web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "LGBT Issues"

Another success story to add to Marcus Bachmann’s theory of praying away the gay:

Emails shared with The Indianapolis Star suggest that state Rep. Phillip Hinkle — responding to a local posting on Craigslist — offered a young man $80 plus tip to spend time with him Saturday night at the JW Marriott hotel.

The emails, sent from Hinkle’s publicly listed personal address, ask the young man for “a couple hours of your time tonight” and offer him cash up front, with a tip of up to $50 or $60 “for a really good time.”

The email exchange is in response to the Craigslist posting in which the young man — who lists his age as 20 in the ad but says he is 18 years old — says, “I need a sugga daddy.”

The young man told The Star that they met, but that he tried to leave after the man told him he was a state lawmaker. He said the lawmaker at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, exposed himself to the young man and then later gave him an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet.

I wonder if all these Republican drops in the “closeted hypocrite” bucket will ever finally spill over into a real reckoning about the GOP’s absurd crusade against evil homosexuals.

SpongeBob

"Mmm, sexy." -- James Dobson*

Hat tip to Elizabeth, my significant other, for bringing Dobson’s second (at least!) bout of caring far too much about the sexual orientation of SpongeBob SquarePants. I should be fair and admit that the evangelicals I know found this particular story is as buffoonish as I did the last time it came out, but the fact is that Dobson’s hyperimaginative homophobic projection is really just an exaggeration of what a lot of right-wing Christianists do on a normal basis. That he’s taking it this far just helps discredit the right’s larger argument. Dobson’s nuttiness is not an asset for right-wing Christians, but it’s a boon for those of us who oppose their policy preferences.

* Not intended to be a factual statement.

Lev filed this under: ,  

Hahahahaha:

As President Obama honored fallen soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, three members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the ceremny, holding signs that read “Pray for more dead soldiers” and “God hates your prayers,” as the controversial group has become known to do. They were met by about 70 counterprotesters, including members from a group just as contentious as the church: the Ku Klux Klan.

Dennis LaBonte, who told CNN he was a military veteran and the “imperial wizard” of a KKK chapter, said the approximately 10 members of the group came in “support of the troops.” LaBonte, who said he’s not a “hate-monger,” said he “thinks that it’s an absolute shame that [the WBC] show up and disrupt people’s funerals.” The group was cordoned off in a separate area and reportedly “drew little attention.”

Yup, the KKK is more pissed off about a homophobic asshole like Fred Phelps than they are about President Darky McZulu-Commie poisoning Arlington National Cemetery with his anti-white, anti-colonial blackness.

“And now, in other news, Zombie Hitler calls Nancy Grace “A bitch, too far beyond the pale.  A real schweinehund.”

The arc of history, and all that…

via Anne Laurie

Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

Tina Nguyen takes aim at left-wingers angry at gay people for voting Republican:

The head of the Human Rights Campaign went apoplectic when 30% of gay voters went Republican in the 2010 election, accusing the apostates of expecting too much from poor Obama.  And according to GOProud’s Chris Barron, 95% of the group’s hate mail and criticism comes from leftists shocked that gay people could be more than one-issue voters.  It’s no accident that radical anti-gay writers like Ryan Sorba quote radical gay activists favorably – they both agree that under no circumstances should gay people be allowed to have anything resembling political self-determination.

This narrow-mindedness on the part of LGBT activists is not just an affront to the personal freedom championed by Gaga, it’s also a toxic form of oppression. Despite gay and lesbian voters increasingly voting Republican, Democrats insist that the LGBT community is theirs and theirs alone, unwilling to recognize that maybe, just maybe, that 30% of LGBT voters in 2010 decided that the economy was a more pressing issue.  With the highly publicized drama over DADT’s repeal and DOMA’s sidelining last year, they likely saw that Democrats don’t mind bluffing with their muffins of promised gay civil rights. Behind the DNC’s poker face is a monster playing a love game with their voters, willing to throw its sexual minority constituencies off a balcony for political purposes.  (It took our beloved Gaga three months of lobbying the Senate Dems to get DADT repealed—and that’s after donning the Meat Dress.)

I think there’s truth to a lot of this (though it’s worth noting that the last two years were true watershed on the matter of gay rights). Then again, McCain won 26% of LGBT voters in 2008, so 30% isn’t really a hugely impressive number in a good Republican year. Still, there’s no denying that there are a number of left-of-center people who really get bothered by the fact that about a quarter of gay voters vote Republican, or a tenth of Black voters cast for the GOP. I’ve interacted with a number of them.

But if there’s one thing Nguyen doesn’t grasp here, it’s the why. I’m not sure polling would get at this, and I’m not aware of detailed studies or anything else so I’m just going to go with my gut intuition based on my experience, which is: it’s a factor of frustration and sheer incomprehensibility. I personally don’t get irritated about this kind of stuff (I believe my reaction to gay voters voting Republican would be something along the lines of, “Good luck with that!”), but you have to think about the bigger picture. You have one party that’s broadly supportive of gay rights. You have another that’s broadly not. For a lot of activists, it simply wouldn’t make any sense why any gay voters would ever vote Republican. I’ve heard some variations on this with Black voters, since it’s a part of the Republican rulebook to try to keep Black voters from voting, period, even in blue states and even with moderate candidates. Of course, this is small potatoes compared to the most frequent despairing liberal argument of this type, which is the old chestnut of why do downscale voters ever vote for the GOP? After all, it’s against their economic interests to do so. Which is a good point, though the argument is usually delivered in such a way that downscale voters would probably not be very receptive to it.

