June 5, 2009

Ex-Congressional Candidate Outs Three South Carolina Republicans… Sort Of

I’d send you directly over to the original source, but it’s actually easier to understand what’s going on if you read the summary from QNotes first, and then follow the link from there:

An openly lesbian 2008 South Carolina Democratic candidate for Congress has called out three Palmetto State Republicans for being closeted gays in an interview for a progressive Democratic blog.

The bombshell statements were made in a FireDogLake interview on June 1 from Linda Ketner, an openly lesbian 2008 Democratic candidate against South Carolina’s First Congressional District incumbent Henry Brown.

“We have more gay people serving in South Carolina than probably in anyplace in the United States; they’re just not out of the closet,” she told blogger Howie Klein. “We have an awful lot of people in the closet — Lindsey Graham, Glenn McConnell who’s our Senate president pro tem, our Lt Governor [André Bauer].”

Later in the comment section of the website, Ketner clarified her remarks, “By the way, in Howie’s intro, he quoted me as saying several members of state and U.S. government were gay,” she said. “I don’t know that for sure having never been intimate with any of them. Those are the rumors.” …

Blogger and activist Michael Rogers, who has worked for years outing anti-gay, closeted politicians, said individuals should be careful making accusations without certainty or proof. …

No kidding. Not too smart to set yourself up for a lawsuit, Linda — not that we think you’re wrong or anything, but still. That’d be like us saying Jodie Foster is a lesbian, without having, like, any proof, you know?

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Gay Republicans, Outing & Coming Out, Republicans, South Carolina


May 20, 2009

Because We Haven’t Succumbed to a Big Ol’ Sleazy Tabloid Story About Carrie Prejean’s Allegedly Big Ol’ Lesbian Mom in, Like, a Week

But who can resist The Star, especially when it names Miss Opposite Marriage California’s mother’s alleged (gasp!) lesbian lover? (One Valerie Vetrano, in case you’re wondering.)

We can’t. And we make no apologies for enjoying this spectacle to the fullest. It’s almost as good as Wayne Besen catching Porno Pete on video in flagrante with Charlie Crist. Well, no, nothing would be as good as that. But it’s still a pretty satisfying guilty pleasure. (Except we’re still waiting to feel guilty. Wait, let me check… Hmm, nope, nothing yet.)

Of course, The Star wants you to actually buy the rag, with the breathless promise of “amazing photos of Carrie’s mom on the night she seduced Valerie at a California bar’s lesbian night!”

If this is all legit, we will be amazed. And very, very amused.

Naughty us.cheesy grun

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Celebrities, Christianity, Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, Homophobia, Marriage, Outing & Coming Out, Radical Religious Right


Marriage Equality D.O.A. in New Hampshire

They say they’re going to try to “resolve the differences between the two chambers” of the New Hampshire legislature, but for now, the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” is a meaningless joke:

New Hampshire lawmakers
reject gay-marriage bill

• House blocks bill by slim two-vote margin

• Exemption for religious institutions sticking point

• Bill faces further debate and possible governor veto (Adds details, reaction)

Read on at the link.

Meanwhile, State Representative Steve Vaillancourt is just another reason we have nothing but utter disdain for Republican homosexuals (because there’s nothing “gay” about these traitors).

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, Marriage, New Hampshire, Radical Religious Right, Republicans


May 12, 2009

Flash! Charlie Crist is Still NOT Gay, Was NOT Outed in “Outrage,” and ISN’T Running for the U.S. Senate!

Charlie Crist, Still Not Gay
“Hi, I’m Charlie Crist, and
I’m totally Not Gay!”

Oh, wait, he was, and he is.

But he’s still really, really, really NOT GAY, just as we reported last July: “…he’s so Not Gay, he’s marrying a woman, who is so Not A Beard,” and again in August, when we made sure you knew Charlie Crist was NOT just another one of those pathetic Republican closet cases who had to prove he was totally NOT GAY by endorsing Florida’s anti-gay Amendment 2, which—

Oh, wait, he did.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Down-Low/MSM, Florida, Gay Republicans, Marriage, Outing & Coming Out, Republicans


May 8, 2009

Out, Damn Hypocrites! Out, I Say! (Plus: D.C. News Anchor Threatens Mike Rogers With Violence)

Juicy bits after the trailer:

 
Read more »»»

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, Marriage, Movies, Outing & Coming Out, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans


December 9, 2008

Good! Larry Craig Loses Appeal to Withdraw Guilty Plea

Blogged it over at Conservative Babylon, where you’ll find all our Larry Craig news, including the main rundown on Mr. “I’m Not Gay (’Cause There’s Nothing Gay About Being A Sad, Old, Self-Loathing Closet Case Who Cruises Airport Toilets).”

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Crime, Gay Republicans, Idaho, Minnesota, Republican Sexcapades


November 27, 2008

Shameless Self-Plug: Bush Blowout Sale

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Business/Economy, Election 2004, Gay Republicans, George W. Bush, Republicans


October 22, 2008

Trevor Potter: McCain’s Great Lawyer, Gays’ Great Traitor

Sheesh! This is why LGBTs never gain any traction in the Democratic party; they’re always willing to defend the indefensible:

Gay attorney plays key role in McCain campaign

Trevor Potter, a former chair of the U.S. Federal Election Commission who is gay, is serving as the top lawyer for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

As the campaign’s general counsel, Potter has been identified by newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post as one of the nation’s most highly regarded experts on U.S. election laws. Potter has been credited with helping draft the McCain-Feingold Act, a bipartisan federal measure that reformed federal campaign finance laws.

But few mainline news outlets have reported on Potter’s other role as a high-level, openly gay adviser to McCain. …

Potter declined a request for an interview for this story, saying he would prefer not to talk about himself in his role as attorney for the McCain campaign.

I’ll just bet he’d prefer not to talk about it; i.e., account for it.

HRC spokesperson Brad Luna said Potter served on the HRC board from 2002 to 2006 and was a regular financial contributor to HRC.

Which is one of the biggest issues we have with the HRC: morphing from grassroots liberal activism into a big-moneyed cocktail-party circuit hijacked by Republicans at the very top. But that’s another gripe for another day.

“Of all the Republicans you want to deal with, he is a straight shooter,” said Hilary Rosen, another Democratic Party activist and former HRC board member.

And I’d want to deal with Republicans… why, again?

“He is a decent, wise friend of our community,” she said. “Trevor knows where McCain stands on gay issues. He isn’t going to change him. But that doesn’t make Trevor any less decent of a person.”

Well, bully for you, Hilary, but in our book, he could solve global warming, end world hunger, and bring peace to the Middle East tomorrow morning, and he’d still be a chicken working for Colonel Sanders.

More at the link — which is a testament to Potter’s unimpeachable prowess as a lawyer.

But none of that makes up for him sleeping with the enemy.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Election 2008, Gay Republicans, John McCain, Republicans


October 11, 2008

“Gender Auditors” Knock on David Dreier’s Closet Door

Courage Campaign Urges Congressman David Dreier to Come Out Against Prop 8

Online Organizing Network Launches New Online Action to Urge Dreier to Oppose the Ballot Measure Eliminating Rights to Same-Sex Marriage

LOS ANGELES — The Courage Campaign, an online organizing network of nearly 100,000 members in California, today launched an online petition urging Congressman David Dreier (R-San Dimas) to come out against Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would, as the ballot description reads, “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

“David Dreier voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he didn’t feel it was appropriate for the Constitution to be used to restrict rights,” said Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign. “Well, now the right-wing extremists behind Prop. 8 want to use the California constitution to restrict rights, precisely what David Dreier opposed at the Federal level. That’s why some Republicans, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have stated their opposition to Prop 8.”

The online petition asks Congressman Dreier to sign a pledge vowing to vote No on Prop 8. The petition can be viewed at:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/DreierVoteNo

“It’s time to put our elected leaders to the test,” added Jacobs. “Will David Dreier vote the right way when the same question is on the California ballot?”

The signed petitions will be delivered to Congressman Dreier’s district office following Monday’s signature deadline.

Earlier this week, the Courage Campaign launched a web ad that uses humor to educate voters about the consequences of Proposition 8. The ad “Gender Auditors” can be viewed at the Courage Campaign’s “Pledge to Vote No on Prop 8″ page at:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/NoOnProp8

Please see the letter to Congressman Dreier appended below:

Dear Rep. David Dreier,

We, the undersigned, urge you to come out against Proposition 8, which “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry” the person they love in California.

You have voted the right way in the past, so we think it’s time for you come out against Prop 8 today. Please join us in taking the following pledge:

“I pledge to vote No on Prop 8, a statewide ballot initiative that, if passed, ‘eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry.’

“Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same fundamental freedoms that all Californians enjoy. I pledge to vote No on any constitutional change that stands in the way of equality for all.”

Following the lead of Governor Schwarzenegger and other Republicans, we urge you to vote No on Prop 8. Thank you for your consideration of this fundamentally important issue to Californians.

Sincerely,

The undersigned

The Courage Campaign is an online organizing network that empowers nearly 100,000 grassroots and netroots activists to make 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California.

Whether it’s helping kill the GOP’s electoral college initiative “dirty trick,” count the infamous “double bubble” votes in Los Angeles after Super Tuesday, or push for the ultimate closure of the “yacht tax loophole,” the Courage Campaign has waged many successful campaigns.

