those_christian_gunsights.php#more

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      @Taylor Siluwé: I just gave you the answer Taylor. Get busy.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      And why is it when I hear them cry “states rights” I see separate drinking fountains?

      Am I just paranoid? Admittedly I am, but am I really paranoid?

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      @Taylor Siluwé: We need to lobby him. Lobbying is the only thing that works with politicians. We’re going to do some more marches, too. I think if everyone emailed every member of Congress, every day, we would have all our rights. It’s not hard to email and they will listen to our emails.

      We have 10 million gay people in the US. Every day we could send 100 million emails. Can you imagine how fast they would start approving us? I might even get some software to send automatic emails and we wouldn’t need HRC anymore. Everyone needs to do this. I can see our victory – it looks like the “send” button.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      You know until I saw the post about him supporting the marriage ban, I was willing to entertain the notion that some of you were not complete idiots. Now, you take away all doubt.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards
      NoDoubleStandards

      And yes Chicago that relates to you.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvd
      dvd

      Give him a few months in the senate, and he’ll be parroting the republican talking points against gay issues. That team makes all their members tow hard to the right, or they are fed to the lions. Look at Rudy Giuliani.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      @dvd: That’s why we need to start calling him tomorrow. Email him several times a day. We need to be citizen lobbyists – it’s the only thing that works.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      I heard from my friend in MA that almost every single GLBT person she knew was voting for Brown and damn proud to let everyone know about it; and part of the reason was to piss off the Dems. in Congress. Now, because of them and other liberals who did so to piss off the party that doesn’t hate their guts, healthcare reform is dead, DADT repeal with be put off or will only pass if Snowe or Collins dare to vote for it, we’ll get no DOMA repeal or ENDA, there won’t be meaningful financial reform, a watered-down jobs bill, ect.

      Scott Brown desecrated Ted Kennedy’s seat, and the liberal elites of MA allowed this by sitting on their asses. Look up what’s happening to Colorado Springs right now: they’re shutting down strees, parks, rec centers, cutting police by 80%, all because taxes are being literally eliminated there except for a max of $75 per year, per person. That Teabagger utopia happen to the entire country if we let the Repubs control us again.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      PopRocks, the Dems will quite possibly lose in Illinois, New York and Colorado which are going Republican in November, not because of the liberal elite (naive gay child!) but because the Dems did nothing with their majority, including gay rights. Moderate Democrats and Republicans (AKA independents) turned up in huge numbers (and will in November) because it’s the economy, stupid – to quote Bubba Clinton! Barack O Blah Blah was a huge disappointment so it is about anti-incumbency and Change can work against you. Perhaps, the monied gays figure that if they aren’t getting equal rights for all of their fat checks, they might as well vote for a tax break. If cuts in services are affecting your quality of life, move to a liberal state like Washington, Oregon or Vermont! Your last sentence was a little off the deep end – but get it that Teabaggers are a motley crew of paranoid nutcases – like the extreme left who think that Ted Kennedy’s seat was desecrated! Get a grip Poptart, the pendulum is swinging against the Democrats in 2010 because it’s their fault now!

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @Victor:

      Like the enthusiasm, but why don’t you send a handwritten letter with your return address so they know you are from the district then go out and get 499 other people in your district to send letters also, I think this would be more effective than receiving 500 emails from the same person.

      Chitown kev: Lol breaking out the profanity, I take it you really don’t like this guy. I was not suggesting that he be elected to the seat, just pleased he is singing a different note no matter what his reasoning is. I also think it will have an impact on his most avid supporters if they were not already with us.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      @PopSnap: You should be lobbying, not complaining. Our future is our hands – we need to call and email every politician. If we do this we will win. Lobbying is the key to our success.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victor
      Victor

      If 1 million of us lobby our politicians by calling and emailing, we will takeover the government within 6 months. Lobbying is how we win.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @PopSnap:
      Hey sometimes people get what they ask for. Look at Mississippi the one governor Raymond Mabus Jr. that was changing there sordid state was run out of his chair. 17 years later he is the 75th United States Secretary of the Navy while Mississippi is still the trash barrel of the country coming dead last in median income. Why someone would vote against their interest boggles my mind, I just purchased a book The Political Mind maybe it will provide some insight.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I believe the best way forward for the gay community is to speak to Republicans who are moderate and may want to vote in our favor. It’s not impossible to do. The sad thing is that we’ve become so used to thinking that the Democrats are on our side, we’ve also become lazy. Intellectual laziness is not a good state for a rights movement like our own.

