Liberals and Their Invisible Homophobia

[cboy4]

"It's not just homophobia from conservatives we have to worry about. Liberals can be just as baldly antigay -- often without reproach."

Sad but true. Lots of, "oh, who else are you going to vote for? Do you think the Republicans care about gay issues?" comments here at DU to illustrate the Advocate's point.

:(


By James Kirchick
An Advocate.com exclusive posted April 8, 2008
Liberals and Their Invisible Homophobia

Before the Don Imus show was canceled last year, New Mexico governor and then Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson used the word maricón, Spanish slang for “faggot,” after the shock jock goaded Richardson by questioning his Hispanic heritage. “Would you agree that Bernard is a maricón?” Imus asked Richardson, referring to his cohost, Bernard McGuirk.

Replying in Spanish, Richardson laughed: “I believe that Bernard, yes, he’s a faggot if he thinks I am not Hispanic.”



Richardson is hardly the only prominent Democrat to engage in such banter. In an excerpt from his book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum recounts a 1998 encounter with John Edwards, who had hired him as a consultant for his first Senate campaign. "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?" Shrum recalls asking Edwards. "I'm not comfortable around those people," the future senator replied -- though both Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, have since said that the quote was taken out of context.

In October, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign invited Donnie McClurkin -- a notorious “ex-gay” singer and minister -- to participate in its Southern Gospel Tour event in South Carolina. McClurkin claims that homosexuality can be “cured” through prayer and that gay people are “trying to kill our children.” While Obama later claimed that he did not agree with McClurkin about gays, he had no problem giving the performer a platform to preach his bigotry, knowing that such views are widely held among the conservative Southern black voters whose support he needs to win the Democratic nomination.


http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid52812.asp

[readmoreoften]

1. I'll tell you what's going to happen....

Democrats keep saying 'when the tide of public opinion turns' we're going to support you! The truth of the matter is, when the tide of public opinion turns and it's finally politically safe to support gays and lesbians, it'll also be safe for the Republicans to support gay marriage (which is, let's face it at base a conservative idea). Since the Democratic party has burned us for decades now, I would not be surprised to see a future where fiscally conservative gays support a more inclusive Republican party and liberal and left gays support the Greens or another progressive 3rd party.

The Democrats failure to do the right thing for LGBT issues will bite the party on the ass as hard as support for the IWR has. At some point the Republicans are going to say "you know what, sure, civil unions, marriage whatever. We can be for that too." That'll be the day that the Democratic party truly has nothing. Through all this cowardice, the party is really failing to establish itself as having any sort of recognizable identity.

[cboy4]

2. Oh there's no question about it.....and the thing is, even if

we get a (D) in the White House, and get to 60 in the senate to form a strong control of government, here's what I think would start happening:

Leadership would be like, "well, we don't want to lose seats in the 2010 midterm, so we don't want to adopt anything controversial that would bring the fundies to the polls....and then before you know it, it will be close to the 2012 election, and we want Hillary or Obama to be re-elected, so we don't want to get involved in anything controversial..."

I hope I'm wrong.

However, I see nothing but a vicious wedge issue cycle for years and years to come.

[tavalon]

3. And so on, and so on

Yep, that is the Dem playbook, indeed. It's always about the next fucking election, not about what is right, here and now.

[readmoreoften]

4. And, ironically, by never standing up for anything, they're always in jeopardy by the next election.

If the Democrats fought hard for LGBT rights, they'd lose hardly anyone (come on, the most serious gay-bashers aren't in the party) and win loyalty of a strong voting bloc. By failing to do anything for us for two decades, when it becomes 'safe' (ie: a non-issue) the other side will mimic the Democratic position to nullify the issue and many people will leave abandon the party out of (a) disgust, (b) revenge for taking us for granted, and (c) political apathy.

Dumb fucking move, that's what it is. The party is already labeled the party of the 'gay agenda' by those who oppose it. And it's known as the party of waffling nonsense by those who support us. It's going to be a big political failure.

[murielm99]

18. This is one of the best posts of the day.

:thumbsup:

[kdpeters]

21. The fight for equality goes on all fronts across the board, no surprise

But it's been a long time since I expected that anyone but us gayfolk could ever be counted on to stand up and fight for us. I can't be disappointed in the Democrats when I have so little faith in them. Every little step we've made, we fought for and won for ourselves with Democratic leadership being dragged along if not actually fighting against us. That's what I expect, but what I can't forgive are the betrayals and the taking for granted.

I would not be surprised to see a future where fiscally conservative gays support a more inclusive Republican party and liberal and left gays support the Greens or another progressive 3rd party.

No fiscal conservative of any sexuality has any business voting Republican. There are already a lot of gays voting Republican, and most of them come from privilege and are equally as unpleasant and self absorbed as any other tax cut fundamentalist and starve-the-beast Republican. The Republican party has never in my lifetime been for fiscal responsibility.

At some point the Republicans are going to say "you know what, sure, civil unions, marriage whatever. We can be for that too." That'll be the day that the Democratic party truly has nothing.

That point will be after every one else has long since come around. Republicans are the single most anti-gay of many regularly polled Demographics. Republicans are more anti-gay than conservatives, more anti-gay than evangelicals. Democrats and liberals actually poll quite positively and keep improving. This article tells us that there's still a good ways to go, that's no surprise, but I think we'll see support for equality really snowball in our favor in the next eight years among Democrats and liberals. My generation and younger are heavily supportive of equality. We'll soon be forty somethings and younger mitigating any strong opposition among Dems if not push the party to an outright majority for equality. But no way will the Republican party come around anywhere but dead last and far behind the rest of us. Equality isn't a Republican value. Equality is against everything Republicans are for.

[texasleo]

5. Gays cost Kerry the 04 election

Not easily forgotten.

[El Pinko]

8. That's Bullshit.

Gays didn't do anything to Kerry.

It might be fair to say that Gavin Newsom cost Kerry some votes with his ill-timed publicity stunt at city hall.

But it is extremely unfair and untrue to blame Kerry's loss on "gays", especially considering what an unbelievably incompetent campaign Kerry and Bob Shrum ran.

[cboy4]

14. From a civil rights standpoint, Gavin's so-called publicity

stunt has done so much to further the cause.

If anything...the term same-sex marriage is no longer as taboo.

The more it's talked about, the easier it is, day by day, for society to accept it.

The concept of same-sex marriage is no longer as shocking.

But I obviously agree with you about everything else.

[El Pinko]

24. I hope you're right about that.

I don't think Newsom's motives at the time were entirely sincere - he wanted to ingratiate himself with the city's powerful gay lobby ofter a tough campaign against Gonzalez, and it clearly worked.

I couldn't blame gay couples for being excited about the chance to finally have a shot at equal rights (which was, as expected, snatched away by the state courts).

But the short-term effect to Kerry's campaign was clearly negative.

But Kerry and Shrum ran a CRAP campaign, and I find it highly doubtful that Newsom's stunt was responsible for that loss. Kerry lost the popular vote by over THREE MILLION votes, and his flip-flopping, inability to SPEAK AMERICAN and just give a clear answer to a question, not to mention his ridicuous bunny suit/sperm suit/spandex bike helmet/windsurfing photo ops were MUCH more a problem than what Newsom did. It's San Francisco, for chrissakes. It's expected of the bay area to do these things.

[freeplessinseattle]

9. Damn those idiot gays and their equality BS!

When will they learn that we must not offend the sensibilities of conservatives, even if it means sacrificing our values, if we want to win elections? We have to pretend to care only about issues that don't bother them too much, and keep the status quo as much as possible.

[Richard Steele]

10. Kerry won the 04 election. It's a fact. nm

[cboy4]

11. As a homophobe, were you one of those people yelling and

screaming about how the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in October 2006 -- mandating rights for gay unions -- was going to cost Democrats the midterm election the following month? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102500174.html

Of course, all of you who were jumping up and down about how the sky was falling were wrong, weren't you? Democrats won control of congress, despite the fear mongering.