Rick Jacobs is the founder and chair of the Courage Campaign. He chaired Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in California. He is also the co-founder of Brave New Films and a featured contributor to Arianna Huffington’s Huffingtonpost.com. Rick has an extensive background as an international investor and senior executive.

Related:

Video: Gender Auditors

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, Marriage, Press Releases, Proposition 8, Republicans


October 1, 2008

How Stupid Is John Cain? He Wants Us Chickens to Consider Voting for Colonel Sanders

Unbelievable interview in the Washington Blade:

‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, sorry, couldn’t help that. Let’s do go on.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.” …

BWAHAHAH—! Damn. Sorry.

McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. …

Yeah, and he said he’d leave marriage to the states, too — until he realized he needed to suck James Dobson’s Bible bookmark a lot harder to win over the evangelamentals.

Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?

I can answer that! Your North Vietnamese captors were “pretty damned sadistic” homosexuals who seemed to get a “big bang” out of torturing you.

John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years.

That punk?! Mr. Forced-Out-of-the-Closet, who won’t even co-sponsor the UAFA because he’s got the connections to keep his Panamanian lover in the U.S. as long as he wants? That Jim Kolbe?

Don’t make me laugh — Jim Kolbe isn’t gay — he’s just a homosexual. And he’d still be a Larry Craig-style homosexual if he hadn’t been outed by Kurt Wolfe.

… When he came out in 1996…

Was forced out.

…there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.

Yeah, you wouldn’t want your screwing around on your first wife or the Vicki Iseman story to be made “relevant in public life,” would you, Johnny?

I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years.

A Log Cabinette. A Jew for Hitler.

He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. …

Like I said, a Jew for Hitler.

Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?

McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign.

That’s sad to hear.

Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. …

What, a queer has to die saving his country before you can “honor and respect” him? You sure don’t “honor and respect” those of us still alive and living with your party’s vile attacks on us every day of the week.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?

McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?

McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role. …

Just the answer I expected: a non-answer.

Translation: “I’m gonna pack SCOTUS with all the Scalias and Thomases I can dig up, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it, so kiss your ‘rights’ goodbye, pansies.”

Then he pats himself on the back for supporting PEPFAR, and then he avoids the question of whether he’d have a LGBT liaison in the White House:

I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. …

Except gay ones.

He also won’t give a straight answer on ENDA or DADT (you expected him to?).

Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?

McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.

Dog whistle: “I’m only willing to meet with fag— er, Uncle Tom— er, Republican homos. The rest of you can bite me.”

Next, he says he appreciates the endorsement of the Log Cabinettes, and then delivers the punch line:

I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.

My Aunt Fanny you will.

Next, he goes back to paying lip service to “states’ rights” and marriage equality, driving his homophobia home for the benefit of the religious extremists:

However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.

There’s no “debate” on equal rights — you’re either for equality, or you’re against it. It’s clear where you stand, McCain.

And you wouldn’t recognize the “dignity of every person” if it bit you in the ass. (Tell me, have you stopped using the word “gooks”? And do you still stand by “I will hate them as long as I live”?)

He then points out that he voted against the FMA, because “this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”

Next, the Blade corners him on his opposition to LGBT adoption:

Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?

McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child. …

Taking your talking points from Maggie Gallagher then, are you?

As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.

Homophobic little jerk.

Lots more of the same, and then:

Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?

McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.

Never mind that Del and Phyllis were far more successful at marriage than you could ever hope to be, McCain. Jealous much?

Next, he tries (and fails) to justify voting against the Matthew Shepard Act, and finally dodges a Boy Scouts question.

Now, all you homos and ‘phobes voting for McCain, raise your hands — I want to know who you are so I can avoid getting the stink of you on me.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Arizona, California, Civil Rights, Election 2008, Employment/ENDA, Focus on the Family/James Dobson, Gay Republicans, HIV/AIDS, Hate Crimes, Homophobia, Immigration, John McCain, Marriage, Military/DADT, Parenting, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans


September 16, 2008

Republicans Using Actual Republican Arguments Against Proposition 8

You read that right: Republicans against Proposition 8, California’s anti-marriage equality initiative — and their arguments for opposing Prop 8 are genuine conservative arguments, the kind that would make Barry Goldwater proud.

See for yourself — and then make sure you pass this URL to all your Republican family and acquaintances:

http://www.republicansagainst8.com/

Granted, the Republicans Against 8 coalition was formed by the Log Cabin Republicans — but it’s a worthy venture, especially as 1) the arguments against Prop 8 (among them: Prop 8 is bad for business; it violates the principles of limited government, personal responsibility and individual liberty; and “What’s next? Telling us how to discipline our children? Taking away the right to home schooling?”) cannot be refuted by any real conservative, and 2) the site cites a bunch of high-profile, straight Republicans (starting with Arnold Schwarzenegger) who don’t want to destroy the freedom and equality of gay and lesbian Californians.

The section I think I like best is “Ronald Reagan on Fundamental Freedoms”:

Ronald Reagan spoke out thirty years ago when fundamental freedoms for gay and lesbian Californians were under attack at the ballot box.

At the end of a meeting with gay and lesbian leaders in his Los Angeles office in 1978, Ronald Reagan smiled and said, “Don’t think we can allow something like that to happen here in California.” He was denouncing the Briggs Initiative, Proposition 6, which he opposed and would have permitted the firing of gay teachers in California.

Reagan, who by then had served two terms as governor, was gearing up to run for President. His opposition is credited with the defeat of the measure by more than 1,000,000 votes.

Good work, Log Cabinettes. Now if you’d just rescind your McCain endorsement, we’d get along much, much better.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: California, Gay Republicans, LGBT Organizations, Marriage, Proposition 8, Republicans, Ronald Reagan


August 7, 2008

LGBT DUers: You Can’t Call Out the Homophobes — But We Can

Normally, I breeze by the homophobic garbage on Democratic Underground, partly because I don’t haunt the halls of DU anymore (unless I’m tipped off to a particularly interesting meltdown going on in real-time), and mostly because I don’t see the point in torturing myself watching my people battle those hopelessly (and happily) entrenched in their own bigotry. I wasted six years battling the “Some of my best friends are gay, so I’m an expert on what’s homophobic and what’s not” brigades myself, and it was, indeed, a complete waste of time I could have spent doing something, anything, more productive… like trying to teach goldfish to drive.

Hearing there was something of a meltdown going on (again), I ran across a post by a gay DUer I’ve long liked and respected, who (for the umpteenth time for any LGBT DUer) pointed out the pervasive compulsion to label George W. Bush, or Karl Rove, or pretty much any right-winger as “gay.” This is different from outing a right-winger who really is gay (or at least a verifiable down-low type like Larry Craig); this is the Everyone We Hate is Gay syndrome, and it’s ugly, and extremely offensive to gay people.

After reading the usual “I don’t see any homophobia, so it doesn’t exist” replies from DUers who either have a serious memory disorder, or feign blindness to the neverending stream of homophobia right in front of their keyboards, I thought I’d ever-so-helpfully dredge up a few examples of what they’re “not seeing”… which, apparently, is too herculean a task for the Google-impaired.

Here are 1) the original post in question, and 2) two of the nastiest, most insensitive replies:

LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-04-08 02:57 PM
Original message

I don’t feel welcome here

I’ve been around here for years and it just never stops. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay”. It happens over and over. It’s against the rules and the mods do try, but it never ends. Why?

They say that doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity so I don’t know why I keep expecting it to change.

I don’t know what to do, but I don’t like how DU makes me feel.

 

devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-04-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message

15. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay” - By whom?

Quit painting everyone with one brush stroke please.

:mad:

 

kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-04-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message

22. Do you always make shit like this up?

I have been here quite a while and can’t recall a single instance of a Republican being called gay for the hell of it. Now, if they are gay AND closeted AND a homophobe, I can see that.

You probably wanna run back to FR if you wanna concoct fables out of whole cloth.

For these “I can’t recall” folks (who can never again claim that DUers just don’t do this sort of thing), here’s a memory-refresher (and this, my friends, only scratches the surface):

2003

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay, and did it with Victor Ashe in the “Satanic, homosexual, NAZI Secret Society Skull & Bones”

Rush Limbaugh is gay

Arnold Schwarzenegger is gay

Tony Blair is a nancy-boy

Tony Blair is still a nancy-boy

Is Tom DeLay gay?

Is Condoleezza Rice a lesbian?

2004

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush was a crossdressing cheerleader, so he’s gay (and Laura is a man)

If Bush is gay, is that what made him an alcoholic, too?

George W. Bush has “been banging Victor Ashe since their days at Yale,” and 73% of DUers polled agree

Dick Cheney is “a repressed gay,” and Lynne Cheney is a lesbian

It doesn’t matter if George W. Bush is gay, as long as smearing him as being gay helps John Kerry

Kenneth Starr is a nancy-boy

Sean Hannity is a nancy-boy

Brit Hume is a scum-sucking coward nancy boy

Tucker Carlson is a pansy-ass, bow-tie wearing little nancy boy

Tony Blair is still a nancy-boy

2005

George W. Bush is bi

George W. Bush is bi, and so is his father

George W. Bush is a repressed homosexual

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay, because he was a cheerleader, and his parents had him “de-gayed”

George W. Bush is gay, and doing it with Jeff Gannon

Jeff Gannon is George Bush’s gay love slave

George W. Bush is gay, and so was Hitler

Karl Rove is gay

Scott McClellan is gay

Scott McClellan is gay

Is Rush Limbaugh gay?