      We need to talk to Republicans and put Democrats on notice. It’s the best way forward.

      Feb 1, 2010 at 11:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dotch
      dotch

      Scott Brown is a lying sack of shit. He had plenty of opportunities to vote on gay marriage in Massachusetts and voted no every time. He made hateful remarks about the lesbian senator who served the district before him and called her having a child with her partner “not normal”. He says he has “no opinion” on DADT, but will ask the “generals on the ground” whatever that means. He is a liar, a sham , a phony, and a homophobe.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dotch
      dotch

      @Chitown Kev: His comment referred to the lesbian state senator who served the district before him. He said she was not normal because she was raising a child with her partner. Brown is a liar, like most Republicans, and a homophobe.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Perhaps the Democrats will take notice, and realize that their base is angry at them. Perhaps they will start working for their base, and to enact their platform.

      This nonsense of letting 40 senators block everything has to end. Make filibustering physically demanding again. Or, just eliminate the rule and get on with it.

      Basically, the Democrats should start acting like responsible adults.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 6:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xtian99
      Xtian99

      DEAR QUEERTY
      ENOUGH WITH THE BREEDERS WHO JUST BOOKED THEIR LEGENDARY VACTION TO ST. LUCIA POPPING UP ON MY SCREEN EVERY WEB PAGE!!!!!!!!! I UNDERSTAND ADVERTISING, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD ASK ADVERTISERS TO DO SOMETHING LESS INTRUSIVE… MAYBE LIKE AN ELECTRIFIED WAND THAT, UPON ENTERING A QUEERTY WEB PAGE, WILL RISE UP FROM MY CHAIR PAD, PENETRATE MY RESCTUM AND DELIVER 250 VOLTS TO MY COLON WHILE A VIRTUL HAND FROM THAT VERY WEB PAGE REACHES OUT FROM MY SCREEN AND SLAPS ME SILLY UNTIL I AGREE TO “LEARN MORE” ABOUT THE LEGENDARY (SNORE) VACATION IN ST. LUCIA?

      Feb 2, 2010 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      Saint Lucia is a terrorist destination!

      Feb 2, 2010 at 9:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @PopSnap:

      Well, your friend must not live in or around Provincetown which was ~80-20 for Coakley. Nor must your friend live in the South End of Boston which went about 75-25 for Coakley.

      Not that there are enough gays in Massachusetts to make a difference. Brown won by over 100,000 votes.

      @NoDoubleStandards:
      I never said I would have voted for the man.

      Nevertheless, he is currently the sitting United States Senator of the State of Massachusetts. Given his previous positions (which I was aware of) I probably can’t work with him and quite frankly my time would be better spent (if I lived in Mass., that is) ensuring that he didn’t win reelection in 2012.

      @PopSnap:
      Then the Dems needed to field better candidates and not act as if they were entitled to the seat…especially in a special election this close to midterms. If that 60th seat was so damn important, then the Democrats needed to act like it. And they didn’t.

      @reason:
      Ford’s “avid supporters” may also think that it’s a necessary evil for him to win the election.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CountMeOut
      CountMeOut

      This man is soooo hot…

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      @james_cambrdige: I noticed you didn’t mention Swift, as in “Swiftly out the door!”

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      Fuck nuance. Give me Susan Collins, a Republican who is an out-and-out supporter of DADT repeal.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      If Republicans threw us Civil Unions as a big fat juicy carrot and the Democrats continued with empty promises, and backroom deals against our rights, 2012 could see a Pink Stampede to a new gay-inclusive party platform even if Churches and other religious institutions were given exceptions against conducting same-sex marriages if they so choose. Will it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Hmmmm, winning an elect is important….

      By the way, some words on our Sponsor; Saint Lucifer (thnx terrwill:)

      Saint Lucia: Situation of homosexuals; availability of support groups and state protection (2006-2009)
      The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) indicates that homosexual acts are illegal in Saint Lucia (ILGA May 2009, 35; see also GlobalGayz n.d.; Canada 1 June 2009, Sec. 8). According to Section 133 of Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code, No. 9 of 2004 (Effective 1 January 2005):

      1) A person who commits buggery commits an offense and is liable for conviction on indictment to imprisonment for –

      a) life, if committed with force and without the consent of the other person

      b) ten years, in any other case.