Know what else is not easily forgotten texasleo?

Right. Your homophobia. :thumbsdown:

[tavalon]

16. You did NOT say that!

My God, it's your Clinton moment.

Go look in the mirror and slap yourself upside the head! Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch!

[readmoreoften]

19. Yeah, it's all the gays fault. The homophobic bullshit of the party won't be easily forgotten either

Keep minimizing our votes and you'll see where that gets you. If you don't want our money and our votes, there are a lot of gay people ready to leave this abusive relationship. Push hard enough and some of us might leave before 2008.

[mondo joe]

26. With Kerry's lame campaigm, and Rove's vote suppression, you can actually blame the

loss on gays?

That is seriously fucked up.

[kdpeters]

29. You will LOVE this song

I think you'll identify with the lyrics and the message. It sings about how everything that goes wrong in the world and in our lives is because of the gays. He missed the part about Kerry losing the election, but at least he remembered to mention how the gays caused a meteor strike. I swear it's totally serious. You'll love it.

Enjoy: It's All Because (The Gays are Getting Married) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

[Ms. Toad]

31. This is offensive.

Rove and his cohorts cued up an issue they knew would drive religious conservatives (many of whom were not otherwise prone to vote) to the polls who, while they were there, would vote for the republican candidate.

After fighting to keep the issue off the ballots, many of us campaigned vigorously for Kerry. For many, myself included, that meant making a choice between campaigning for Kerry and campaigning against a marriage discrimination amendment. Time was limited and campaigning simultaneously was not a politically acceptable option.

After standing in the cold rain for 12 hours on election day ensuring that all of the voters I rounded up actually made it to the polls, I came back to DU and was confronted with thread after thread spouting the same garbage you have just dredged out of the landfill.

In Ohio, defeating the marriage discrimination amendment would have been an achievable goal with a well organized campaign. The amendment was so poorly drafted that the first use of the amendment was as a defense tool for men accused of beating their domestic partners to whom they were not legally married. This is only one easily foreseeable and easily explainable unintended consequence. Unfortunately (by right wing design) the amendment was placed on the ballot at a time when we were forced to choose between organizing a campaign against the amendment in a single state and organizing/participating in a presidential campaign that has far more potential for doing harm across a much broader array of issues (war, supreme court appointments, environmental issues, etc.). Most of us chose to work to defeat Bush.

That is NOT a choice I will make again. I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is nominated - but if there is marriage discrimination amendment (or similar issue) my time and energy will go to that issue unless the Democratic candidate fully supports my rights (and neither of the two remaining do). That choice is dictated, in large part, by the "thank you" I received from you and fellow Democrats for losing the election for Kerry after I had made the very deliberate choice to submerge my self interests for the "good of the party."

[KamaAina]

50. Ken Blackwell's gay?

And all those Diebold execs, extra gay? Who knew? :eyes:

[Political Heretic]

52. What? Oh, you mean conservatives using anti-equality as a wedge and the publics homophobia cost

Kerry the election?

Ok.

[hulklogan]

56. ha ha ha ha ha....you meant that to be funny, right?

:silly: Straight people have such interesting senses of humor.

[Moloch]

66. How did gays cost Kerry the 04 election?

I'd love to hear this.

[newmajority]

68. Deliberate DLC mismanagement of Kerry's campaign cost him the election

Including a personal suggestion from Bill Clinton himself that he should SUPPORT a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. Kerry wisely rejected that part, but it amazes me that some would still insist that Hillary Clinton, or any other DLC'er, is going to improve anything for the LGBT community.

The first step in pushing the Democratic party towards advocating full equality, is to remove corporatist tools who attend prayer meetings with Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, in some cult called "the Fellowshitp". And all the other tools who claim to fear the bigots in their own states, but vote with them more than half the time (on everything, not just the LGBT issues)

Or to sum it up in one sentence, do you think theres a better chance with a party full of Dennis Kuciniches, or a party full of Hillary Clintons??

