# "It's open season on gay people in this country." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865 "2004-11-03T22:57:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/41 "2004-11-04T15:17:32Z")
Separate but equal is not equal. If homosexual marriages are called “civil unions” and hetero marriages are called “marriages”, they might start out equal, but there is no guarantee that they will remain so. I still think the word “marriage” should be completely stripped from government, and all unions should be called “civil unions” by the government (your church or friends or whatever can still call it whatever they want), but even civil unions were apparently banned in 8 of the 11 states that passed amendments. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/42 "2004-11-04T15:58:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You have to act smart if you want reform. You have to be willing to make tactical compromises, like going for civil unions, or you end up with state consitutional amendments that will make it EVEN HARDER to reach your ulitimate goal down the road. I do agree with you in this case, but then there are points when hell with tactics and just do it – like the racial integration of the military. Sure, there were still plenty (maybe a majority) of people against it, and, sure, there was a backlash, but it was time to just do it and it didn’t turn out worse than more tactically gradual integration might have (we could still be waiting). The trick is to be able to identify when to wait and when to move. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/43 "2004-11-04T16:01:43Z")
> [@BlueGarden](#): > > I suspect when laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages were repealed (if they ever were repealed or if they are simply ignored) They were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/44 "2004-11-04T16:14:02Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > They were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Darn activist judges… ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/45 "2004-11-04T16:20:06Z")
Talk of “open season” on homosexuals partakes, I’d submit, of the stereotypical hysterical/flamboyant approach that’s customarily been attributed to homosexuals. If you review the bidding, homosexuals currently enjoy more rights, and greater social status, than they’ve ever had in this (or as far as I can tell, any European-based, other than Greek) culture. Until the unelected Supreme Court decided that the Constitution prohibited bans on sodomy, which happened all of last year, there had never been a time of which I’m aware in which the right to sodomy had been GUARANTEED in every U.S. state. Some (many? maybe not yet) governmental bodies and private employers are extending benefits to same-sex couples, which NONE did up till about, oh, ten minutes ago. The Republicans, while they draw lines in the sand in deference to the strongly-felt beliefs of their base, who, like the majority of Americans allowed a democratic say, oppose “gay marriage,” tacitly make overtures to the “gay community” and don’t even refer to homosexuality as a sin or disordered behavior in their official platforms or in their de facto use of Mary Cheney as a symbol of their “big tent.” Again, the most liberal President or Democrat up through and including Jimmy Carter would not have been this “moderate” in their approach. Representation of “gay culture” in television, etc. is higher than it’s ever been, and papers such as the N.Y.T. routinely print glowing encomia to, and accounts of, “gay marriages.” Here’s my point: you can certainly argue that “gay marriage” ought to be legal and indeed that it is a fundamental moral right whose denial is a grave injustice. I’ll either agree or disagree. But anyone who acts as though it is George Bush who is “threatening gay people” attacking their “right to gay marriage” loses any credibility, simply because there never has been, and still is not, a recognized “right” to “gay marriage” that could be attacked or eroded. You can’t lose that which you never yet won, and you can’t characterize the failure to create new rights as some sort of acute and urgent attack on a “community” who’s currently doing better than they’ve ever done (if not as well as they’d like to do) in American history without running the risk of sounding like a drama queen of the worst sort. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/46 "2004-11-04T17:09:04Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > You are surrounded by terrible people. Find some decent people to be your friends, the ones you have obviously garbage. Spoken like a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/47 "2004-11-04T17:15:49Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > The Republicans, while they draw lines in the sand in deference to the strongly-felt beliefs of their base, who, like the majority of Americans allowed a democratic say, oppose “gay marriage,” tacitly make overtures to the “gay community” and don’t even refer to homosexuality as a sin or disordered behavior in their official platforms or in their de facto use of Mary Cheney as a symbol of their “big tent.” They come pretty damn close. From the official Texas GOP platform: > [@](#): > > The practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education or policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are against granting any special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. > … > We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods. Whooooooooo! Can you feel the tolerance just oozing out of that platform? ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/48 "2004-11-04T17:21:30Z")