      2) Any person who attempts to commit buggery, or commits an assault with intent to commit buggery, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

      3) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anus by a male person with another male person. (ILGA May 2009, 35; Saint Lucia 2004, Sec. 133)

      Although there is no law specifically forbidding homosexual acts between two women (United and Strong Mar. 2009), Section 132 of the Criminal Code, regarding “Gross Indecency” states that “[a]ny person who commits an act of gross indecency with another person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for ten years or on summary conviction for five years” (ILGA May 2009, 35). Gross indecency is defined as “an act other than sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire” (ibid.). However, the Criminal Code states that this law does not apply when “committed in private between an adult male person and an adult female person, both of whom consent” (ibid.). In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a board member of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities (CVC), a coalition of community leaders and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which provides services for groups vulnerable to HIV infection (CVC n.d.), stated that as of June 2009 these laws are still in effect (CVC 10 June 2009). According to the CVC Board Member, the laws are enforced, although not always prosecuted (ibid.).

      “Wow, 10 years hard labor for a suntan!”

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dirty Ole Man
      Dirty Ole Man

      @Chitown Kev:

      You’re an apologist for the RACISM that comes
      from the Gay community. I’ve noticed the pattern in your posts, and you just make me sick! You jump to the opportunity to generalize Black People and you defend the pathetic racists who slam them! All of which makes you a
      very sad individual since you’re BLACK. Buy a Clue
      from Alex Trebek.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WhereAreTheRealMen?
      WhereAreTheRealMen?

      who is this guy? and is he cut?

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      I was shocked when I talked to my friends in Mass. right before the election. They are all lifelong liberal Democrats, and they all voted for Hillary in the Presidential primary. So I was surprised when one told me he was voting for Scott Brown because you couldn’t trust a woman in a high position like that.
      Hello! You voted for Hillary to be President! And you voted for Martha Coakley to be state Attorney General.

      Another told me he was voting for Brown to teach the Democrats a lesson and to send Obama a message. I told him he already sent Obama a message when he voted for Hillary in the primary. This guy may have a point, because Obama sure needs to be sent a message. And I had to agree that Coakley ran a miserable campaign. But Scott Brown appeared frequently on noted homophobe Howie Carr’s radio program didn’t he? Oh, I don’t listen to Howie Carr, he said. And anyway, Howie Carr just complains about having a third bathroom for transgenders. He’s not really against GP’s; he just plays the transgender card to get better ratings. Oh, great.

      The third told me he was staying home and voting for neither. He said he was turned off by Martha Coakley’s sense of entitlement to the position. But he couldn’t bring himself to vote for Brown. I asked him if this was because Brown had posed nude for a magazine centerfold. Oh no, he said, I’m OK with that. I’ll bet. He also said he voted for Romney for governor (in 2002) because Romney was for gay rights, instead of voting for Democrat Shannon O’Brien (another woman who couldn’t make it to high office in Massachusetts).

      Here are the lessons to be learned from Massachusetts election results:
      (1) Some Democrats there must think Hillary has a penis (or at least a strap-on), since they would never vote for a woman for high office.
      (2) Some Democrats would vote for a Mormon for governor rather than a woman who was a Democrat.
      (3) A lot of Democrats, especially GPs, think Scott Brown is hot. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Dirty Ole Man:

      Uh, you’re offended by one post…and I don’t generalize black people by race (I have been known to do it by class and religion though).

      And I am always asking some white gays to show me evidence of x, y, and z (usually having to do with “black homophobia” or something ignorant about the civil rights movement).

      I learned very, very early in life that simply because a black person says it or thinks it doen’t make it true. So…you can think what you want.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 1:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 70 · Dasher

      Interesting breakdown. This whole finding Scott Brown “hot” thing is disturbing. Okay, we can want to sleep with him, but for Christ sake do we have to vote for him, too?! I wanna sleep with a lot of guys I wouldn’t vote for, actually, most of the guys I think are “hot” aren’t suited to run a bakery let alone hold government office.

      So, I guess my question is, does LUST shut off our brains? And is this similar to why so many people vote against their best interests?

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Artist
      The Artist

      @dontblamemeivotedforhillary: As Ms.
      Janet would say get “The Knowledge!” Google it and you’ll know what I mean…or chances are probably not. PEACELUVNBWILDYALL!

