Shit, I wish I could feel good about a guy coming to terms with his personal struggles but he’s been too big of a shit on gay rights to be so easily offered forgiveness.
HEY CLOSETED GAY CONSERVATIVES! GET OUT OF THE DAMN CLOSET NOW WHILE YOU CAN STILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR DAMN PARTY!
I have a special disgust for man hating whores, dishonest cops and politicians ,bankers and financial pros who knowingly destroyed the economy for naked greed, military leaders who tell the truth after they retire, and republican gays who actively fight against their own people for money and power. Mehlman did not turn gay or discover it this week. He was a gay for a long time and he spearheaded the anti gay movement that would do harm and cost people like him their freedoms. How much lower can you go? He can not redeem himself. He suddenly wants to fight for gay rights. Fuck him. He should be ignored or ridiculed every time he appears in public. He sold his soul and his people for money. That can not be forgiven. He should be shunned by gay organizations. He has no standing at all.
I wonder if a wandering mod would like to fix the tags at the end of the OP to make it into the thing of perfection it so nearly was.
Someone like Mehlman can still do a lot of good - he has connections with people in power and is well-versed in how the game is played. I wouldn’t cut my nose off to spite my face if someone like him offered to spend the rest of his life trying to make up for what he’s already done.
Nope. Doesn’t work that way. When a party’s election strategy is about 40% HomoHate, coming out is the quickly way to become persona non grata. They’ll just be the guy in the corner that nobody should listen to because he’s one of Them.
Any way he tried to make any impact is because he’s one of Them and he’s trying to push Their Agenda. Look at the GOP-appointed judge who recently ruled on Prop 8.
-Joe
How does he make up for the damage he did and the anti gay organizations that he helped? How can he be a lying hypocrite for years and say “oops”. Not only did i not mean it but I am one of you. Oh ,OK welcome aboard.
I think Daniel Boone would be a nice ‘get’ for the gays. All rustic and in his leathers, a fashion setter when he wasn’t wrestling with guys in thongs… and according to the song “he was a big man”.
In return for Boone, Craig, and Radcliffe we’ll drop all claims to Lincoln and Vin Diesel.
It took me 20 years to figure it out myself, so I can’t blame you for not knowing. 
He probably can’t make up for all the damage, but he could spend the rest of his life trying.
Another selection- Mehlmac responding to the question how he could have aided Rove in pushing anti-gay marriage initiatives when he himself was gay:
I definitely have understanding. I understand the mentality of cowardice and hypocrisy and being a quisling and a liar and too terrified of losing your trust fund and the friends you think would despise you if they knew the truth (begging the question ‘then how are they your friends’). To quote Homer Simpson to Lisa, “The fact I don’t care about your problems doesn’t mean I don’t understand”. It’s just that natural sympathy is outweighed a bit by the fact you’re a slimy slick little piece of owl shit.
Do they even have those any more? (Bathhouses, I mean, not AIDS.)
Yep. They’ve made a comeback in recent years, though most profess a “safe sex” policy.
Got this notion in my head, don’t know how to go about confirming or refuting, so I’ll just lay it out here, see what you pals and gals think.
Seems to me that of the minorities in our nation…blacks, latinos, etc…gays are unusual in that so many do not identify with a “culture”. Gay men with a decidedly conservative political viewpoint appear willing to overlook the fact that the political positions they support are held by people who would oppress them, given half a chance.
I can sorta see it. Being a political idealist myself, I mostly hold myself to be part of a progressive community, even though there are some positions I don’t favor. Of course, none of those positions I disagree with directly and personally affect me as an individual. Perhaps if it were otherwise, I might regard my political ideals as outweighing that personal circumstance, I might be willing to overlook that because of my convictions.
Boiled down, Melman should be ashamed of those positions he fostered. But the fact that he, himself, is gay only brings hypocrisy into the mix. A relatively trivial sin, in comparison to a willingness to oppress vast numbers of innocent citizens for differences over which they have no control.
One need not be straight in order to be conservative, one need only be cramped, unimaginative, and reflexively fearful of change. What you would prefer to stick your weenie into, and why, is of no real consequence. And thats how it might be, if the Republicans had not sold themselves to the Troglodyte Right.
Mehlman ran the campaign that pushed 11 states to have an anti gay marriage ban on the ballots to get righties to go to the polls. He used the anti gay movement to increase the Republican vote. I find it shameful. He abused his own people and stoked gay hatred for political gain. Many gays suffered because of his dishonest politics. They still do. He can not make that go away.
“his own people”?
I guess that’s kinda what I’m wondering about, does one become a member of a “community” unwillingly? If freckled people became a despised minority tomorrow, would I be obliged to allign myself with that “community”? I think a community is a positive assertion, and cannot be based simply upon rejection by others.
But, by and large, black people consider themselves part of a community, as do latino, etc. They criticize their fellows from a position within that community, Chris Rock, Bill Cosby, etc. This willingness to be absorbed into a larger group doesn’t appear to be as common amongst gay men, and I wonder why.
Disclaimer: I personally know very few openly gay men, and them not very well. So I may be totally off the mark here, and not know it at all. Its only a notion, a “seems to me” kind of thing.
No. The difference comes from the fact that you can’t be a closet black person.
I reject this notion. I recall an episode of “The West Wing” where a gay republican votes for fictionalized-DOMA. He has a rant about being more than a gay man, and his vote reflects that. I was so very disappointed that the west wing staffers didn’t hand him his ass (the show was trying to be more ‘balanced’ at the time). It is utterly ridiculous for a gay person to vote for anti-gay legislation because ‘they are more than just a gay person.’ The legislation itself treats them ‘only as a gay person!’
He did what he did because he was a coward.
Same for the real-life jerkoff. Anti-gay is often a cover to distract from ones own gayness. He’s weak. Nothing more.
But one has to be severely fucked up in the head to be gay and conservative. It’s one thing to be a chicken-hawk. Fiscally conservative maybe (which actually makes one more democratic than republican nowadays), but social conservatism? We call them self-hating.
As a gay, he suffers when all gays are denied their rights. As a gay politician, if he is in charge of instituting policies that does harm to his gay, then he is responsible. He is talking now about fighting for the right for gays to marry. He is in large part, responsible for galvinizing the groups who fight and deny gays their right to marriage. How can he escape from what he did ?
Sadly, I feel you may be right. I wish we could create some kind of gay Manchurian Candidate so that the next time the GOP has a president, he could come out during his State of the Union and drop the bomb that yes, he’s gay.
What he did was wrong whether he was gay or straight, the fact that he was gay only adds a charge of hypocrisy to his crimes. If it could be proved that Hilter was Jewish, and knew it, that would be worse, I suppose, like pissing in the ocean makes it wetter.
Myself, I have never quite agreed with race-based affirmative action, though I whole heartedly support economically based efforts, to further opportunity. But if affirmative action is one point of an agenda with more points that I agree with, I will support that candidate, and without a qualm.
If the lefty parties adopt positions inimical to freckled people, that won’t make me a Republican.
Seriously? If the Democrats entertained the support of people who say that freckled people should be stoned to death, you would still be a Democrat? If the Democrats started introducing legislation and Constitutional amendments that said that freckled people couldn’t get married or mandated discrimination against freckled people in housing and employment, you’d remain a Democrat? If the basic ideology of the Democrats said that freckled people are an abomination before nature and don’t deserve to be treated like human beings, you’d remain a Democrat?