Rush Limbaugh is gay

Rush Limbaugh is gay

Rush Limbaugh is gay

Rush Limbaugh is gay

Rush Limbaugh is gay… and so are Hannity, Bush, Rove, Santorum, and McClellan

John Roberts is gay

Prince Charles is a nancy-boy

Tucker Carlson is a nancy-boy

Harriet Miers and Condoleezza Rice must be lesbians

Is Donald Rumsfeld gay?

2006

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is gay

Victor Ashe is proof that Bush is gay

Karl Rove is gay…

…and a “very odd subtext” proves it

Karl Rove is gay

Karl Rove is gay, and so are all the single men in the Bush administration

Karl Rove is a nancy-boy who will get raped in prison

Rick Santorum is a self-hating, gay, homophobic, limp-wristed nancy boy

Mel Gibson is “nelly”

Wolf Blitzer is gay

Dennis Hastert is gay, because, after all, he was a wrestling coach

Ann Coulter is a gay transsexual

Phil Mickelson is a nancy-boy

2007

Is the GOP unintentionally gay?

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush is a gay nancy-boy

George W. Bush is a wimpy, nancy-boy ex-cheerleader who can’t stay on his bicycle

Karl Rove is gay

Karl Rove is gay, and doing it with Jeff Gannon

Karl Rove is gay, and doing it with Jeff Gannon, again

Trent Lott is gay

Mike Huckabee is gay

James Holsinger is gay

Sean Hannity is gay

Is Bobby Ray Inman gay?

GOP = Gay Old Party

Michael Bloomberg, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney set off everyone’s gaydar (especially straight people’s)

Mitt Romney must be gay, because he spends “a lot of time to look handsome,” and anyway, a gay would know this, because gays have gaydar

Lindsey Graham’s first name might have made him gay

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian… who had an affair with a Muslim Pakistani*

Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian — she’s too “smart,” “intelligent,” and “strong” to be a lesbian

Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian

2008

George W. Bush is gay

George W. Bush and Karl Rove are gay

George W. Bush is gay and his favorite prostitute is Jeff Gannon

Fred Phelps is gay, because he wears “gay outfits”

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian… who had an affair with a Muslim Pakistani (redux)

Mitch McConnell is gay

Matt Blunt is gay

And the winner of the Most Offensive Asshat on DU in 2008 (So Far) Award goes to “kurtboss,” who — to the credit of the DU admins — has since been banned:

kurtboss (361 posts)
Mon Aug-04-08 09:05 PM
Original message

McCain is Gay– The Nuclear Option of Negatives (and it will work)

Okay, let’s just make clear that there is nothing wrong with being Gay, however employing this strategy does make use of the negative cultural stereotypes about homosexuality. It’s exploiting it…but, to a good end.

So, here’s the deal. I want opinions. I don’t know if he’s really gay, but it doesn’t matter. This is hardball politics. A war, healthcare, the economy, etc all ride on this election…so it’s probably worth getting dirty for a couple months. I believe this can destroy his chances for victory by putting this seed of doubt in the minds of bigots.

1. The GOP Evangelicals HATE gays

2. Obviously easy to exploit McCain’s obsession with Obama–it’s practically pathetic at this point and noted everywhere in the media

3. He’s in the Navy. Village People anyone? It gets awfully lonely on ships.

4. To tie this up for you…McCain is already questioned by the Evangelicals and absolutely requires they turn out for him in droves. It’s his weakness.

How to attack it? Viral email. Youtube some effete moments put together…perhaps the infamous hug?? McCain is pretty pro-gay as GOP guys on policy isn’t he??? Check out the four photos below in what my FIRST and only google image search turned of of McCain hug

As for transphobia (or: Everyone We Hate is Transgender), there are far too many references to “Mann Coulter” to waste my time listing them all; see for yourself.

Ditto Ann Coulter’s adam’s apple.

Don’t even get me started on the “prison rape is funny” posts — or the “Gays will lose us the next election! / Gays lost us the election!” scapegoating that happens every two years, like clockwork.
 
* While Hillary Clinton is not a right-winger, she is loathed as much as Bush, Rove, and all the rest by a substantial portion of DU. Remember, the ploy is called Everyone We Hate is Gay.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Condoleezza Rice, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Gay Republicans, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, Homophobia, John McCain, Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Random Bigotry, Random Stupidity, Republicans, Rick Santorum


July 16, 2008

David Benkof: The Mysterious Disappearance of the Tragic Anti-Gay Gay

David BenkofWho is David Benkof?

That’s a good question, one I’m not sure Mr. Benkof himself could answer. In fact, I’m certain he can’t.

In short, David Benkof, a.k.a. David Bianco, had a mercifully-brief career condemning the marriage equality movement — and condemning gay and lesbian people in general — on his blog, GaysDefendMarriage.com, billed as “A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife — and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community.”

Just another member of the 101st Gay-Basher Keyboard Brigade, you say?

Oh, no. No, no, no.

There’s much more to David Benkof that that.

Want to know more? OK. Grab that popcorn, pop that Coke can, settle back, and I’ll fill you in.

David Benkof:

• equates prison rape with gay sex, and blames the gay community for the existence of violent pornography (Exchange on prison rape,” June 25, 2008; “Why don’t gays care about prison rape?,” July 3, 2008; “Cleaning up gay porn,” July 7, 2008);

• equates gay sex with pedophilia (”Cleaning up gay porn”; “I’m really, really sorry,” July 9, 2008), because, after all, sexual predators coerce children “into sexual activities that are precisely the same as the ones gay and bisexual men do in bedrooms, bathhouses, parks, and piers with each other”;

• insists there is a direct connection between the gay community and NAMBLA, and that he has “tons of data that shows how a significant subset of the gay community in America has always supported adult-child sex,” citing a “historical entanglement between gays and pedophiles in America” (comment, “The Real David Benkof,” Truth Wins Out, June 16, 2008);

…yet insists that he has not compared “gay people to child molesters” — then tries to worm out of it with “I never compared all gays to child molesters” (”Banned by Wayne Besen,” June 23, 2008);

• imagines that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom has something to do with child rape: “If a lizard who can’t speak or count to ten is ‘gay’ when it sodomizes another same-sex lizard, what exactly is “not gay” about a Scoutmaster who does the same thing to a 12-year-old?” (”I’m really, really sorry”);

• concludes that gay-for-pay actors are ultimately rape victims: “If the stars of the movie - either their characters or in real life - literally cannot pay their rent unless they agree to engage in gay sex, that’s hardly consent.” (”Cleaning up gay porn”);

• swears AIDS is a “gay disease,” that gay people are reponsible for heterosexual transmission of AIDS, and that “quarantine should have been on the table” (”I’m really, really sorry”);

• thinks gay sex is in and of itself immoral (as in his email to me, quoted below) — yet insists that he doesn’t “make a habit of calling other gay people or their sex lives immoral.” (”The gay moral compass not only wrong-headed; it’s broken,” 2008);

• opposes teaching Mormon children in public schools that polygamy is immoral — and that polygamy “certainly is not a redefinition of marriage,” while same-sex marriage is (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote,” June 20, 2008);

• insists that the Stonewall Rebellion was a “horribly immoral” and “unprovoked violent attack,” and that the cops (who were “nearly murdered”) were “innocent of any wrongdoing, especially since the Stonewall Inn was an illegal mafia-run institution” (”I’m really, really sorry”);

• opposes hate-crimes legislation, using the “thought crimes” argument, and insisting that “anti-bullying laws” are the “latest trend in pro-gay legislation mandates indoctrination in pro-gay attitudes under the guise of preventing bullying.” (”A selfless gay agenda,” July 2, 2008);

…yet while using the “thought crimes” argument against hate-crimes laws, says he “would be a happier person if I lived in a country in which Holocaust denial was illegal” (”A fascinating proposal,” June 30, 2008);

• says that gay people simply are not equal to straight people (”A selfless gay agenda”; A fabulous compromise,” June 20, 2008), and believes that there are good reasons “to privilege male-female families” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);

• believes that the gay community is responsible for state anti-marriage amendments, and thus gay people are responsible for destroying the rights of unmarried couples, both gay and straight;

• calls the LGBT community “the most selfish American movement since the Hippies” (comment, “Exchange on prison rape”);

• is opposed to marriage equality for gay and lesbian people because “Marriage needs protection from groups that don’t believe in monogamous relationships” (comment, “Gay newspaper editor responds to David Benkof’s L.A. Times article,” We the People, June 6, 2008);

• says that the California marriage ruling “harms … religious liberty” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling,” May 20, 2008), which “restricts the religious freedom of traditional Americans to use the definition of marriage they believe in in the way they run their businesses, raise their children, and perform their jobs,” while simultaneously dismissing it as a “semantic squabble” (comment, “A selfless gay agenda”);

• believes that if “gay ‘marriage’ becomes permanent in California,” parents “who want to teach their children that they should only marry an opposite-sex person will have some of their freedom taken away.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);