The disconnect here is that the left sees its policies on key subjects as superior to those of the Republicans, and find it difficult to understand why Democrats don’t get all of the votes from these groups. The reason for that is because those aren’t the only issues that matter to their respective groups. It doesn’t make sense to me to overlook such big issues, but it’s not my decision. Still, one hardly hears this about every group that votes Democratic. With LGBT in particular, I’d say the fact that Republicans spent much of the last decade trying to demonize them solely to win elections that makes the act of their voting Republican just seem nuts.

Lev filed this under: , ,  
Rarely have I seen the basic logic of this ever-present cliche so efficiently dismembered, in the course of a libertarian case for gay marriage: “How does that work? If you find pedophilia disgusting, do you secretly want to rape kids? If you’re against the senseless torturing of animals, do you secretly want to hook up a kitten to a car battery? No. Only when you say homosexuality might be gross does this logic apply.” Could it be that some people do just find it disgusting? Not that I approve of the attitude that that personal squeamishness should keep people from exercising their rights, and the whole mentality is usually due to a lack of exposure to actual gay people. I know it was for me growing up. You know when it changed? When I actually met some gay people. And Andrew Sullivan’s book made the important point that a lot of the virulently antigay people see themselves as coming from a place of love, to try to somehow improve the lives of gay people or save their souls. Bigotry is bad, but it’s not the exclusive province of the homophobes by any means. This is in response to some comments by the actress Jane Lynch in an interview to the effect that Obama didn’t want to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Right before he did it. In terms of her quality as a political pundit, Jane Lynch makes for a very funny actress. (Okay, old joke, but still…it’s true.) This all just makes me wonder why so many progressives simply don’t trust Barack Obama at all. Okay, it’s one thing to say that he’s made mistakes and hasn’t fulfilled every promise, though he has followed through on a lot, and some of the ones on which he didn’t weren’t his fault. But still, you’re confronted constantly by left-wingers who won’t just say that Obama means well but hasn’t delivered on what they wanted, but that not delivering is somehow proof that he’s actively opposed to all of their values, as opposed to a politician who sympathizes with them but has to deal with political realities. After all, 51% of voters wanted the public option, and if he just wanted it enough the 60 votes would surely appear in response to that overwhelming public demand! That it didn’t happen must mean Obama didn’t want it to. This. Is. Just. Nuts. As many of the more wonky bloggers will tell you, nearly all of those shortfalls can be laid neatly at the feet of the United States Senate, particularly on a small number of conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans with whom Obama had next to no leverage, and the strategy that Obama followed–doing his best at accommodation, basically–was probably optimal. But that very simple, very logical explanation does not have much truck with the likes of Kos, Hamsher, and apparently Jane Lynch. It’s too nuanced. Too complicated. Blaming Senate rules for the failure of cap-and-trade (which would have been a push even with a majority Senate before Scott Brown won) and the death of the public option is an easy case to make, and to my mind the right explanation. But it’s not a satisfying explanation, emotionally speaking. Blaming the president, despite the convoluted case, has got to be more satisfying. Taking the angle that Obama’s detached cool is indicative of a bloodless, sniveling nature is a tempting enough line of attack. Of course, Obama’s coldness is substantially exaggerated by detractors, as there are plenty of instances of him showing passion in speeches. But it’s a convenient narrative. The alternatives are not as dramatic or direct–I could understand blaming Senate Democrats for not ending the filibuster in 2009, as doing that would have rendered the filibustering Republicans powerless. But as targets for anger, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson don’t make as big of targets as Obama.

When even HotAir’s Allahpundit is calling out slimy anti-gay Republican Senators on their votes against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the wingnuts probably have a problem:

I support the move, but if you don’t, look at it this way: As Gates has often said, if it didn’t happen here it probably would have happened in the courts. Civilian control of the military is one thing, judicial control is something else, so the fact that repeal now wears a democratic halo will hopefully make it more tolerable to skeptics inside the branches. For your enjoyment (or irritation), via Think Progress, here’s video of a very peevish Maverick grumbling in his floor speech today about liberal civilians from coast to coast high-fiving over this. True enough, but it ain’t just liberals — support for repeal is upwards of 80 percent in some polls — and it ain’t just civilians.

This probably amounts to a new rule: Whatever pisses off President McCain is probably a good thing.

And a little more institutional bigotry is slated to be thrown into the dustbin of history:

On a 63-33 vote, and with six Republicans voting “yes,” the U.S. Senate — at a little before noon today — voted for cloture on the stand-alone bill aimed at repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, overcoming the largest hurdle remaining for repeal of the 1993 law banning openly gay, lesbian and bisexual military service.

The House approved the bill overwhelmingly this past week, and President Barack Obama has expressed his strong support for the bill and is expected to sign it.

The cloture vote, which required the approval of at least 60 senators, means that only 30 hours of debate remain before DADT repeal comes up for a final vote. Usually, because the vote for final passage only requires a simple majority vote of the senators, the 30-hour requirement is waived. It was not clear, however, whether Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would allow the requirement to be waived regarding the DADT repeal bill.

Big winners: Harry Reid (shudder) and Nancy Pelosi (huzzah!)

Big losers: John McCain (who will now go down in history as the grumpy old man who fought to preserve institutional bigotry) and Joe Manchin (D?) (who didn’t eve have the balls to show up for the vote).

From:  Senate Achieves Cloture on DADT Repeal, Bill on Path Become Law – Poliglot.