[PetraPooh]

6. I highly question the use of the word "homophobia," cautiousness or discomfort

with the repercussions of making gay rights a centerpiece of their campaign is not a phobia of homos. It is so distressing for this term to be thrown around as though our candidates are no better than real homophobes who tend to do harm, often brutal, to gays. Furthermore I think you miscalculate the number of democrats that are uncomfortable with homosexual issues and persons. Unfortunate that it is that way, but it is. I would imagine you are not terribly tolerant of that perspective and don't know too many folks that feel that way, but many dems I know would vote for the marriage amendment.

[eridani]

13. I actually agree. I think it's more accurate to call it political cowardice n/t

[PetraPooh]

34. I can agree with that.

[cboy4]

15. With all due respect, using the word "homos" to

describe gay people is offensive.

"Homo" is a word that is acceptable within the gay community, just as their are words which are acceptable within the African American community that white people cannot/shouldn't use.

("Nigga" is one of them).

But "homo" is commonly, as an alternative to "fag" and other words, used as a slur by bigots............. "You know what those homos want now...?", etc.

I don't think you intended it to be interpreted that way, but you might want to be cautious in the future. It just makes me cringe when I hear straight people use it.

As for the rest of what you wrote, yea, it is distressing to hear about the association of homophobia with otherwise good Democrats and the Democratic Party.

However, nobody ever said truth is a picnic.

[PetraPooh]

32. First of all, what makes you think I'm straight? Secondly,

I was using the appropriate part of the word "homophobia" which is what my post is all about. Try addressing the issue. Do you think it is okay to overuse the word "homophobe" or "homophobia" in such a way that it encompasses many who are not homophobic at all and have never harmed a homo?

[cboy4]

40. Used the word "homo" again? Well, then you must be gay,

because a straight person wouldn't use it so quickly after I mentioned that it's offensive.

So just confirming, are you gay PetraPooh?

And I don't think "homophobe" or "homophobe" is ever overused, if it's applicable.

The article is right on target.

[PetraPooh]

51. No I'm not gay, I would be considered by most as Bi, I have intimacy

equally with men and women.

[cboy4]

54. Sure you are.

:eyes:

[PetraPooh]

55. Well, I'm sorry (not!) if I don't live up to your standards of not being entirely straight.

What a crock to assume that all LGBT's have the same righteous indignation that you crate around.

[ismnotwasm]

38. Know what else is sad?

Even the word "Gay" is thrown out by certain straight folks as an insult. As in "That's so gay" I entirely agree with your OP. As a feminist, I think the roots of "homophobia" and sexism/misogyny stem from much the same source, but that whole discussion is outside your intent here, I think.

[PetraPooh]

58. The problem is . . .

no matter what terms are determined to be PC today, they will turn out to be not-PC within months or years anyway. I don't and have never shied away from any term that is accurate, derogatory is in the eyes of the beholder. If I choose to not be offended by terms then they lose their effectiveness and are no longer presented to me. I don't understand, and never have, why so many groups get their panties in a wad about terms and names. I guess when you have been against the grain as long as I have, things like terms are just too small to worry about.

[readmoreoften]

20. Oh give me a break, this article isn't about making gay rights the centerpiece of a campaign.

It's about so-called liberals and centrist dems who call gay people faggots and maricons and ridicule people with HIV. Take your scarecrow elsewhere, thanks.

Yeah, you're uncomfortable with us. Frankly, I don't give a shit. A lot of white people are uncomfortable with Black folks, a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with atheists. My heart bleeds for the pain of the poor downtrodden power majority.

[PetraPooh]

33. I am not uncomfortable with anything except the careless use of the term "homophobe"

as though anyone who isn't in love with homos and their issues, are somehow afraid. I understand that many are in fact homophobic and tend to cause great harm when they respond to that phobia, but to continue to lump all levels of homo-disdain or homo-carelessness as being the same as "homophobia" is just too far, in my opinion.

