« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


We're not asking that he support liberals, just basic liberties!

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images  Good As You Images TraynhamRobert Traynham, the openly gay man who used to serve as communications director for Rick "man on dog" Santorum, has a new role to play. That new gig: Senior adviser to potential presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

As Mike Rogers says over at BlogActive:

Here's some of Fred's stands on the issues:

Hate Crimes: Voted 'No'
Hate Crimes again: Voted 'No'
Defense of Marriage Act: Voted 'Yes'
ENDA: Voted 'No'

Well, at least Robert will feel right at home.

Indeed. But the real question, Mike -- While in that home, how in the hell can Traynham POSSIBLY sleep at night? After all, if his most recent employers had their way (as least as they've made it seem publicly), the person sleeping next to him would be nothing more than a legal stranger with whom he has non-traditional, possibly immoral relations. And call us self-loving bleeding hearts if you must, but we prefer, nay, demand just a little more respect from our bosses (Dem or GOP) than tired claims that our basic equality is somehow "special":

WALLACE: Gay rights.

THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody.

And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.

WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You're against.

THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that.

WALLACE: What about civil unions?

THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there's real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.

People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that's what's happened in a lot of these areas.

But hey, we all choose our heroes and leaders. We just wish Robert would choose to back folks (Dem or Repub) who'd help his life and love become a non-issue, and not those who foster an environment that keeps us all marginalized, demonized, or worse!

Thompson snags Santorum frontman [Pennsylitucky Politics Blog]

**UPDATE: Or maybe, just maybe, Fred has more in common with Robert than his record would seem to show.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

"We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight"
Sounds like some one hasn't been paying attention to the history of the Supreme Court. Thanks Fred for throwing us that bone of compromise. I remember segregation was said to be one of those "real disputes" that would never be solved, and look at how well that separate but equal compromise worked out...

Posted by: Patrick B | Jul 2, 2007 6:53:11 PM

Isn't that the definition of an "Uncle Tom?"

Posted by: Franc | Jul 2, 2007 11:33:29 PM

Didn't John Edwards speak the same crap in the television debate the other night about how states should be allowed to decide if they think gay marriage should be legalized? You know like back some years when black people weren't allowed to marry depending on where they lived. Why are equal rights for ALL under the Consti-flippin-tution so elusive. It's sick.

Posted by: justjohn2 | Jul 3, 2007 4:14:03 AM

JustJohn2: While many of the Dems are leaving something to be desired in their stances, few to none are using language like "special rights" or speaking out against civil unions. In fact, they are all pro civil unions (or DP benefits). And candidates like Edwards are also pro-ENDA; anti-Don't Ask, Don't Tell; pro-hate crimes laws; supportive of same-sex adoption; etc. Thompson is decidedly none of those things.

No matter how sugarcoated, words like "special rights" are hostile GOP talking points. And having an anti-gay marriage AND anti-civil unions stance (which Thompson says is his personal one) is BEYOND offensive!

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 3, 2007 8:09:51 AM

Too bad no one asked Fred if he thought straight white males deserve "special rights". . .and how that tradition fits into his party's thoughts.

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 3, 2007 12:44:34 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails