« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
02/24/2011
Sure thing, @GayPatriot. As an 'I Hate Slurs' party rep, I condemn this phrasing
A few minutes ago, conservative GOP blogger Gay Patriot publicly Tweeted this site the following messaging/video:
Now, I guess GP's implication was that this site and this writer would not condemn this union supporter's usage of the slur, since labor is linked to the Democratic party and gay brains are supposedly bound by some kind of monolithic, left-leaning overlord. But I really don't understand the point GP or Michelle Malkin or anyone on "the right™" is trying to make here. Perhaps I should've read my morning copy of HyperPartisan Daily, but, frankly, the cover story on "Crossfire' nostalgia really didn't interest me much.
Look, OF COURSE I condemn this slur made by this one individual. As I would imagine (or at least hope) the majority at this AFSCME Solidarity Rally would. Because it's not like this person's outburst led to an impromptu gay bashing session, with the ralliers abruptly converting their signs to more Phelpsian ones. We're talking about one man who made the poor choice of using a heinous word that, unfortunately, even some of our supporters still use to convey anger or aggression or machismo or whatever. One man. Out of hundreds. Bad choice. Not a hate crime -- but still a bad choice ti use a nasty word. AND I condemn this slur. As a human. Not a red or blue human -- just a human (an incidentally white one, though my reaction's not based on race either).
Where exactly is the story here? Where is the supposed, partisan point? More importantly: Why must there be one?
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