[readmoreoften]

62. You're concerned with the use of the word homophobe because you don't want it applied to you.

Look at the way you talk about LGBT people, calling them "homos", and saying that anyone who isn't "in love with their issues" is cited as a homophobe. The way you frame your response, it's pretty clear you're a homophobe dude. It's like the Klan sympathizer saying "as those anyone who isn't in love with the 'darkies' and their issues is, somehow, a racist." The very statement indicates that a racist is speaking. Your very comment indicates a homophobe is running his mouth.

[VotesForWomen]

60. so being anti-anti-gay, is the same as being anti-gay? is being anti-nazi as bad as being anti-jew?

[El Pinko]

7. No offense, but Richardson is not a liberal.

He's to the right of the democratic party - itself a fairly right-leaning corporate-owned organization that only seems progressive next to the extremist-right GOP.

Those of us who are socialists or progressives have to swallow our bile and vote for dems, even though we know they will often work AGAINST the progress we want for society.

It sucks, but that's the breaks in a nation where there is no viable leftist movement.

Welcome to the club.

It seems a stretch to say that Obama (also not a liberal by any stretch) somehow endorsed or condoned McClurkin's wacked-out brand of "Christianity", though.

[cboy4]

17. Yes, I would agree. n/t

[Richard Steele]

12. Sad but true. K&R

[notesdev]

22. A winning issue up to

the point of wanting to be left alone. Most Americans support that and sympathize with that.

But let's face it, the average American would prefer to have nothing to do with homosexuality. And the more militant among the LGBT lobby, with their obnoxious, in-your-face aggressive posture, hurt the cause more than they help it.

If you want gay rights, the way to go about it is not to give the public impression of LGBT that is given by the public-parade crowd. All they do is scare off a lot of people who could otherwise be amenable to the argument.

Flip the argument around for a minute and let's examine another group - Christians. Most Christians want to be left alone to do their own thing in peace, just like the rest of us. But they've got their own way-out-there faction that gives an ugly impression - aggressive, self-righteous evangelist style - and it undercuts the argument of those who want to be left alone. Critics can point to the aggressive ones and say, if you want to be left alone, how do you explain that?

[kevinbgoode]

23. Well, for one thing, we AREN'T left alone. . .

My biggest lesson was several years ago when two good friends, a couple, died from AIDS. When the first one was ill, the partner took care of all of the expenses, all of the health care, all of the funeral arrangements, right up until the end. As soon as the partner died, the family showed up like vultures, asserting their "legally recognized status" to start going after property. The partner of 10 years was described in the local newspaper obituary as "a friend with whom he lived."

When the partner became ill and was nearing death, he paid for his OWN funeral arrangements, along with all of his own health care. Gay friends came over regularly to stay with him, do the household chores, handle other day-to-day affairs. When he died, the funeral arrangements were changed by the "legally-recognized" family, his obituary didn't mention that he ever loved anyone or ever had a partner or even a "friend with whom he lived" and the family swooped over their considerable property assets like they were celebrating Christmas morning.

That horror story was nothing compared to the people tossed out of their own homes when a partner dies, or denied the right to visit in a hospital, or denied the right to ride in an ambulance, or denied the right to admission to their own partners' goddamned funeral.

And yet you view gays who take the position that these are not only a denial of our rights as Americans, but denial of our human dignity as "in-your-face" aggressive posture. Well, we've seen what being NOT in-your-face gave us - everyone just ignored what happened in our lives.

It still happens today. When Matthew Shepard was beaten and tied to a fencepost to die in Wyoming, who showed up at his funeral? Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist gang with their signs and their taunts and their horrific message. That act shocked people in Wyoming so much that there was "talk" about restricting Phelps from demonstrating at funerals - but it was considered unconstitutional. Magically, a dozen years later, after Phelps does the same thing at allegedly hetero soldier funerals, suddenly people discovered dignity and managed to figure out a way to pass laws restricting his groups ability to demonstrate "in-our-face" at a funeral.