> [@](#): > > The practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society K-Y, darling, try using some K-Y. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/49 "2004-11-04T17:28:58Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > K-Y, darling, try using some K-Y. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/50 "2004-11-04T17:36:02Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > You can’t lose that which you never yet won, and you can’t characterize the failure to create new rights as some sort of acute and urgent attack on a “community” who’s currently doing better than they’ve ever done (if not as well as they’d like to do) in American history without running the risk of sounding like a drama queen of the worst sort. Yeah, okay. Attention all black people in the 1860s: You used to be slaves, and now you’re free! And you have the right to own land! And vote! You’re currently doing better than you’ve ever done! Want the same (enforced) rights as the white man? DRAMA QUEENS. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/51 "2004-11-04T17:38:03Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > I think the gay marriage issue jumped on many people, especially those who thought the issue was solved with civil unions. “Solved with civil unions”??? What civil unions? Vermont is one little state, how does that solve the f-ing issue? ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/52 "2004-11-04T17:40:31Z")
> [@norinew](#): > > Well, I’m not exactly a “Bush supporter”, but I can find more in him to support than I can in Kerry. But I’ll tell you the truth: if Kerry had, at any point, come out as being in favor of SSM, that may have swayed me to vote for Kerry. One of the things that I _dislike_, intensely, about Bush, is his stance on SSM. But Kerry’s isn’t any better. YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! YES HE WAS! 100% RATING FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN - KERRY’ TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE OF GAY CIVIL UNIONS FROM DAY ONE - KERRY Bush lied when he said he favors civil unions. His bigot amendment would have banned all civil unions in all states. Kerry was WORLDS better than Bush on this issue. NIGHT AND DAY BETTER. God damn people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about it. Jesus Christ, I love this country but hate my countrymen. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/53 "2004-11-04T17:43:28Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Talk of “open season” on homosexuals partakes, I’d submit, of the stereotypical hysterical/flamboyant approach that’s customarily been attributed to homosexuals. Is “open season” hyperbolic? Yes. But hysterical/flamboyant is particularly insulting. The course of stopping civil rights by reinforcing particular state and national laws is telling of a propensity for backwards movement. It’s assumptive to think that a galvanizing issue in this election was the gay marriage social issue and using that as a syllogistic building block after viewing the returns, it’s not a big stretch to wonder if the country is starting to villify the LGBT community. > [@Huerta88](#): > > If you review the bidding, homosexuals currently enjoy more rights, and greater social status, than they’ve ever had in this (or as far as I can tell, any European-based, other than Greek) culture. More rights don’t equal the same rights of course. Yes, since the Stonewall rebellion of 1969, we can enjoy the fact that gay bars aren’t raided on a consistent basis solely for the fact of the patron’s sexuality. We’ve advanced from that to what exactly? There are some local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation but nothing on a national level. Social status? Yes, the discrimination has waned since I came out 11 years ago today. (Happy Outday to me!). African Americans also enjoy more social rights and greater social status since the civil rights movements of the 1960s. Are they equal now? Are gays equal now? > [@Huerta88](#): > > Until the unelected Supreme Court decided that the Constitution prohibited bans on sodomy, which happened all of last year, there had never been a time of which I’m aware in which the right to sodomy had been GUARANTEED in every U.S. state. Yes, this happened after the 1986 Bowers v Hardwick debacle with the 5-4 decision found that nothing in the Constitution “would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy.” Lawrence V. Texas overturned that decision and sodomy was finally legal in the US. So…Yippee for us. It took a judicial fiat for the US to make sodomy legal. It’s sad that civil rights, which harm none, have to be fought for and not given, to begin with. > [@Huerta88](#): > > Some (many? maybe not yet) governmental bodies and private employers are extending benefits to same-sex couples, which NONE did up till about, oh, ten minutes ago. The company I’ve been with has granted them for at least 6 years (so as long as I’ve been working there). And domestic partner benefits in 1997 were at 10% and they went up to 22% in [2000](http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=401&article_id=54033&cat_id=1090) > [@Huerta88](#): > > The Republicans, while they draw lines in the sand in deference to the strongly-felt beliefs of their base, who, like the majority of Americans allowed a democratic say, oppose “gay marriage,” tacitly make overtures to the “gay community” and don’t even refer to homosexuality as a sin or disordered behavior in their official platforms or in their de facto use of Mary Cheney as a symbol of their “big tent.” Again, the most liberal President or Democrat up through and including Jimmy Carter would not have been this “moderate” in their approach. Yes, the republican’s official platforms tend to ignore things like civil rights (except for religious organizations). Unofficially, thoughtful people like Trent Lott or Rick Santorum have their views that they espouse in congress. They also tended to distance themselves from Mary Cheney as a symbol for anything when they admonished her use in the presidential debates as a person demonstrative of the LGBT people. > [@Huerta88](#): > > Representation of “gay culture” in television, etc. is higher than it’s ever been, and papers such as the N.Y.T. routinely print glowing encomia to, and accounts of, “gay