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Dirty Ole Man:

      http://www.queerty.com/the-whites-can-have-lgbt-activism-i-quit-20091002/

      http://www.queerty.com/thats-the-conundrum-in-the-african-american-community-20090521/

      http://www.queerty.com/lest-you-forget-the-whitewashed-image-of-gay-americans-is-wholly-inaccurate-20090826/

      These three examples should suffice, though I could track down many many more…

      Your problem with me is:

      1) I don’t sugarcoat extreme forms of black bigtry and water it down as “misguided.”

      2)I don’t keep my comments confined to the proper forum. I have no shame in showing my natural black ass in front of white folks. If you are embarrassed by that, that is your problem, not mine.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Dirty Ole Man:

      http://www.queerty.com/was-professor-don-belton-murdered-over-a-rape-or-regrets-over-a-consensual-relationship-20091230/

      Oh, I forgot this one…

      Dirty Old Man, “the clue” with me is precision. Generalized accusations of racism (or homophobia for that matter) do not impress me. I do like to tease these things out.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      @72 – Hi Taylor, yes, that Scott Brown is “hot” is disturbing. I thought he was hot in the centerfold, no doubt about it. Now, not so much. And even in the centerfold, I would be thinking down below instead of up above.

      Also, Brown is from the most obscure town in Massachusetts, Wrentham, not exactly a big power base.

      What really bothers me is my Massachusetts friends, all of them lifelong liberal Democrats. Now they are suddenly cooking up excuses not to vote for Coakley or to vote for Brown. When you start hearing BS like this coming from Massachusetts, you know that something is wrong.

      My best guess is that people still like Obama (74% personal approval rating), but have become disillusioned with his policies/appointments (49% approval there). This together with a weak candidate (Coakley) and an attractive man as her opponent, and this is what can happen.

      The other thing is, Massachusetts voters are reluctant to vote for a woman for high office. Jane Swift was Governor, but she wasn’t elected, she got there by succession–and, she was the worst governor the state has had in many decades. The bitter memories of Jane Swift might have poisoned voters against a woman in high office — I think that had something to do with it. So when a political hack like Shannon O’Brien ran for Governor, it was always going to be uphill all the way, and it was. Kerry Healey, who had almost unlimited money to run for office, failed big time, and part of it was because she was a woman running for Governor.

      Too bad Mike Capuano lost the primary to Coakley. He would have been a much stronger candidate, and as a Congressman, he was already up to speed on all the issues. Funny thing is, a lot of people think he’s still Mayor of Somerville.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_cambrdige
      james_cambrdige

      dasher, you’re dead on. i never thought about it until i read this thread but women have a shockingly impossible time getting elected to statewide office here. like you said, kerry healey lost to our current governor by 20 points in 2006 even though she was a physically attractive (like brown) candidate who parroted the moderate republican line like a pro. and don’t forget that shannon o’brien lost by the same small margin that coakley lost by, almost down to the decimal point, back in 2002 to another ken doll called mitt romney. but i don’t really know it was the swift experience that poisoned mass voters against female politicians though…swift didn’t hang around long enough to really register with most of us. i think we just have a lot of sexist voters here in mass…sexist liberal voters. people’s beliefs and actions don’t always mesh and while voters’ instincts here may be to pull the democratic lever, it doesn’t mean that many of them don’t have certain neanderthal, catholic-church driven beliefs. every member of our 12 person congressional delegation is far left and democratic, as is our governor and lieutenant governor and the dems control 87% (!) of both houses, what i believe is the largest one-party margin in the entire country…scott brown should not have been elected in this environment except that, maybe, voters here despise female politicians more than they do republicans.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Dasher:

      Now I HAVE heard a lot about the sexism of Massachusetts politics both online and even for a few days when I was in Boston.

      Again, as people tend to do with the Hillary/Obama drama that still inexplicably goes on, people really discount sexism as a force in electoral politics.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 9:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TopTrendingTopics
      TopTrendingTopics

      There were so many people talking about Scott Brown on Twitter that it was one of the top trending topics for a while – check out the video at http://www.joshrimer.com/scott-brown-arealwifey-cadbury/ to see some of the more entertaining ones in a funny video. :-)

      Feb 3, 2010 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      Hi James, maybe I’m just biased against Swiftie, or I overstated her importance in the mind of the voting public. One of the reasons she could not run for election as Governor when her term was through was her reputation for incompetence and not running a tight ship on security at Logan Airport when she was MassPort director, which came to light in the wake of 9/11.