…while simultaneously insisting that a Gentile half of a Jewish/Gentile lesbian couple married in California should have been forced to adhere to Jewish marriage law (”Jewish ‘marriage equality’ - hold the Jewish,” May 19, 2008);

…and while justifying the imposition of his religion on the rights of others because “my religion doesn’t just believe it’s immoral for me to have gay sex. It believes it’s immoral for you to have gay sex.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”); “The prohibitions against [the Torah’s prohibition on gay relations] … and against same-sex marriage are ‘Noahide’ commandments. Those are laws that apply to every human being, whether Jewish or not.” (”What’s Next - Jews for Meat Equality?,” April 21, 2008); “…Judaism doesn’t just oppose me having a same-sex marriage. It opposes the government I am a citizen of recognizing any same-sex marriage. … I want my values, that marriage is between a man and a woman, to be reflected in the government of the place I live in.”; “Text #4 (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) and many more like it indicate that Jews should try to get the government to enforce the Noahide laws, which include the prohibition on same-sex civil marriage.” (comments, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper,” Box Turtle Bulletin, June 26, 2008);

…while cherry-picking the Noahide laws: “Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws, and for years, they have been. Now, the gay community is trying to change one of those laws that is consistent with the Noahide laws, and we are fighting back. But do we want laws to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms? Absolutely not.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”);

…while emphasizing that “any means” (make of that what you will) would be acceptable in order to enforce his beliefs on the rest of us: “Jews are bound to enforce all the Noahide laws by any means necessary. They include murder, sexual sins such as incest, and cruelty to animals. Jews have never been involved in opposing same-sex marriage because nobody ever tried to legalize it before.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”); “The notion that Jews must try to establish the Noahide laws for everyone is well established. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe insisted that we enforce Noahide laws by any means at our disposal: ‘We must do everything possible to ensure that the seven Noahide laws are observed. If this can be accomplished through force or through other kinder and more peaceful means through explaining to non-Jews that they should accept God’s wishes [we should do so] … Anyone who is able to influence a non-Jew in any way to keep the seven commandments is obligated to do so, since that is what God commanded Moses our teacher.’” (”An Open Letter to Conservative Rabbis,” May 31, 2008);

…yet insists: “I never said I wanted a theocratic government,” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”) and that while our lives are subject to his beliefs, his beliefs are sacrosanct, unquestionable, and off-limits: “I certainly don’t have to answer to you on my life decisions” (comment, “A Post for David Benkof,” The Political Spectrum, May 28, 2008);

…while also insisting (in many, many blog posts and comments on other blogs) that he fully supports the Constitution of the United States — the First Amendment of which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”;

…while telling Rex Wocker: “I don’t give speeches urging all Jews to follow my lead, but I won’t deny that I believe that the Torah is for all Jews — Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, secular, etc.”;

• believes that the social and cultural values of people with whom he disagrees are plainly inferior: “Yes, your values that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a good thing are inferior to my values.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);

• told Justin at The Political Spectrum that his — Justin’s — religious beliefs were “a perverted joke,” calling Messianic Judaism “a slimy attempt to trick Jews into becoming Christian.” (”A Post for David Benkof”), yet finds offense at any perceived insult to his own religion (in this case, a commenter told Benkof his interpretation of Noahide laws — not Judaism — was “bullshit”): “And that’s the last time I’m going to converse with someone who uses a foul word to describe my beliefs. If I used the same word to describe your sexual practices you wouldn’t tolerate it.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”);

• insists that the reality that no church will be forced to marry same-sex couples is a lie (”Bad ‘Faith’ Marriage Arguments,” May 19, 2008);

• thinks that Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health — on which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution — derailed the fight for equality in the workplace (”Marriage equality for some gays delays equality for all gays,” June 1, 2008);

• claims that “the gay and lesbian community barely understands marriage” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery,” June 26, 2008);

…yet does not understand the first thing about the differences among marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships: “You want to fight an American Revolution because same-sex couples in California have all the rights of married couples in that state but have their feelings hurt by having the government use the term ‘domestic partnership’ instead of marriage? Go ahead. The U.S. troops will probably be too busy laughing at you to actually mow you down for your insurrection” (comment, We the People); “The June weddings that can now be expected for same-sex couples all over California actually will provide little tangible advantage to anyone. California already has a domestic partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples…” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling”); “The fact is, the initiative in California takes nothing away from you but the word marriage, yet it protects millions of people like me from lots of potential harms to our freedom.” (comment, “Exchange on prison rape”); “The California campaign is a semantic squabble as far as the same-sex couples are concerned; they get all the same rights whether it’s called a domestic partnership or a marriage.” (comment, “A selfless gay agenda”); “If [the California Marriage Protection Act] passes, same-sex couples will lose no rights other than the word “marriage”; “I do not think there is any compelling reason for the government to call the relationship you have with one of the men you have sex with a ‘marriage.’” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”); “They [sic] gay and lesbian community is concerned that being forced to use a different term - even if it provides the exact same benefits as in California - gives the appearance that they are second-class citizens.” (”A fabulous compromise”); “The California Supreme Court gave same-sex couples only one new right - the word ‘marriage.’” (Marriage equality vs. gay equality,” May 30, 2008); “…the amendment makes only a semantic difference. Every right of domestic partnerships, which are completely equal to those of married couples, will remain the same.” (”Don’t Take it Personally,” June 29, 2008);

• claims gay people do not “understand the fidelity aspect of marriage” (”Monogamy by the book,” July 1, 2008);

…while he himself has been in a relationship with another man only once, for a total of six months; they did not live together (”David Bianco Would Rather be a Traditional Jew than Gay,” Rex Wockner, Gay Today, 2008);

• insists that gay people are by nature promiscuous,* that adultery represents “mainstream gay and lesbian values” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery”), and warns that same-sex marriages are inherently “sexually open and more likely to dissolve” (”Either they’re experts or they’re not,” July 12, 2008) — yet claims he never said “that lots of gay people have open relationships,” only that “gay people don’t think open relationships are a problem” (”Benkof’s Continuing Parade of Lies and Deception,” Box Turtle Bulletin, June 23, 2008); “I’m not surprised that you have been completely sexually devoted to each other for 15 years. But I bet you won’t take the Monogamy Pledge found at GaysDefendMarriage.com. Like most gay people in sexually exclusive relationship, they see that as their choice, one of many legitimate ones which in clude open relationships, three-ways, etc. If you take the monogamy pledge, I will acknowledge you’re one of the perhaps 1% or 2% of gay people who actually do know what marriage is.” (comment to a blogger in a 15-year monogamous relationship, “Reporter’s National Columnist a Fraud,” Sillanpaa: Old Man’s Road, June 23, 2008);

…yet, when interviewed by Rex Wockner, sounds like he wants to give a free pass to gay Jews who cheat on their opposite-sex spouses:

David Bianco: … There are tons, tons of traditional gay Jews who married women and have never had gay sex and don’t regret having made those choices. You think they’re all doing it in the public restrooms?

Rex Wockner: The steam room. The sauna. AOL.

David Bianco: Maybe some of them are. And I don’t think there’s anything pathetic about that. I’m not advocating it.

Rex Wockner: You don’t think there’s anything pathetic about it?

David Bianco: Right.

Rex Wockner: As long as they’re open with their wives about what’s going on?

David Bianco: I don’t know. Actually, I would advocate that someone in that situation should talk to his rabbi and figure out how to handle it. It’s tricky, but not pathetic. …

• doesn’t think that homophobia is bigotry, or that homophobia is as bad as racism (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);

• calls Wayne Besen “a petty, self-hating, ignorant Jew” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”); Besen, Emily Kesselman, and Timothy Kincaid liars (”Silly activists,” June 30, 2008); “The Lyin’ Kings,” July 6, 2008), Pam Spaulding a liar and a “nasty bitch” (a comment he defends as “true” at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters)**, Gavin Newsom San Francisco’s “adulterer-in-chief” (”Watch your tone, Mayor Newsom,” May 27, 2008), the Rev. Mel White “a practitioner of violence” (”No pride in Stonewall,” June 23, 2008), and accuses Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples (perhaps the oldest, and certainly one of the most well-researched and highly-respected information sites for gay and lesbian couples on the Web) of being “hostile to sexual fidelity” and encouraging “working adultery into your marriage” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery”; “Monogamy by the book”);

• believes himself “uniquely qualified to help set an agenda for cooperation” between the LGBT community and social conservatives (”An agenda for strange bedfellows,” Jun 11, 2008);

• avoids calling the anti-gay movement what it is — anti-gay — by using the phrase “man-woman marriage,” repeatedly;

• relies, with predictable, monotonous regularity, on straw-man arguments, red herrings, and the “some say” fallacy; i.e.: claiming that gay people fighting for marriage equality are responsible for transgender prison rape (”Why don’t gays care about prison rape?”; “Protect transgender prisoners,” July 2, 2008), and that the marriage equality movement is wrong because “some gay marriage proponents” condone “adult consensual incest” (”No idea what marriage is,” May 18, 2008; “Still confused about what marriage is,” June 25, 2008);

• tells spurious-sounding tales, recounting decades-old conversations from memory verbatim, involving sources he refuses to name (”No idea what marriage is,” et al.);

