SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Supports civil unions and thinks gay marriage is inevitable, though he does not support it.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: She seems to both oppose same-sex marriage and an amendment against it, which, in political circles, is considered a compromise position.
SEN. CHRIS DODD: Supports civil unions but not marriage.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: “Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it.” (Read: Attorney-speak)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Does not support gay marriage.
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: Equal Marriage: Supports civil unions.
The whole lot of 'em – Fucking Homophobes!!! Though tom already pointed it out, the partisans here keep forgetting the entire political class is filled with hypocrites.
I refuse to carry any party’s water, but find it interesting there’s so much broad brush painting of pubs here. Why is that their party’s primary voters (which by most accounts includes the highest percentage of ideologues) still have a pro-gay, one time drag queen in the number one spot in pre-election polls?
[QUOTE=JohnBckWLDThe whole lot of 'em – Fucking Homophobes!!! Though tom already pointed it out, the partisans here keep forgetting the entire political class is filled with hypocrites.
I refuse to carry any party’s water, but find it interesting there’s so much broad brush painting of pubs here. Why is that their party’s primary voters (which by most accounts includes the highest percentage of ideologues) still have a pro-gay, one time drag queen in the number one spot in pre-election polls?[/QUOTE]
I personally associate the ‘homophobic’ mantra to the Repubs more so 'cause when there’s calls for constitutional amendments and so on, seems it’s republicans leading the way. 'Course my perceptions could be off…
I was incapacitated by laughter for a good five minutes by this image.
In all serious, Der Trihs, that was a great example of how effective you can be when you keep it calm and rational. As someone who generally agrees with you on some level (if not word-for-word), I hope we get to see more of that and less of, you know, that other thing.
There’s a great book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” by Thomas Frank, a progressive Kansan, which deals with pretty much this very topic. It focuses on Kansas, of course, but has quite a bit to say about national politics too. He advances the position that a post-Vietnam conservative backlash is responsible for the whole mess, and supports it pretty well.
If you’ll forgive the metaphor, the Grand Ole Party has bended over and opened wide for neoconservatism and all of its trappings. The Party in general (if not every single politician individually) and consistently Republican voters in general (if not every single one individually) must accept an assload of responsibility for allowing it to happen, and for allowing “values voters”–ie, those opposed to the separation of church and state–to take over American politics to the extent that they have.
If it were a dishonorable discharge, AIUI he wouldn’t be able to apply for any federal government position without disclosing the discharge and the nature of same. I don’t recall whether the “gayness” discharges are Administrative or Dishonorable, though. Maybe someone with more military experience can chime in.
WAG, but could it be that Guiliani leads the polls right now because he has been selling himself as the man who can stand between the country and terrorists/terrorism, the issue the Republicans have been drum-beating the fear into the people about since the day after 9/11? He looks good on that note right now, despite his pro-gay, pro-choice stances.
This will all change once the country finally does realize exactly who and what Rudy really is (like NYC already knows) adn what he’s selling. This will be well before they come to the precipice of doom that would be a Guiliani nomination/presidency.
You know that “drag-queen” outfit was just for one-time skit, right?
Using that against G. would be like Bush turning on Rove simply because of that one time when he tried to rap (and dance) and thinking he’d gone hip-hop gangsta on him.
Although you have a point about the chickenshit positions of most Dems on same-sex marriage, I think there is still a substantive difference on their public stance towards homosexuality in general. They don’t typically go around saying it’s a sin or that gay sex, in itself, should be a crime (as some Republicans have said), nor do they join themselves at the hip to manically homophobic political groups like Focus On the Family.
Plus we all get it that Presidential politics is a game that forces candidates to make the most moderate, baby-splitting statements they can get away with while they’re campaigning. People know that HRC does not really give a shit if lesbians get married and would not lift a finger to stop it if elected.
Absolutely. I simply cross-checked Wikipedia to see what was posted there, and drew no conclusion regarding its accuracy. (I figured that if there was counter evidence, it would then be presented here and duly inscribed on the edit pages at Wikipedia.)
According to the 2004 national party platform statements of the Republicans and Democrats, your perceptions are spot on.
Here’s what the Republican platform (pdf) has to say on the so-called “Defense of Marriage”:
Here’s what the Democratic platform (pdf) has to say on that and other issues involving gays:
Now, I have some serious beefs with the Democratic Party in general, and there are many Democratic politicians that I have very little esteem for. But I have to say, reading those two passages makes me feel proud to be a Democrat.
Rule No. 1 for the Republican Political Operative: If a Republican is caught forcibly sodomizing a 10-year-old girl while his colleagues stand by watching and masturbating, immediately raise a hysterical hue and cry about a Democrat accused of kissing another man, but acquitted of any wrongdoing, during the local elections in Mississippi in 1839, in order to distract attention from your guy and focus it on those evil Democrats.
Moto is doing precisely what he is accustomed to do. It’s too bad; he used to be a thoughtful, reasonable member here with interesting, out-of-the-ordinary viewpoints.
You have to follow the stink all the way to find the dog. But you want to stop at an early point in Clinton’s scandal and declare him exhonerated. But follow the whole shitstorm (PDF) all the way through the Supreme Court’s suspension of him, and you’ll stumble on how, because of the misconduct I previously described, he eventually had to pay Paula Jone’s legal fees. And for the record, I don’t accuse you of dishonesty, just of presenting only the information that supports your own position while hiding or not disclosing information that would counter it. You do this with everything from Clinton to the Bible.
There are the Log Cabin Republicans, but this subset of the Republicans are “NOT GAY”. It would be like a Segregationist belonging to the Congressional Black Caucus.
Its not any kind of issue at all, merely a glancing observation, and a slight head scratch. But I have personally know lesbian seperatists, and a number of black seperatists (at the time, it must be noted).
Gets me to wondering if there’s any substantial difference in the way that a “gay” neighborhood comes to exist in comparison to, say, an Irish or Italian neighborhood.
