« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/27/2007
Just like our lives, gay chat continues to irk religious right
Yet another "pro-family" person is lashing out at the slate of Democratic presidential candidates for having the "audacity" to discuss LGBT issues at the upcoming HRC/Logo presidential forum. This time it's Greg Kouki (pic.) from the Stand to Reason group, who tells One News Now:
"The Democrats are kind of, for lack of a better word, preening before the public to show everybody how liberal they actually are," ..."[They want to demonstrate] that they would be willing to invest a significant amount of their time and energy to go before this small group of people and make a public statement of how progressive their views are, that they are the card-carrying liberals. They are proud of this."
We respond:
Yea? You can't think of a better word than "preening," Greg? Well, how about: The Democrats are addressing the issues and community that have been the subject of MUCHO political debate over the past few years! How about: The Democrats are stepping up to discuss a modern civil rights situation that extends far beyond just the LGBT population! Or maybe: The Democrats are seizing the opportunity to show that in the American they envision, we are only as strong as our weakest or smallest community. Or maybe, just maybe: The Democrats are eager to de-board the moral plane that the religious right has so unapologetically hijacked, and this attempt to talk with the gay community and actually listen to our side in the "culture war" battle is a demonstration of the sort of two-side, less-polarized, more accepting America that we might come to know once they move into 1600 Pennsylvania!
The thing is, Greg, by not accepting the HRC/Logo invitation, the Republicans have forfeited their right to contribute to the conversation in this event. They who have dedicated so much time over the past few years talking about the LGBT community has completely ignored an opportunity to talk to the gay population. Virtually all of them have already discussed their views on our lives and loves as part of their campaigns. However, when asked to do so in front of a group of people who is most affected by their political rhetoric, they say, "No thanks!" THIS is what's unacceptable! If they want to make a public statement of how conservative their views are and want to show that they are card-carrying "pro-family" players, then they should have the gumption to stand up and tell the gay community to our faces why, exactly, we are all wrong in saying we deserve full equality.
Greg, you religious right folks always take so much pride in your vast numbers in comparison to the gay rights advocates. But this is such a myopic way to view the world. Clearly we, the rag-tag, "insignificant," marriage-craving gays, have managed to enrage the conservatives enough to want to CHANGE OUR F***IN' CONSTITUTION to ban us from legally-recognized monogamy! Clearly we are on the minds and tongues of everyone in American politics. It matters not that you evangelicals are a much larger group (and we do concede that you are). Your numbers do not automatically give credence to your stances. HIstory is filled with situations where wrong-headed beliefs held a lead in popular opinion polls. That didn't make them right.
This HRC/Logo debate may just be a small step towards giving the gay community a chance to represent themselves more adequately in the debate over our rights. However, it's a very important one. By accepting the invite, the Democrats have shown not that they want to be seen as "liberal" or "progressive" or like the cheerleader in high school who would hang out with the skaters in order to prove she was "edgy." They have instead demonstrated that they value the opinion of a rich, vibrant, politically-informed community who is tired of seeing their existences punted around in a game of political football. The GOP candidates, on the other hand, are acting like that gossipy girl in high school who will talk shit about any and everyone, yet who when confronted straight-on, cowers like a spineless jellyfish. They should be ashamed of this.
Christian commentator: 'GLBT' presidential debate a poor move for Democrats [ONN]
***Oh, and just so we're clear: If the conservative Christians wanted to hold a debate/even like the HRC/Logo, we absolutely think the Dems should stand before them and field their questions as well. A leader who is deserving of the White House will stand their ground in front of any of their potential constituents, both listening to and addressing their concerns.
Your thoughts
Barack also says in his youtube debate that as a president he is not using his religous beliefs to deterimine law.
THE following are HRC statements the top three gave a few months ago:
Clinton says
""I would like to see federal benefits extended to
same sex couples that meet certain standards.""
""I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may
prohibit the federal government from providing
benefits to people in states that recognize same sex
marriage. ""
""I strongly support ensuring people in stable,
long-term same sex relationships have full equality of
benefits, rights, and responsibilities.""
Clintons above three statements have me concerned
she is side stepping in what she says as not
to commit to anything officially.
she would amend the provisions of DOMA in certain
standards. Her husband and her were the ones who got
us DOMA which Barack has wanted to erase ever since
the clintons had it installed as law. Barack obama
and john edwards want to repeal DOMA which is good for
us.
"Obama is the only candidate who supports long-term,
same-sex relationships regardless of length of time
those couples have been together.
Edwards
""I believe that couples in committed, long‐term
relationships should have the same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or same‐Sex couples.""
Edwards above statement, is the only one in the area of
civil unions i am concerned about. Because straight
people don't have to be in long term committed
relationships to get married / civil unions.
However, edwards does want to repeal the DOMA bill
that the clintons levied on us in the 90's, which is a
good thing for edwards.
JOHN EDWARDS
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/edwards.pdf
HILLARY CLINTON
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/clinton.pdf
BARACK OBAMA
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf
Posted by: DanielleClarke | Jul 27, 2007 12:41:23 PM
Jesus who is God in the flesh love all sinners, including gay men. The wages of sin is death, we are called to repent (change turn away from sin). God/Jesus condemned homosexuality in Deuteronomy and Romans 1. Don't mistake God's patients for a license to sin. All flesh dies all! In death you will meet God, death is the beginning of eternity. This world is a test of the soul and God will not force his will on anyone, love is given freely. So you think the bible was written by men. Here's the key to knowing it is supernatural Prophecy and History. Man is held accountable for his choices. Jesus who was without sin paid the sin death at calvary,he was buried and rose from the dead. Repent and believe the Gospel and you will be saved. Choice not force. Here is the true meaning of death, separation from God in hell. Hell is defined as aplace of torment day and night without rest. I speak this truth to you in love, not judging any of you. Please choice life.
Posted by: Ed | Nov 4, 2007 11:45:29 PM
Ed: How many "patients" does God see in a day?
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 5, 2007 9:28:29 AM
comments powered by Disqus