• twists others’ words into pretzels and quotes others out of context to serve his purpose of the moment; see, for just a few examples, his exchange with Michael Taylor-Judd in “A fascinating proposal”; his misquoting the ACLU in the comments of “Banned by Wayne Besen”; Washington state Senator Ed Murray’s clear and public denouncement of Benkof’s “borderline libelous” misrepresentation of Murray’s views on marriage equality (”Letters to the Editor,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 25, 2008); Triangle Foundation policy director Sean Kosofsky’s statement that Benkof “is misleading folks about my quote. He selectively removed several minutes of our conversation between statements and did not disclose that” (”Sean Kosofsky Responds To David Benkof,” The Political Spectrum, May 22, 2008), adding: “David, it is flat out immoral to do what you did. It is not my repsonsibility to track you down to correct a lazy, stupid and inflammatory misrepresentation. You should be ashamed of yourself, your journalistic integrity and your misrepresentation of your agenda during our call. The right wing is using your article all over the country to smear my good name because of your sloppiness or outright slant. I did leave a correction at the LA Weekly sight so I did try to correct you. This is horrible of you to do.”; National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell’s shocked reaction — “utter distortion and clearly intended to inflame” — to Benkof’s implication that Kendell was in favor of childhood sexual emperimentation (”Benkof’s Continuing Parade of Lies and Deception”);

• often blames these mischaracterizations on poor memory, being forced to edit an interview down to the bare bones (while still capturing the “spirit” of the actual quote), a Web link not working, computer “troubles,” deleting an original mail, or losing an email in his spam filter;

• is either stunningly ignorant, or simply lies: “No lesbian ever died a painful death because the government called her relationship a domestic partnership instead of a marriage.” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling”). If Benkof is such an expert, then surely he has heard of Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond;

• is definitely (or conveniently) ignorant for one who claims to have “a master’s in Jewish history from Stanford and is getting a Ph.D. in the subject at NYU,” and who has “written books on both Jewish history and gay history”; e.g., he “vaguely remember[s] learning that Moses never murdered anyone,” while conveniently forgetting about the very clear recounting of Moses’ premeditated murder of an Egyptian slave (after which he buried the body, then fretted when he learned that there was a witness to the crime) in Exodus 2:11-14 (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);

• constantly flaunts his knowledge of the Torah and its prohibitions on male-male sex, yet claims: “I rarely talk about my specific religious beliefs about the Torah’s obligations on Jews in the area of gay sex” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”);

…as well as claiming that neither does he “spend much time specifically spelling out the disturbing evidence that a signicant minority of the gay and lesbian community has no objection to adult-child sex” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”), contradicting his frequent propagation of this damaging lie.

And that’s just scratching the surface.

Here’s the kicker: David Benkof claims to be a gay man.

Well, sometimes.

While it’s not up to me to decide whether he’s telling the truth about his sexual orientation (compare the “No True Christian” fallacy), the reality is that Benkof’s self-identity is positively schizophrenic.

In 2003, he was “moving away from gay identity,” considered himself bisexual, and was hoping “to meet a “woman with whom I can bring pleasure and joy, and with whom I can have a nice-if-not-spectacular bedroom life.” Still, the piece noted: “Benkof also reserves the right to be gay again. ‘Everybody should be able to have whatever lifestyle feels right for them at any point in their life,’ he said.” (”Gay Jewish writer gives up sex with men,” Southern Voice, December 19, 2003)

In April, 2008, he was no longer gay-identified: “I was once gay-identified” (”Don’t vote your conscience on marriage,” April 24, 2008)

In May, he was not not gay anymore: “I am certainly not ex-gay.” (comment to “Good As You,” May 21, 2008)***

In June, 2008, he responded to a commenter at Box Turtle: “You imply I’m somehow deceptive for not always describing my sexuality the same way. I have been up front that none of the labels fit me well. If I could use ‘queer’ without people hearing an epithet, I would. But neither ‘gay’ nor ‘bisexual’ perfectly fits my internal, personal, unique-as-a-fingerprint sexuality, so I go back and forth.” (”Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”)

By July, Benkof was once again gay — “just as gay as Wayne [Besen] is.” (”I’m really, really sorry”)

Similarly, he wavers between the claim that he’s still very much a part of the gay community, and… he’s not.

And as far as his vow never to have sex with men again, that appears debatable, too. In his interview with Rex Wockner, Benkof doesn’t sound too sure about the permanency of his commitment:

Rex Wockner: You get an iota of my respect for being consistent. The form of Judaism you have embraced is completely incompatible with homosexual sex. The problem I have with you, David Bianco — and I’ve told you this 14 times off-the-record — is that I’ve seen other men who didn’t feel right about having gay sex for whatever reason — often because of religion, maybe because they were married to a woman — try to stop doing it permanently. I’ve never seen one of these guys, in the long run, end up in a better place. … What makes you think that’s possible? It’s such a fundamental, core piece of who you are — whether it’s nature or nurture. … If somebody was making as much of a stink about being monogamous for the rest of their life as you’re making about this, and they were a public figure, I might interview them too.

David Bianco: When did I say for the rest of my life?

Rex Wockner: David, it’s not like God’s gonna say it’s OK this month but not next month.

David Bianco: That’s true. … I haven’t made a stink. I’ve never emphasized this idea of forever.

Rex Wockner: You could have just quietly drifted off.

David Bianco: Which I did for the first eight months of it. …

Rex Wockner: I’ve seen I-don’t-know-how-many guys try what you’re about to try. God doesn’t want me to have gay sex, so I’m not going to.

David Bianco: Do I seem wracked with guilt? Do you think I have this angst, this religious frustration? I don’t think I do.

Rex Wockner: Well, in a way, you’re kind of in a born-again phase.

David Bianco: Yeah.

Rex Wockner: So of course you’re not going to have any angst right now.

David Bianco: And if I have it someday, I’ll deal with it. I am certain that this is what’s right for me now, and my writing about it is less to justify it to myself than it is to help … to let those who may be facing a similar conundrum understand that it is a reasonable way to go. …

Rex Wockner: But what makes you think that this fundamental, core piece of who you are, regardless of how it got there, can be put away and sort of just ignored or not acted on? It’s not like you’re deciding not to eat Big Macs because you know that they’re bad for you. This is something much more core to who we are. … This is sex.

David Bianco: And I believe that American culture and the gay community have overly glorified sex to the point that it’s expected to be the most important piece of our lives. And historically that never happened before the last couple hundred years. And I don’t accept that it’s natural for us or that it’s what God wants for us. I think it is Western culture that is out of whack, not me.

Notice Benkof doesn’t answer Wockner’s question.

In any case, David Benkof may be a homosexual, but he is not gay.

Near the end of the film Boys in the Band, a campily entertaining but severely dated snapshot of a group of mostly self-loathing gay men, Harold dresses down Michael, the acerbic host who, despite his flippancy, turns out to be the most self-loathing of all — and who has spent the night projecting that self-loathing onto his party guests:

“You’re a sad and pathetic man. You’re a homosexual and you don’t want to be, but there’s nothing you can do to change it. Not all the prayers to your god, not all the analysis you can buy in all the years you’ve go left to live. You may one day be able to know a heterosexual life, if you want it desperately enough. If you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you’ll always be homosexual as well. Always, Michael. Always. Until the day you die.”

That, I believe, is the kind of homosexual David Benkof is.

Or bisexual. Or “ex-gay.” Or whatever he’s presenting himself to be at any given moment.

In any case, he makes Andrew Sullivan (a.k.a. “Bareback Andy“) look like the paragon of healthy self-esteem.

David Benkof also claims to be “a columnist for several gay newspapers across the country.” As Timothy at Box Turtle Bulletin explained in “David Benkof: Behind the Mask:

Benkof has written some opinion pieces and has been published in at least two gay magazines. But Benkof is most certainly not “a columnist in several gay newspapers across the country”.

Which left me wondering as to his motives for using this description.

I think it is because by suggesting that he has credibility within the gay community and is in some manner respected, he can plant in the mind of the straight reader the notion that there is some movement from with the community to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. He creates a false following to prop up an argument that most gay people find reprehensible.

And this is not the only place where Benkof uses this tactic.

Indeed, it is not. In “Marriage equality vs. gay equality,” he boasts that his “most recent column … is up at the Web site of the Boulder, Colorado Daily Camera.” Funny, but the Daily Camera identifies Benkof’s “column” as a mere “letter to the editor.” Ditto “No pride in Stonewall Rebellion memory”; Benkof calls it a “column,” while it was printed as just another letter to the editor. (See Benkof’s blog post, “Silly activists,” for similar delusions.)

Now, normally, David Benkof wouldn’t be worth the attention I’ve given him here. In fact, I’ve never written one word about him before; Benkof’s story is worth a look now, in part because he is a living, breathing example of the tragedy of internalized homophobia — and mostly because an interesting thing happened: He wrote his “last post.” Let’s all hope he’s serious:

David Benkof’s last post

It is with great sadness that I announce that I feel I must withdraw from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States. I recently learned quite a bit of disturbing information that makes it impossible for me to continue supporting a movement I no longer respect. I have not yet decided when or even if I will write about why I’m ending my participation in this debate.

I’d like to thank Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy who got me started with blogging at MarriageDebate.com and encouraged me to create my own blog, which ultimately became GaysDefendMarriage.com. I’d also like to thank the dozens of commenters, both those who agree with me and those who disagree, who have made this Web site a true place of conversation rather than just another pro-man-woman-marriage site.

In case you’re wondering:

1) I do not advocate that people give time or money to the Proposition 8 campaign in California.

2) People should vote their consciences on the ballot measure. I’m not a California voter, but if I was, I’d probably hold my nose and vote yes, though I can’t be sure.

Have a good summer, everyone!

-David Benkof

And then, sometime yesterday, the GaysDefendMarriage.com site simply vanished.

Nevertheless, Benkof was, in his usual fashion, cruising the Web for reactions, and responding to them. On Wayne Besen’s blog, Benkof put aside his attacks on Wayne long enough to respond to a comment by a reader named Scott:

[That Benkof is disturbed is] my impression as well…

He either:

(a) Took Wayne’s advice, and FINALLY got on some much-needed meds.

(b) Got sick of the homosex-obsessed rhetoric of his right wing and fundie friends.

(c) He’s pulling a silly “publicity stunt”, to get attention.

To which Benkof replied:

It’s not polite to gloat. I have surrendered unilaterally. What else do you want from me?

I know what I want: an explanation. And so do a lot of other people.

With the “gloating” exchange on Wayne’s blog in mind, I left my first and last comment on Benkof’s blog:

I won’t gloat if you’ll elaborate on your reasons for quitting. If you’ve _really_ have had a true change of heart, you can begin to undo some of the damage you’ve wrought by coming clean. Frankly, it’s the least you can do. The very least.

Benkof didn’t reply to my comment on his blog, but emailed me directly:

Subject: Re: [GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE] Comment: “David Benkof’s last post”
From: DavidBenkof@—.com
Date: Mon, July 14, 2008 5:33 am

The only way I would do that - and I have no plans to do so - is to detail what I think is wrong with *both* the man-woman marriage movement and the “marriage equality” movement.

While I have really had, as you put it, a “true change of heart” about the man-woman marriage movement, I still think the “marriage equality” movement is overwhelmingly selfish and cruel, and is far more responsible for the pain of same-sex couples in the 18 states with constitutional amendments banning both same-sex marriage and any marriage-like status than any “anti-gay” group ever was. I still think gay sex is immoral, and the refusal of the LGBT community to lift a finger, compared to the obsession with marriage, to help LGBT people disproportionately affected by prison rape, lesbian alcoholism, and the rapidly rising rates of syphilis shows deep moral confusion as well.

Do you really want me to speak out about what I really believe?

-David Benkof

I’m responding to David here, and not by return email, because I know, with David’s propensity for Googling all references to himself, he will find this post, quick-smart:

David, all you’ve ever done is speak out about what you really believe. I don’t care to hear a rehash of all the reasons you’re so dead-set against my equality — I want to know the specific reasons you abandoned your crusade.

You’ve already detailed what you think is wrong with the marriage equality movement, ad nauseam. Why not detail the flip side? Are you afraid that if you expose the anti-gay movement (not the “man-woman marriage movement,” David, but the anti-gay movement) for what it is, you’ll be forced to expose your many twists and turns of “logic” for the fallacious, gossamer-thin “reasoning” they really are, too?

One more thing, David: I’m not going to debate you, on my blog, or anywhere else. Your views are already well-known, and I’m not going to do any troll-feeding here. You are welcome to respond to my direct question about the real reason(s) you decided to quit hounding the gay community (at least on the issue of marriage), but any “detail” about what you think is “wrong with *both* the man-woman marriage movement and the ‘marriage equality’ movement” is a dealbreaker. You’ve done more than enough of the latter; let’s see you commit to the former, resisting any compulsion to use yet another blog as a platform for your anti-gay crusade.

Finally, if you do start on another anti-gay harangue, you will have completely discredited yourself — again — by going back on your withdrawal “from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States.”

You’ve had your say, David. And now, I’m having mine.

You’ve had ample opportunity to explain your position — and it was your decision to stop attacking the gay community.

Are you able to keep your word, David? If so, I’ll be waiting for your answer about what happened behind the scenes of the anti-equality movement you embraced. Anything more than that, and don’t even bother wasting the keystrokes.

In the meantime, there is the barest hint of a clue to Benkof’s reason for quitting in a late-June blog entry, “Exchange on prison rape”:

“There is one prominent marriage-defense organization that I once worked with very successfully, until I found out the appalling extent of their bigotry. I will never work with them again. Once I gather all my information, I will blog about their hidden attitudes and maybe publish a major expose [sic] in one of the publications I’ve been working with. There are other groups that do annoying things like call themselves ‘pro-family’ (I blogged about them) but I’m willing to work with them nonetheless. It’s a balancing act, and I’d appreciate some slack because unlike some people on my side I do draw lines in the sand.”

Never mind Benkof’s whiplash-making switcheroo (previously, he wrote that homophobia is not bigotry); the clue lies in the “major expose” [sic] line.

David Benkof fancies himself a big-time journalist, and one far more important than he really is. That Benkof is being so coy about his sudden withdrawal from the “man-woman marriage movement” suggests that his crusade has been nothing but an act all along — a publicity stunt to drum up interest in this big “exposé” he has planned.

I think — again, I think — David Benkof is a fraud, a huckster, a compulsive, narcissistic (in the clinical sense) solipsist, and an attention whore — nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I also think he’s a self-loathing homophobe — a Boys in the Band “Michael,” only without the wit or insight.

If he stays true to his word, we will not hear of him again. But I believe he is pulling a “New Coke” on us. Look how much attention his “disappearance” has won him (here, too), even from bloggers who had never heard of him before.

Now, David, none of this is gloating. I simply don’t believe you are sincere — nor will the legions of LGBT Americans you have hurt with your lies, unless you live up to your commitment to stop your crusade, for life.

And, again, if you are sincere, if you are indeed so “appalled” by the bigotry of our enemies (they’re your enemies too, David; they’ve used you like an old rag, while laughing at you harder than any gay person ever could), you can begin to make amends by exposing names and tactics. But your story must be impeccable and verifiable — no more of this “I was told by an unnamed source…” garbage; you’ve undermined your own credibility enough already (and to the point that even if you do tell the truth now, chances are few will believe you anyway).

You want to be a real journalist when you grow up, then you learn to write like a real journalist (think Mike Royko, not Jayson Blair), and back up your tales with unimpeachable facts.

But if you dangle this “exposé” in front of us with a $19.95 cover price on it, then we’ll know what your real motivation was.

Further reading:

Is Uncle Tom A Gay Man? (Part One)
Christ, The Gay Martyr, May 28, 2008

Is Uncle Tom A Gay Man? (Part Two)
Christ, The Gay Martyr, May 28, 2008

Responding to David Benkof
Kevin Naff, Washington Blade, June 6, 2008

FGB Saturday: Big Discussion on Marriage
Hunter At Random, June 14, 2008

David Benkof: Behind the Mask
Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin, June 16, 2008

The Real David Benkof
Wayne Besen, June 16, 2008

Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper
Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin, June 26, 2008

COWARD: David Benkof Quits NLGJA Panel In Huff
Wayne Besen, July 2, 2008

More denialism and fear-mongering from vaccine-o-phobes
Fallacy Findings, July 10, 2008

David Benkof Abruptly Halts Fight Against Marriage Equality
Wayne Besen, July 14, 2008

Skeptical Over Benkof’s Change of Mind
Dave Rattigan, Ex-Gay Watch, July 14, 2008

David Benkof shows his ass
Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, July 14, 2008

David Benkof Closes Down His Blog, and Releases Odd Statement
The Political Spectrum, July 14, 2008

Extremist Makeover
Wayne Besen, July 15, 2008

From Now On, Marriage Must Defend Itself
Emily Kesselman, July 15, 2008

David Benkof Calls it Quits
Fannie’s Room, July 15, 2008

Googling Gay Marriage: Putting a Fork in Prop 8
Chino Blanco, DailyKos, July 15, 2008

Over The Rainbow archive

David Benkof
Wikipedia

 
* On the subject of promiscuity — and, IMO, projection — this part of Benkof’s chat with Rex Wockner is enlightening:

Rex Wockner: You said a few moments ago that you’ve had sex with a lot of men, and you emphasized the words “a lot.”

David Bianco: A lot of men.

Rex Wockner: Is this a rebound?

David Bianco: Right. One of my friends told me that I must be celibate [now] because I was tired and needed a break.

Rex Wockner: Yeah. Maybe you were the worst example of American culture overemphasizing sex.

David Bianco: I’m not rejecting that that could be a piece of it. …

** Why did Benkof call Pam Spaulding a “nasty bitch”? Because she opined that Benkof is an “ex-gay.”

*** In fact, Benkof has insisted, repeatedly, that he is not an “ex-gay,” and has denounced traditional conversion “therapy” — even though he believes one can become “ex-gay” through “time and prayer” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”). Yet, I believe that Benkof wishes to be “ex-gay”; while embracing (and, repeatedly, wishing for) a miraculous conversion to heterosexuality, his real problem is only semantic: He doesn’t like the term “ex-gay,” as he tells Rex Wockner:

Rex Wockner: Do we have to fear that you’re going to become an ex-gay activist and go on Larry King Live and embarrass us?

David Bianco: I hope I can help bridge the gap a little because I can confront Christian homophobia and Jewish homophobia with a credibility that you can’t. … I don’t think the gay community should be embarrassed by me at all, especially since I still affiliate with it. I know it and I understand it and I’ve been writing about it and involved in it passionately for a decade.