marriages.” Well, you can say it as “gay marriages” or you can said it as marriages. Marriages that happened to be of two people of the same gender, but those are still legal in Massachusettes. As for “gay culture”, there is a sub-gay culture of people that hang out in gay bars, go to gay prides, and tend to live in a bubble away from the “straight world”. Shows like “Will and Grace” are no more a mirror of gay people than “Yes, Dear” are a reflection of straight people. Are gays more present and out on TV than before? I’d guess so. > [@Huerta88](#): > > Here’s my point: you can certainly argue that “gay marriage” ought to be legal and indeed that it is a fundamental moral right whose denial is a grave injustice. I’ll either agree or disagree. But anyone who acts as though it is George Bush who is “threatening gay people” attacking their “right to gay marriage” loses any credibility, simply because there never has been, and still is not, a recognized “right” to “gay marriage” that could be attacked or eroded. George W Bush was elected to be a leader and CIC of the US. Part of the president’s job is to push for policies that they believe are right. In a few occassions when Bush talked about civil rights and in particular gay marriage, he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. A bill that would ban gay marriage and quite possibly civil unions too. Did he introduce the bill? No. But he did support it. He does have influence in D.C. and the country when he [says](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html) “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, if activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.” Bush ATTACKED gay marriage by wanting to push the FMA once MA HAD gay marriage. > [@Huerta88](#): > > You can’t lose that which you never yet won, and you can’t characterize the failure to create new rights as some sort of acute and urgent attack on a “community” who’s currently doing better than they’ve ever done (if not as well as they’d like to do) in American history without running the risk of sounding like a drama queen of the worst sort. First off, it’s not an attack on a community, it’s an attack on a specific group of people. Secondly, have laws enacted against us on 11 state levels is losing. Should we attempt to legalize marriage or civil unions for LGBTs on a state level in those 11 states, it’s definitely a more uphill battle even if we had the majority of people behind us to overturn a constitutional amendment. Thirdly, “drama queen”, I see you’ve familiarized yourself with this subculture’s vernacular, but your usage seems particularly condescending in the context in which you post, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![esquimalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@esquimalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esquimalt)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/54 "2004-11-04T17:54:07Z")
Posted by **Spectrum** “Bush lied when he said he favors civil unions. His bigot amendment would have banned all civil unions in all states. Kerry was WORLDS better than Bush on this issue. NIGHT AND DAY BETTER.” Is this true? This came off the Whitehouse web site & was part of his speech anouncing the amendment "The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. " [Link](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html) Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/55 "2004-11-04T18:12:08Z")
> [@Spectrum](#): > > God damn people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about it. Jesus Christ, I love this country but hate my countrymen. Well, I’m really sorry to hear that you hate me, especially since I have nothing against you at all. Since you’ve pointed out the error of my beliefs, I’ll bow out of the discussion now. But I’ll continue to support equal rights for gays. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/56 "2004-11-04T18:18:30Z")
> [@NotWithoutRage](#): > > Yeah, okay. > > Attention all black people in the 1860s: You used to be slaves, and now you’re free! And you have the right to own land! And vote! You’re currently doing better than you’ve ever done! Want the same (enforced) rights as the white man? DRAMA QUEENS. Wrong. I explicitly and unintentionally left unanswered the substantive question of whether homosexuals have (a) all the rights they ought to, or deserve; (b) all the rights they will ultimately convince their fellow citizens that they should have; (c) any claim to being unfairly oppressed. The only question I was addressing is whether the rights of homosexuals are “under attack” or “facing erosion” or “being taken away,” by a uniquely-conservative, far-right government. And the answer to _that_ question is simply no, not by any objective measure. And I’d submit that the real tendency to portray Bush as some unique threat to extant, recognized “gay rights,” rather than a barrier to the further expansion of hitherto-unrecognized rights, is not only melodramatic (though it is that), but is an intentional rhetorical tactic. It’s much easier to try and sway well-intentioned swing voters on “Stop the fascist Bush from taking away our universally-recognized right to ‘gay marriage’” than it is to say “We oppose Bush because we’ve achieved 18 of the 20 items on our agenda, in substantial part through judicial shortcut as opposed to by convincing a majority of our fellow citizens to enact these policies by statute, and Bush is all that stands between our winning the remaining two by similar judicial fiat.” The reality is that Bush and the GOP are fighting a rearguard (sorry) action. The reason that Republicans and Dems. never before now endorsed anti-“gay marriage” statutes is not that every Republican or Dem. before Bush/today’s GOP was objectively “more tolerant” than Bush. It is because the concept of “gay marriage” was politically inconceivable till, roughly speaking, the combination of the Supreme Court’s reversal of _Bowers,_ and the Mass. supreme court’s rulings on this issue, made it seem to conservatives that the unelected Platonic guardians were well on their way to likewise imposing “gay marriage” on a nationwide basis, which could never happen were it left up to a vote. If there had been any question under a Carter (or Reagan, or Truman) Administration that there was the slightest chance of this happening, then Bush and the current GOP would not have been “the first party in history to specifically enact a law institutionalizing discrimination against ‘gay marriage.’” Again, I’m not saying homosexuals in America have every right they want or “should have.” I’m saying that when you throw an eighty yard complete pass and then get a five yard penalty that puts you six yards away from the end zone (sorry), it’s simply unrealistic to complain that you’re uniquely beleaguered and under seige or attack. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/57 "2004-11-04T18:21:19Z")