We have always wanted to be left alone, but then we weren't the ones arresting others, writing laws and passing constitutional amendments trying to remove our basic human rights. Instead, being "left alone" meant we must be satisfied as some permanent adult ward of the state simply because we are alive - treated and expected to behave as responsible, taxpaying adults while having the most basic life decisions controlled by the heteros who have never left us alone and now whine about us speaking up about it.

[mondo joe]

28. If not for those in-your-face Rosa Parks and MLK types, think how quick white America

would have been to ensure equality back in the 60's!

[PetraPooh]

37. I'm sorry to hear about your two friends, but if they were concerned,

they could've easily had proper documents, wills, power of atty's, and so on drawn up. And before you attempt to suggest that if only they had been married, they wouldn't need those documents, firstly, that isn't always the case as we saw with Anna Nicole Smith and even with a will and being married her claims were still contested, and secondly, marriages cost money also, compared to the average wedding cost, the acquisition of proper documents would not be considered expensive.

[cboy4]

43. "Love is a four letter word"

:spray:

You might wanna yank down that sig line while you're spewing your hate in my thread PetraPooh .. he or she who likes to use the word "homo."

[PetraPooh]

46. Actually my sig is perfectlly appropriate, and what hate do you mean?

IF using the portion of the word used in the OP to discuss the overusage of the OP's term offends you, that's your problem.

[cboy4]

47. No. My problem is straight people like yourself using the

slur, "homo."

My other problem is for intolerant people like yourself to use slogans about love.

You are a walking, talking oxymoron PetraPooh.

[PetraPooh]

48. Not at all, my sig line indicates a complete disrespect for the word "love," don't you get it?

[cboy4]

53. I do get it.

[hulklogan]

59. Marriage costs $19.95 in Las Vegas

Are you saying that is more expensive than the hours and hours of legal fees these supposed "proper documents" would take to draw up?

[mondo joe]

64. Your post is full of shit. My wills and power of attorney and other documents

cost better than a thousand $.

A civil marriage costs next to nothing and instantly grants hundreds of rights and responsibilities, most of which CAN'T be replicated by any other legal contract.

[mondo joe]

27. Since it's the right wing gay-haters making it a political issue, rather than the rights crowd,

you are making a good case that you don't know what you're talking about.

[PetraPooh]

35. Excellent point, and analogy.

[cboy4]

42. Wow. I'm shocked you'd find this an execellent point!

:sarcasm:

[Two Americas]

39. "if you want gay rights..."

It is not about what people "want" it is about justice, and rights are not "gay" and are not something that is awarded to people. Also, there is no "you people" who are "wanting" something.

People are persecuted and segregated and ostracized - that is the only reason that such a thing as "you people" can seem to exist, and blaming people's resistance to mistreatment for causing the problem indicates a profound and complete ignorance about the issue.

You say "let's face it, the average American would prefer to have nothing to do with homosexuality." Politics is not about "preferences," otherwise known as prejudices and bigotry, it is about power and economics, and the struggle for justice and equality.

"I don't care if a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."

As for "hurting the cause more than they help it" with a "militant posture," can you not see that that is the only thing that leads to any discussion about the issue? The supposed incorrectness of the response by people to oppression and persecution has always been used as an excuse for the original oppression and persecution. It was used by apologists for slavery. Many people complained about the exact same thing that you are - that the Abolitionists were shoving the issue into their face, that they were scaring people off with their obnoxious behavior, that they needed to be more polite and accommodating. Are we really to imagine that had slaves and Abolitionists been more docile and polite, so as not to offend people or scare them off, that those good people would have then gone right to work and ended slavery? No, they would have been able to ignore slavery.

The logic there is this - had slaves not acted, oh you know, so much like slaves, then they would not be slaves. Yes, of course, if we ignore the suffering and persecution people are enduring, then there would be no struggle happening, and you would not be offended and scared off. If people would just stop being, oh you know, so gay, then we wouldn't have all of these problems, right?