Rex Wockner: Are you going to become an ex-gay activist?

David Bianco: I don’t like the term “ex-gay.” I think it implies affiliation with a movement that believes one can and should change one’s sexual orientation through therapy and Christianity. I don’t accept that. So, no. Am I likely to continue to speak out within the Jewish community and the wider community about my beliefs that we are not our genitals, that we are not our libidos, and that other things can influence our sex lives and our identities? Yeah. I know it’s threatening to a lot of queers, and I don’t relish that. I regret [that there are] people that are hurt by what I’ve done. But I think if they keep listening, they’ll come to a general respect for what I’m doing. I might even win you someday.

Rex Wockner: It remains to be seen.

Previous comments on this post:


Thank you for publicizing my views. You got about 75% of them right. With the rest you either misunderstood me, or deliberately twisted what I said. On a couple of occasions you claimed I believe the exact opposite of what I believe. I would be annoyed or even angry at your post, if it wasn’t for the fact that you used a very old picture of me when I was still thin and cute. Like most gay men, I am extremely vain and narcissistic. I just can’t stay mad at you!

Hugs,

David Benkof

P.S. You implied, but did not state, that you would not allow me to post anything but a narrow set of comments that hurt the cause I used to support. I don’t want to waste my time typing things in that will be deleted. If you promise you will post whatever I write, I’ll consider giving a thorough response.

David Benkof | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 6:39 am


Excellent article!

Dan B | 07.16.08 - 9:28 am


David: I didn’t imply anything — I stated it very clearly: I’m only interested in the reason(s) for your disillusionment with the anti-equality brigades (I’m guessing you discovered just how anti-Semitic they really are, just as I’m guessing your vehement opposition to “ex-gay therapy” hinges on the fact that its ultimate, if unstated, goal is Christian conversion).

I won’t give you free rein to write anything you want; you’ve had all the time and opportunity in the world to do that, and it was your decision to cease your anti-marriage crusade. You’re not going to continue the debate here. That part of the discussion is over.

Maybe you’d like to prove you can stand by your word, but, since since neither “integrity” nor “consistency” is the first word I associate with you, I don’t trust you to play by the rules.

Re-read my request, and take all the time you need to decide. I assure you, I will still be here — at least when I’m not on the street, trying to mop up some of the debris you’ve left in your wake.

Glad you like the picture. I’d be happy to publish a current photo. And don’t worry about the way you look. A healthy sense of self doesn’t let a little thing like vanity stand in the way of showing one’s real face to the world.

Sapphocrat | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 10:19 am


Sapphocrat-

I like your proposal that I not be allowed to correct the many false statements you made about me - either through poor reading comprehension skills or purposeful misrepresentation - but that I nonetheless give you the secret information that many Web sites and print outlets, including those of some of my friends gay and straight, are very eager to be the first to have. I will take your suggestion and think about it. I always like the element of surprise, so who knows? Maybe I’ll agree.

I’m happy to restate, though, something that isn’t a secret that you implied I think is a secret. The Jewish ex-gay group, JONAH, mostly because of the ignorance of its heterosexual Jewish leaders, serves as a de facto front for Christian conversion. I know of one definite case and one possible case of Jews who started to believe in Jesus in part or in whole through their involvement in JONAH. Since they also became “ex-gay,” it is my impression that the leadership of JONAH does not really care, since they’re far more interested in fighting homosexuality than in following Jewish law. When I have challenged them about all of the pro-Christian, non-Jewish ideas on their Web site, they have refused to change a single thing. It’s really pathetic.

David Benkof | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 1:30 pm


David: I’m snapping my fingers and kicking myself for not mentioning it, as I did wonder if JONAH had anything to do with it. I just figured JONAH was too small an organization (or perhaps nonexistent, the creation of a single mind) to concern anyone.

I was wrong about that — but I had a feeling about the “Christian front” angle. That’s one of the things that drives me the craziest about the Christian Right: Hardly anyone can see that their supposedly selfless devotion to Israel and Judaism is a huge, revolting crock. At least Gary North, for all his bone-chilling fundamentalism, admits the real reason for pandering to Jews — the end-of-timers are convinced they’re going to need X number of Jews to be sacrificed as a blood atonement so Christians can all fly to heaven on a cloud at Rapture time. Beyond that number, they think they’re duty-bound to convert everyone else — Jews, Gentiles, godless heathens like myself… Where it gets downright terrifying is when the Dominionists start talking about dealing with non-believers through Levitical law.

In any case…

FWIW, you have my sincere empathy. Yes, empathy. There is nothing worse than putting all your faith and energy into a cause, and then being smacked across the face by the brute reality that it was not what it appeared to be. (I should know; I’ve spent my life as a Democrat.)

And, David, brushing aside the snark (go ahead and blame my take on “poor reading comprehension skills” if you like, but my take is exactly how I read your writing), I applaud you for standing up to your end of the deal.

I thank you — and I wish you nothing but peace, and an easy transition out of this. This scale of disillusionment is a punch in the gut. I know.

Sapphocrat | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 2:41 pm

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: "Ex-Gays", Bisexuality, California, Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, HIV/AIDS, Health & Wellness, Heterosexuality, Homophobia, Judaism, Marriage, Mental Health, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right


July 5, 2008

Newsflash! Florida Guv Charlie Crist STILL Not Gay!

In fact, he’s so Not Gay, he’s marrying a woman, who is so Not A Beard!

In other news, Richard Simmons is still Not Gay, too.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Down-Low/MSM, Florida, Gay Republicans


June 5, 2008

How Bob Barr Got the Libertarian Nod — and Undermined Barack Obama’s Chance With Gay Republicans

Remember my rant about the Stupid Libertarian Party giving Bob Barr the party’s nomination for president?

“More freedom,” my gay ass. As if Bob Barr even remotely resembles a “Libertarian.” Libertarians are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals — and Barr (who was, is, and always will be a Republican) WROTE the “Defense of Marriage Act”! (Yeah, the same Bob Barr about whom Frank Rich once wrote: “[The] principal House sponsor [of the federal anti-gay-marriage law, ‘The Defense of Marriage Act’], Bob Barr of Georgia, his district office confirms, has been married three times — which raises the question of why the act doesn’t contain a three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision.”

Seems the Libertarian Powers That Be took Bobby aside and told him he’d better get his position on same-sex marriage in line with the party’s, or he could forget about the nom. Writes Michelangelo Signorile:

On the Friday afternoon before last (May 23), Barr came on my radio program to talk about his run for the presidency. The Libertarian Party was convening that weekend in Denver, and he was hopeful that he would get the nomination.

We spent some time discussing DOMA, which he authored and sponsored in 1996 and which Bill Clinton signed into law. …

We went back and forth about DOMA, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, and how, in my view, his position just didn’t gel with libertarian principles. Nonetheless, he staunchly defended DOMA.

Then, two days later, in his acceptance speech after snagging the Libertarian Party nomination, Barr vowed that he would work to repeal DOMA!

What the hell happened? According to Brian Miller, a Libertarian Party member and a member of Outright Libertarians, an LGBT group, Barr was told he wouldn’t get the nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA. Outright Libertarians led the charge with the leadership to pressure Barr; Miller is a listener to my show and heard me comparing audio clips showing Barr’s turnaround, and called in last week to explain what happened behind the scenes at the convention.

So, the Lib Party wouldn’t nominate Mike Gravel, who was already as pro-gay rights as could be, but would nominate Barr, as long as he agreed to flip-flop.

While Barr’s status as super-hypocrite just increased exponentially, I don’t care much one way or the other what Bob Barr does (or who he does it to). The only thing that’s changed is my opinion of the Libertarian Party — which just dropped… again.

Oh, well, at least Barr isn’t going to run on a campaign of anti-gay hate again. That’s some good news. But, as Signorile suggests, Barr could “turn out to actually take some votes that might have gone to the Democratic nominee”:

I don’t see many Democrats voting for Barr over the Democratic nominee, but some gay Republicans and the like-minded who might have gone for Obama (and certainly many have said they have been impressed by Obama) over John McCain might now go to Barr, who is in many ways their dream candidate: He supports all the bedrock conservative principles and is now opposed to DOMA and any other federal antigay legislation. And let’s not forget that, according to exit polls, 23% of the gay, lesbian and bisexual vote in 2004 — assumed to be largely gay Republicans — voted for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, following up on a similar percentage in 2000. Considering the closeness of both elections, their numbers would have made the difference in Florida and Ohio, had they voted for Al Gore or John Kerry.

Funny that (and I mean, “interesting,” not funny-ha-ha): In my last days of browsing Democratic Underground, I noticed a handful of devout Obama supporters rallying the troops to make monetary donations to Bob Barr’s campaign — the “logic” (if you can call half-assed wishful thinking “logic”) being that Barr will only siphon off Republican votes for John McCain, that never would have gone to Obama in the first place.

What these Obamanauts have failed to consider is exactly what Signorile is saying: Barr is a gay Republican’s dream candidate now — and those on-the-fence Log Cabinites who might very well have pulled the lever for Obama now have little, if any, reason to.

Perhaps the Libertarian Party isn’t so stupid as I thought. And perhaps Bob Barr — while remaining a hypocrite of the first order — isn’t so stupid either.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Gay Republicans, Libertarian Party, Marriage


April 9, 2008

Eric Stern, How Do You Live With Yourself?