The FMA would have ended all civil unions. Bush pretends like that’s not true, but it is. The man is a lying bastard who plays moderate to cover his true right wing nature. I’d imagine that if he had it his way, not a single gay American would even exist… we’d all be tortured back into the closet or eliminated all in the name of the Jew on the Stick. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/58 "2004-11-04T18:53:56Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > The FMA would have ended all civil unions. Bush pretends like that’s not true, but it is. The man is a lying bastard who plays moderate to cover his true right wing nature. I’d imagine that if he had it his way, not a single gay American would even exist… we’d all be tortured back into the closet or eliminated all in the name of the Jew on the Stick. Ridiculous, without evidentiary foundation, and hysterical, but then your “imagination” has the right to be, I suppose. Your theory presupposes that GWB hates and disapproves of and intends ill to, and desperately wants to impose restrictions upon, homosexuals **more than has anyone who came before him.** Given that there has been a 200 year consensus in the U.S. that homosexual activities and preferences were not acceptable or not to be afforded equal status with heterosexual relations, this is quite a bold status. Many U.S. governments in the past (before the unelected courts began to step in to nullify the statutory framework put in place by representative democracy) have imposed, and enforced, reasonably tough limits (though not “torture” or “elimination,” _pace_ your evocative if lurid comments). So we’re supposed to believe that GWB is far more “right wing” than, say, the police departments of virtually every city up through about 30 years ago? I’ve never heard GWB calling for re-institution of anti-sodomy laws. He’s luke-warmly opposed further, and unprecedented, expansion of “gay rights.” Hate him for that, but not for imaginary, martyrdom-craving, thought crimes of wanting to exterminate you. The Bush family is notorious (in Republican circles) for their “squishiness” on social issues, when it comes to their personal opinions. Barbara Sr. came out as pro-choice, and I think Laura has hinted that she is, or is okay with stem cells. I’ve read several accounts of Bush’s unfazed attitude toward various homosexual personal acquaintances (the story comes to mind of his warmly hugging some post-operative transsexual classmate at a class reunion, or something to that effect) that would be far from reassuring to true social conservatives concerned with the sincerity of his opposition to the homosexual culture. Bush is simply no more conservative or reactionary on this issue (and is probably socially more accepting of homosexuals on a personal level) than all but one or two Presidents before him. What do you think the salty-tongued (sorry) cowboy “liberal” LBJ would have had to say about homosexual rights, for instance? Think he’d have hugged a transsexual? You have the right to portray Bush as bad, or as worse than current-day, more-liberal figures such as Kerry. You don’t have the right, logically, to demonize him as worse than anyone who’s come before. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/59 "2004-11-04T19:11:13Z")
Where did I claim that George W. Bush was more anti-gay than people from several decades ago? That’s right – I DIDN’T. George W. Bush is a throwback to those days, though. A fanatical troglodyte dressed up in a modern suit. He has publicly supported forever rendering millions of Americans second-class, sub-human, psuedo-citizens. It’s not that long of a step from supporting NOTHING that brings equality (his “support” for civil unions is a sham that deludes only imbeciles), supporting a GREAT DEAL that furthers inequality, and rounding gays up and just getting rid of us. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/60 "2004-11-04T19:20:58Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > It’s not that long of a step from supporting NOTHING that brings equality (his “support” for civil unions is a sham that deludes only imbeciles), supporting a GREAT DEAL that furthers inequality, and rounding gays up and just getting rid of us. Wrong, but consistent as far as the shrill hysterics. I guess that kind of consistency is a virtue. George Bush does not favor marriage between dogs and cats (probably true). He supported a law that would halt expansion of dog and cat unions (not yet, but I’m assuming he would if such a hitherto-unimaginable scenario were seriously proposed). Ergo, it’s not that long of a step to saying that GWB wants to round up and get rid of dogs and cats. Uh, yeah, it is. Look, I know that some people revel in the dramatic pose of would-be martyr (bonus – without having to go through the actual martyrdom part). So I don’t try too hard to stop the theatrical types from shrieking and having a conniption. I just don’t think that such silliness can be the basis for serious political discussion, anymore than I think _La Cage_ has much to tell us about the tax code. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865.md?page=4)