      I think Massachusetts voters have a sugar coating of liberal Democrat. Inside, many of them are conservative on social issues. Many of my friends are Irish Catholic, and they are 100% against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but are totally against abortion. A few of the ones who are straight are still against gay marriage, even though the SJC OK’d it legally. No one will say they’re against “gay rights”, though, which is encouraging — even if we don’t know which rights those are.

      The Scott Brown thing is really troubling, especially when you consider he’s pro-war and pro-choice (in other words, the opposite of my Irish Catholic friends who voted for him on the issues). Granted, Brown is attractive and ran a vigorous, excellent campaign — but still. This is why Massachusetts is such an enigma, and can never be taken for granted on anything.

      It’s just a puzzle. I still can’t figure out why Coakley beat Capuano.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      @78 – Chitown Kev – Hi Kev, I think the reality is that many Massachusetts voters are sexist, despite most being liberal. Even the Independents and “Moderates” are liberal by the standards of other states. The difference is, very few are going to admit to being sexist; it would be equivalent of saying, “I’m a hypocrite”. So they come up with these excuses for voting for Scott Brown. I did have a few tell me that they were not going to vote for Coakley because they didn’t think women could cut it in high office, which is at least somewhat sexist, if not all the way.

      That said, some of the same people told me they would have voted for Ted Kennedy’s widow, Victoria, if she had been the candidate instead of Coakley.

      So go figure…:)

      Feb 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_cambrdige
      james_cambrdige

      Dasher, Capuano is my congressman and he’s amazing. He really is a no-bull, strongly pro-gay, pro-working man congressman. Strangely enough, I think Coakley only beat him in the primary because there was a “we need a female Senator” meme within the Democratic Party here. I like Coakley too but clearly she wasn’t a good campaigner….you don’t turn a 15-point lead into a 4 point loss by accident.

      Republicans make up 9% of voters and Dems nearly 50% so if we’d turned out, Scott would have lost. I really believe he’s a goner in two years…

      As for social conservatism here, yeah in certain places like Southie you do have socially conservative democrats but the gay marriage issue is settled in this state which goes a long way to proving that even among these people, their conservatism doesn’t run deep. As for abortion, I’m against it too (a gay man who’s anti-choice? Horrors!!) but like my fellow Mass residents, all the politicans we vote for are pro-choice, so our personal beliefs don’t necessarily impact our voting on this issue. I don’t know if you live here Dasher but people here really are a live and let live bunch. You can’t really call us conservatives in any clear sense…

      Feb 3, 2010 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      James, I agree about Capuano. You just don’t have to worry about him on the issues. He is a man of integrity and doesn’t forget the little guy. In the primary, some put out the line that he’s not charismatic (none of them were, IMO). But on a one-to-ten scale of likeability, he’s got to be an 8 or 9.

      And you’re right, Scott Brown could get voted out when his term is up. The Republicans who are celebrating his victory now might want to take a close look at Mitt Romney’s poll numbers the final year he was governor. They were terrible. Some people even got cynical, and concluded that Romney is a phony.

      I’m against abortion too. But yes, these controversial issues, including gay marriage, are all settled matters in Massachusetts. And thank goodness they are. Most of us are so sick and tired of hearing about them.

      I don’t live in Mass. any more (I moved to Florida 7 years ago) but keep in touch with friends. A few still live in Southie and Dorchester, but most now live on the Irish Riviera (Cohasset, Scituate and Marshfield). I used to live in Brighton, Somerville, and East Boston — they were all like blue collar heaven. When I lived in East Boston, it was in the days when it was 95% Italian, and you never had to worry about street crime very much, because the kids were always under control. If any kid did something, one of his relatives would see it, report directly back to his father, and the kid would get a beating.
      Another nice thing about living in East Boston in the 1970s was you could get fresh-baked Italian Scali at the bakery in Central Square.

      Another thing you quickly learned about the Italian boys in Eastie was that they just didn’t have the inhibitions about gay sex that the Irish boys did over in Brighton or Southie. There were always exceptions though…they say Whitey Bulger was a hustler when he was in his teens and early 20s.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_cambrdige
      james_cambrdige

      Even when Whitey was an old man, he reportedly liked to get coked up and screw underage girls and boys, at least according to Howie Carr. I believe it…the guy wasn’t exactly known for his restraint.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SuckItBaby
      SuckItBaby

      does he look like he uses buttplugs?

      Feb 4, 2010 at 12:32 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

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.