The latest excuse for Barack Obama’s stubborn refusal to grant even one, single, lousy interview with any member of the gay media, from the Philadelphia Gay News to the Dallas Voice to the San Francisco B.A.R. is this, courtesy of Obama apologist-lackey (a.k.a. “a leader of Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council”) Eric Stern:

“Obama is talking to mainstream audiences about issues of importance to our community. While Hillary is attractive, she is making her appeal almost exclusively to gay audiences. That is not a postmodern approach.”

Holy Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Mary, who do you think you’re fooling? So speaking exclusively to “Christianity Today, [a] local Philadelphia sports radio station, Grist and Paris Match” is a “postmodern approach” — whatever the flip that’s supposed to mean?

Hey, Stern, since I’ve never been a whipping boy myself, tell me: How much does a homo have to hate himself to make excuses for a boss that continually craps all over his (read: your) own people? Or is it about the money? How much does Obama pay you to sell us out?

Are you sure you’re not a Log Cabinite masquerading as a Democrat, Eric? You know, we have a name for Log Cabinites… but considering how your boss has slapped the RACIST™ trademark on every other word in the English language (oops! is the word “English” too Eurocentric for the postmodern ObamaWorld™ now?), I wouldn’t dare use it.

But you know what it is.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Gay Republicans, Homophobia, Media


January 27, 2008

Hey, Mary Cheney, How Does It Feel to Know Your Sister Hates Your Guts?


Having already run over Mary once, Liz
prepares to back up and do it again.

Well, we assume Liz Cheney, the not-lesbian daughter of The Big Dick and his wife who’s not a lesbian but appears obsessed with lesbian sex, hates the guts (or at least the oh so sinful lifestyle) of Mother Mary— er, her sister, Mary Cheney, the boyish, brainless lesbian turncoat we love to hate (because she got hers, so to hell with everybody else).

It’s bad enough that Neocon Liz was working for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson, until the ugly, mediocre actor with the hearing problem (or maybe just the stupid problem) dropped out of the race, but now Liz is working for Mitt Romney as senior foreign policy adviser (so Mitt’ll have some good-sounding made-up reasons to bomb Syria and Iraq and anybody else he damn well pleases back to the Stone Age the very second he receives divine inspiration to visit blood atonement upon them non-believin’ heathens).

I tell you, if my sister decided to work on getting Rabidly Anti-Gay Magic Underwear Man — who believes that a dead parent is better than a gay parent (helllllo, Mary!) — into the White House, I’d disown her (after I tried to have her involuntarily committed).

The rest of the story, from AP:

[T]he endorsement is likely to be well received among conservatives who comprise a critical primary voting bloc in both Florida, which votes Tuesday, and the 22 states voting Feb. 5.

Romney has also enjoyed the support of aides with ties to the Bush family, including top assistants to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former President George H.W. Bush.

Liz Cheney, 41, is the elder of Dick and Lynne Cheney’s two daughters. Her younger sister, Mary, has been more prominently in the public eye after revealing she is a lesbian and having a son last year with her partner, Heather Poe, despite the administration’s opposition to gay marriage.

Liz Cheney, the mother of five children, said in a statement: “Throughout his campaign, (Romney) has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today. … I look forward to working with Governor Romney because he is the leader our country needs.”

Now, we don’t really give a hoot what idiotic pursuits Liz Cheney chases, and quite frankly, we don’t have a whit of sympathy for that elitist little traitor Mary Cheney either.

We’re just struck by how not surprised we are that one Cheney would throw another Cheney even further under the bus. (And we will be even less surprised if Mary Cheney comes out to support her sister’s decision.)

As Republican family dynamics go, politics (which, for those people, translates directly into money and power) is always thicker than blood.

Nevertheless, we think Liz Cheney sucks. And not in a good way.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Dick Cheney, Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Gay Republicans, LDS/Mormons, Middle East, Mitt Romney, Parenting


January 12, 2008

How we missed Bill Maher’s spot-on picks…

…for Dickheads of the Year (Maher’s “picks for the biggest assholes of 2007″), we’ll never know. But Maher is so spot-on, and entertaining, it’s a must-see (and a must-pass-along). A few of our favorite lines:

Blackwater despot Erik Prince: “…a super-Christy Jesus freak who looks on the Crusades the way rednecks pine for the Confederacy.”

Crandall Canyon Mine owner Bob Murray: “The fat-ass, lying embodiment of the Bush administration’s regulatory policies.”

Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig: “Don’t people like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard and Mark Foley prove that being gay really is a hard-wired thing — not, as the conservatives always claim, a ‘lifestyle choice‘? If anyone could choose not to have gay sex, it would be these guys, since their whole careers are built on not having gay sex.”

Senator David Vitter, diaper-wearing hooker’s john: “Caught dead to rights as a customer of the D.C. Madam, and explained it away by saying, ‘Several years ago I received forgiveness from God in confession.’ Oh, well, all righty then, it’s all good, then you’re obviously not a disgusting, horrible hypocrite who runs on family values and then fucks whores at home and in Washington.”

College Republicans: “…cutthroat, amoral putzes like Karl Rove… Doughy losers who, at age twenty, care more about tax cuts than girls.”

Bush’s Attorney General du jour, Michael Mukasey: “Kind of makes you miss those innocent days when Gonzales just couldn’t recall.”

Rudy Giuliani: “Rudy says if a Democrat is elected in 2008, we’ll be at risk of another 9/11, because… he was mayor of New York when they attacked the World Trade Center the first time? His slogan should be ‘Not on my watch… again.’”

Much, much more at the link, and well worth the click.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Celebrities, David Vitter, Democrats, Gay Republicans, George W. Bush, Humor, Karl Rove, Radical Religious Right, Republican Sexcapades, Republicans, September 11


September 24, 2007

Gannon Book Sales Soft… Er, Limp… OK, OK: Flaccid.

Happy Bunny

‘Bulldog’ Gannon’s Book a Bomb?

Even another gay Republican sex scandal couldn’t save Jeff Gannon’s new book, The Great Media War, which promised a “behind the scenes look at the White House Press Corps and the Bush Administration.”

However, only three weeks since its release, the book is ranked in the 780,000 range on amazon.com. By comparison, Robert Draper’s Dead Certain, which was released the same week as Gannon’s tome, currently stands at 62.

Gannon, of course, was outed as a former male escort in 2005 and was forced to resign from the conservative Talon News service, for which he had covered the White House since 2003. His male clients knew him as “Bulldog.”

Bulldog couldn’t have asked for better timing with his tome. Through some tawdry twist of fate, The Great Media War hit during the height of the Sen. Larry Craig’s bathroom follies—a coincidence that even Gannon (born James Dale Guckert) thought might propel sales. Gannon expected a best-seller, according to his pals.

So, why the flop? Mike Rogers, the blogger who first outed Sen. Craig back in October, and former New York Times fabulist Jayson Blair have some ideas. …

See also:
Jeff Gannon Returns To Fray With Book Blasting Media’s ‘Liberal Bias’

Discuss this story

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Books, Gay Republicans, Republican Sexcapades


June 4, 2003

Midnight Miscellany

Make That the “Roadmap to Hell”:

In Mideast, Bush presses Arabs on peace. In his first trip to the region, Bush meets today with Arab leaders to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian road map. [Christian Science Monitor]


Chirac: Moufflarge! Voulez-vous cesser de me cracher dessus pendant que vous parlez?

Dubya: Thanks, Jack, you’re a real swell guy, too!

U.S.-French Détente: Leaders Lower Voices. When the American and French Presidents met, they were polite in public and, by all accounts, even nice to each other in private. [New York Times]


Another chicken resigns from KFC:

Mary Cheney ducks out of GOP gay group. Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of U.S. vice president Dick Cheney, has resigned from the board of the Republican Unity Coalition slightly more than one year after taking on the largely honorary post with the gay-straight political alliance. [The Advocate]


R.I.P.

Burke Marshall, a Chief Official of the Civil Rights Era, Dies at 80. Burke Marshall, the government’s legal strategist on civil rights in the era of freedom rides, the Birmingham church bombing and the March on Washington, died Monday. [New York Times]

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Civil Rights, Dick Cheney, Europe, Gay Republicans, George W. Bush, Israel-Palestine, R.I.P., Race/Ethnic Issues


April 27, 2003

Miracle on Christopher Street?

Has Andrew Sullivan finally begun to see the light? Maybe just a teeny-tiny little splinter of light?

Andy, Andy, Andy… You’re so bright, and such a good writer… When, oh when are you going to realize that your own political party hates your gay ass? They always have, and they always will.

Dear, poor, misguided Andy — come into the light! Remember, even David Brock found his way after a lifetime of crimes you couldn’t even begin to approach — and if we can forgive him, we can forgive you.

I’ll even introduce you to some boys who can help you shop for something other than those constipated Ivy League shirts and ten-pound Cordovan shoes I’m sure you wear.***

*** First one to identify the movie the “ten-pound Cordovan shoes” line is from is queer!

Posted by: Sapphocrat

 |  |

Tweet This Tweet This Post! Tweet This


Filed Under: Gay Republicans


 

 
The newest and sexiest books are just a click away.
 

Latest Comments to
The Lavender Newswire
and
The Gaytheist Agenda


 

 

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 1364 access attempts in the last 7 days.