[cboy4]

41. Oh screw you. Are you going to say that "uppity"

Rosa Parks was obnoxious and "in-your-face aggressive" when she refused to give up her seat on the bus?

Obnoxious?

This has to be one of the very most inarticulate, naive, embarrassing posts -- about what civil rights is all about -- that I've ever seen.

In other words, "hey gays, sit in the back of the bus and keep your damn mouths shut." :eyes:

Atrocious.


on edit...typo

[bobbolink]

45. "with their obnoxious, in-your-face aggressive posture, hurt the cause more than they help it."

That same argument has been said about feminists, about African Americans and Indians, about Hawaiians, about just about every group working actively for Civil Rights.

It's now starting to be said about poor people "complaining", and will be heard more as we gain more voice.

It's time to give it a rest.

[hulklogan]

57. the public parade crowd is a part of the LGBT community

people who don't like it should just turn away. It's not like pride parades are spontaneous events, they're planned far in advance and well-publicized.

[newmajority]

69. But everytime Pat Robertson runs a "Look what those Sodomites are up to now!!" story on the 700 Club

He always pulls out the file footage of the bearded drag queens and the guys in the leather jockstraps in some parade, and that's what his audience think ALL gay people look like. As in every day, not just on a Saturday in June, or even in clubs which cater to those specific tastes, but......**GASP**.... maybe the two gay guys who are trying to buy the house down the street, right here in Virginia Fucking Beach!!!! :wow:



"And the Lord can't stop these horrible sinning heathens, unless you send me all your money"

[readmoreoften]

63. Great. When the uppity Christians get out of my face, I'll get out of theirs.

[SidDithers]

25. Sadly, I think there is a large % of DU'ers...

who are ignorant of LGBT issues, and who let their inner "ick factor" get in the way of their respect for LGBT individuals.

The Thomas Beattie threads illustrate this pretty clearly.

Sid

[Orsino]

30. If you're willing to sell out your LGBT brothers and sisters...

...and then cheer about it, you ain't no liberal.

[cboy4]

44. Thanks Orsino.

:pals:

[Stinky The Clown]

36. You're right. Panderers will throw gays under the bus in a heartbeat. They also shit their .........

.... pants when asked about gay marriage. Waffle and weasel, but no real support. We have the last two standing candidates who are afraid of this issue. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3097457#3099857

Gay people are easy to throw under buses for political gain..

And then there are the just plain old homophobes. That disease knows no political boundaries.

[Political Heretic]

49. Yes, it is a real problem. I don't know what else to say. We have a long, long way to go.

[roughsatori]

61. A Great Post! but the replies, in some cases, disturb me.

In fact some of the posts in this thread are bizarre. Thanks for posting. I had not read that about Richardson though it is not surprising at all.

[Moloch]

65. Richardson has had a pattern of homophobia...

claiming homosexuality is a "choice" at a debate. He would not be a good choice for VP for that reason... GLB people are a strong constituency for the Democratic Party. There would be a strong backlash if he is on the presidential ticket..

[cboy4]

67. I'm glad to hear an Obama supporter say this.

:thumbsup:

[newmajority]

70. I forgave him for the use of the word "choice" at the LOGO debate

It was a bad choice of words, obviously, but when he explained himself either there or later, I didn't believe he was saying that sexual orientation itself was a matter of choice. I believe he has signed anti-discrimination bills into law as governor, so he can't be in the Phelps camp, exactly.

Admittedly, I have mentioned Richardson as a strong contender for VP because of his resume, but I am seriously troubled by the fact that he went on some racist asshole's radio show and referred to someone as a "faggot" in ANY language. I'm no fluent speaker of Spanish by any means, but "maricon" is a word I would have recognized if I had heard the broadcast. (never listened to Imus willingly).

Bad fucking move, Bill. :evilfrown: