says a headline in today’s Washington Post business section.
Ha ha. Looks like blacks aren’t the only ones who are assigned “leaders” by the media. Now all gays get to be patronized whenever a popular gay-rights activist emerges and is clumsily titled thier king.
Seriously, what the eff’s wrong with “activist”?
Maybe they are leaders, and not activists?
Doesn’t the official Gay Agenda© have have laws and by-laws describing how their leaders are chosen?
Take me to your self-appointed leader.
:rolleyes:
America has enough leaders that I voted against that I don’t need one or want one who wasn’t even up for election.
I’m not sure what Liza thinks she’ll be able to do, but I appreciate the effort.
Presumeably activists chose people from among them to talk to Ford. Maybe representatives would have been a better term, but there’s nothing wrong with saying leaders.
Well there’s nobody who leads specifcally gays (or blacks), so the only people they could be referring to are activists. Would you be comfortable with anybody being titled a “white leader” or a “straight leader”?
“Representative” would have been a worse term, unless they specified the individuals, or activist groups they represented, rather than “representatives from the gay community”.
I suppose they could have headlined the story “Ford talks with some pissed-off queers” but… 
Among those who met with Ford were the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
These two groups, along with Lambda Legal, are generally acknowledged among those queers who care as the leading national gay civil rights organizations.
I somehow am unable to work up any outrage at the notion that they would be labeled “leaders” by the mainstream press.
That would mean honesty and integrity would have returned to journalism, and then people would be expecting all kinds of crazy things from journalists.
Here I have spent all this time trying to be a good upstanding sodomite and now this.
I can’t find anyone who will lend me a copy of The Gay Agenda so I know exactly what I’m supposed to be up to and NOW they go and have an election for leaders and I don’t get to vote.
Bitches.
Personally, if I’m standing up I find it rather difficult to…oh, you said upstanding. Never mind.
I wonder who the heterosexual leaders are, and what our agenda is? When I was an auto worker, we got to vote on who our leaders were, and they told us what our agenda was.
When issues of heterosexuality arise, the only people hollering are strip club owners and repressive angrybots from the churches. Why are the same angrybots railing against heterosexuality and homosexuality? Something’s twisted, here.
Yes, you’re right, sorry. I meant representative of the activists concerned, not of all gay people, which would be generalisation.
This conjures for me the images:
Moses raising his hands over his head
And a Playboy bunny…
“I part now thine lengthy twigs!”
glad I’m an atheist
I read the part I bolded as the National Gay and Lesbian Track Team. I was about to ask where I could go to see them race. 
No, sorry, those people don’t speak for me (or any of my friends, FWIW).
And I absolutely loathe it when people assume that all gays march in lockstep behind these putative “leaders”.
“… queers who care”? What the unprintable hell does that mean? Presumptuous, Otto, presumptuous.
Look, Miss Thing, it gets sent out every month. If you haven’t been keeping up, you have no right to complain when you don’t get to vote in the elections.
Damn, now I’m so worked up I need a facial!
A putative leader is anyone who says “HRC is the abbreviation for Hillary Rodham-Clinton”, then thinks for a moment and says “oh…and Human Rights Campaign”.
I, for one, welcome…