Dammit, why can’t a liberal Democrat come out as straight every once in a while! :mad:
A fair point. But presumably a belief in states’ rights means that the people of a state should be able to decide these things for themselves. Well, we (I’m in Massachusetts) have decided, and the national GOP can go pound sand.
That would have been entertaining.
I agree that accusing him of hypocrisy regarding gay rights appears to be unfounded, although you could question his commitment to immigration law. The important thing here is that he’s accused of a very serious abuse of power: using his position as sheriff to blackmail someone into silence by threatening to have him deported. While I agree there are a lot of anti-gay Republicans out there, this would be just as serious if he were straight. (It might not have happened if he were straight, but if it had, it’d be the same problem.) I’m not inclined to be sympathetic to politicians who use their offices this way. It’s disgusting.
Yeah, right. Time after time, we’ve seen heterophobic gay Democrats getting caught with their pants down, and outed as being heterosexual. And we’ve seen their same-sex partners stand by their man (or woman) as they announce their orientation to the world.
Why must homosexuals see their homosexuality as their main identity? For example as I’m of Korean heritage, I favour Korea over say Japan or China in a political question but as America is far more important to me, if say a trade deal were to favour America at the expense of Korea I’d support it.
Identity Politics are very strong.
What favours (I can do that–I’m half Canadian) America that requires disfavouring gays?
I was comparing America and Korea in an analogy in response to the poster comparing the sherrif’s support of the GOP despite his homosexuality.
Why did the sheriff feel compelled to resign from Romney’s campaign when it became known he was gay?
When basic rights and equality are withheld from you because of who you are, you might think remedying that situation is more important than whether the capital gains tax is 15% or 19%.
So Democrata cavorting with racists such like Al Sharpton means they’re also racist? Good to know.
From what I’m reading it seems more of an issue of his harassing an ex.
Which he denies.
How does that follow?
Yes, and if a trade deal favored America at the expense of Homotopia, I’d also support that. Of course, there is no such place as Homotopia, and the issue with gay rights is not predicated on how the United States treats with outsiders, but how it treats its own citizens. You want to know why so many homosexuals place so much emphasis on their sexual identity? Because that’s the part of their identity that is under constant attack in this nation, by your co-religionist, and by your political party.
I suspect if there were a concerted effort by one of the two dominant political groups in this country (to say nothing of the dominant religion) to fuck you over just because you’re Korean, you’d find your Korean heritage would start becoming a hell of a lot more important to you in every day life. Whether you want it to or not.
The difference is that Korean-Americans have all the same rights and privileges as non-Korean-Americans. You are not legally treated like a second-class citizen, and there isn’t a large block of Americans who want to make your second-class status part of the Constitution. There are also no religions that consider your love life an abomination. And I haven’t heard of any Korean-American kids who are bullied until they commit suicide. And if you encounter any anti-Korean bigotry, you can rely on your friends, family, church and government for support. And I don’t think your parents will disown you when they discover that you’re Korean. And if you happen to die as a result of contracting a virus . . . I don’t think anyone would picket your funeral.
(I’m assuming we’re talking about political identity.)
In the US? Because often the biggest political issues that directly affect gay people’s lives are the issues related to gay rights. Also because the Republican party is so often so heavily opposed to gay rights that it can become very difficult for a gay person to vote for it, even if they agreed with, for example, the GOP’s fiscal policy.
I am certain that once gay people have legal equality, and once anti-gay sentiment stops being such a big part of the GOP’s policies (notwithstanding what the official platform referred to upthread may say) then you will see more gay people starting to vote based on other issues.
For example, I am gay; I live in a country with a constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and in which gay rights are not usually a political issue - the right-wing fundamentalist-Christian anti-gay party only managed 0.8% of the vote in the last election. I support a party which is officially ambivalent on gay rights, because I am more concerned with their fiscal policy and their capacity to govern efficiently.
tl;dr - when gay rights stop being a political issue, gays will stop voting based on gay identity.
Shirtless picture of the sheriff, he isn’t bad.
The link is only shirtless but I’m putting it in a spoiler in case anyone is reading this at work
False assumption: they don’t, usually, and it’s vanishingly rare for someone to put an orientation above their national identity.
Being gay is not an ethnicity. It is a subculture, as are ethnic groups, but they aren’t apples and apples. Among Americans whose ethnic culture is the same or nearly the same as the mainstream national popular culture, i.e. whites without a strong immigrant or non-local regional identity, being “homosexual” can be one of the main points of difference from everyone around them, so some people might value being gay above their ethnic heritage because they don’t think they have one, the same as most people think they don’t have an accent because they don’t notice it.
Sometimes, however, you have to choose, because your ethnic identity (say, Korean-Americans) might not be wild about the existence of gay Koreans, or the local gay community might reject Asians. You’d still be a gay Korean-American, but the amount of time you spent with one or the other subgroup would be less and corresponding the group identity would be less important. The facts of your ethnicity and orientation, of course, wouldn’t change.