Kirk Fordham | Mel Martinez | News | Republican Party

New Anti-Gay RNC Chair Martinez Has No Issue with Gay Staffers

Incoming RNC Chair Mel Martinez, who has been vocal in his opposition to gay marriage and also attacked one of his opponents for supporting hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation, had no problem hiring (at least two) gay staffers.

Dowless_fordhamJohn Dowless, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, worked for Martinez as a political consultant and arranged lunches with conservative religious leaders for Martinez during his 2004 Senate race.

A top staffer on that Senate campaign was Kirk Fordham, a former chief of staff to sex predator Mark Foley and to Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds, from whose staff he most recently resigned in the wake of the Foley scandal.

As John at AmericaBlog notes: "Of course, in the end, the joke may be on the religious right base of the Republican party. Martinez didn't just have the openly-gay Kirk Fordham as a top aide on his Senate campaign, he also had a second top aide who was gay. Mr. Martinez may play a homophobe on TV, but he doesn't have a problem having key advisers who are openly gay. Which is great. But it also means that Martinez's personal commitment to the anti-gay agenda is more than just a little suspect."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Actually I could care less about his "personal" commitment to the anti-gay agenda, it's his professional commitment to promoting this special brand of hate that should concern people.

    Posted by: hoya86 | Nov 14, 2006 12:07:42 PM


  2. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.....

    Posted by: vince | Nov 14, 2006 12:16:50 PM


  3. I think I may have less an issue with Martinez than with the gay aides who work for these homophobes. Don't these people have any self respect at all?

    Posted by: Daniel | Nov 14, 2006 12:17:41 PM


  4. I agree with Daniel, my issues would be with the hypocrits that actually serve these candidates. You cannot have it both ways. Its sad what people do for money.

    Posted by: Shan | Nov 14, 2006 12:34:02 PM


  5. Daniel,
    Self-respect has nothing to do with it - it is all about power and money.

    Posted by: gryphon773 | Nov 14, 2006 12:34:06 PM


  6. Shhhhh....be very, very, quiet. Let's just leave these time bombs exactly where they are, then talk to their drug dealers and hustlers, ohhh, along around October 2008...

    Shhhhh!!! The kids stay in the picture! Until the next election!

    Posted by: bambambam | Nov 14, 2006 12:43:47 PM


  7. OMG! Not the Kirk that the Human Rights Champagne fund's Hillary Rosen, Elizabeth Birch's domestic muff, wanted gays to feel sorry for re his involvement in the Foley scandal finger pointing. It just couldn't be THAT Kirk? It is? Nevermind.

    Posted by: Leland | Nov 14, 2006 1:15:59 PM


  8. Standard Republican M.O. In DC, no one cares if you're gay, all the biggest haters have out gay staff, who just accept their bosses' hate-mongering as "Part of The Game," in the name of being "fiscal conservative."

    This is why I throw rocks at Log Cabin Republicans.

    Posted by: Michael | Nov 14, 2006 1:41:38 PM


  9. Michael: if you run out of rocks, call me!

    Posted by: Leland | Nov 14, 2006 2:07:59 PM


  10. PLEASSSE! Mel is not a homo-bigot...he is agianst gay marriage... NOT GAYS IN GENERAL... which is obvious by his hiring practices!

    But alas, if ANYONE even remotely disagrees with the idea of gay marriage... he or she is a bigot, homophobe etc.. etc.. Michael and Leland even advocate violence (i.e. "throwing rocks") NOW, NOW... who really is being intolerant of others peoples views? I'm gay, and could care less about infiltrating a 5,000 year old religious tradition to validate my love for another man...BUT agian... thats VIEW doesn't gel with the VICTIMHOOD...BOO HOO POOR GAY ME MENTALITY of the gay left.

    Grow-up! Stop looking for validation from the government and outside sources! If more gay men could define themselves by...BE YOUR OWN MAN!!! and not as a "Gay-Man" the gay rights agenda would be far better off!

    Posted by: mark | Nov 14, 2006 3:14:49 PM


  11. Mark: dictionary. Dictionary: Mark. See "metaphor."

    Posted by: Leland | Nov 14, 2006 4:30:41 PM


  12. Mark, be grateful that I am sick as a dog with the flu and unable to respond to your horseshit my friend. I just don’t have the energy to challenge all of the things wrong with your comment.

    Give me a couple more days of recuperation and that could certainly change.

    Posted by: Zeke | Nov 14, 2006 4:38:17 PM


  13. Mark, Mel is a homo-bigot. If you would even bother to know anything about him (and I admit I just learned who he is what he stands for from the link in Andy's post) you would know he favors a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You might not want to get married but others might.

    I could go on and on about your inherent self-hate but you're a special kind of idiot.

    Posted by: Seann | Nov 14, 2006 4:40:27 PM


  14. Mark, The gay marraige issue is a simple matter of basic human rights. Whether you decide to exercise that right should be your choice and not denied to you by others. The tyranny of the majority has long been used to curtail the rights of the minority, That is why certain "inalienable" rights are enshrined in the founding documents that frame our government. that is why rights should not be legislated. That is why amending the Consitution would commit a legislative horror inimicable to the principles stated therein. You are not in any way being forced to partake of any tradition with which you do not agree, but you should as a human want to ensure that others in your community are not denied their rights because of an immutable human characteristic. You are right in not caring (and the correct phrase is "could not care less") whether Mel invites you out for a drink becauue you and he are free to associate with whomever you choose; however, you should care whether he is using his political postition to deny your fellow humans societal rights. Do not confuse your opinion with inherent rights.

    Posted by: rudy | Nov 14, 2006 4:46:03 PM


  15. And, Mark, after you've figured out what a metaphor is, you might actually read the article about Martinez that Andy linked to. Even had he not opposed trying to reduce physical assaults on gays with hate crime legislation, and attacked his primary opponent for "catering to the 'radical homosexual lobby'," your assertion that he could not possibly be homophobic generally because his campaign employed gays, even were they not self-loathing gays [Dowless' fellow gay-bashing record suggests he should have his dick nailed to a chair], is absurd on its face. Or were you born yesterday and have not yet had time to read the long history of the employment of people of color in America and South Africa during the day by whites who lynched them at night?

    I just noticed: we have a free chair, Mark. Drop on by.

    Posted by: Leland | Nov 14, 2006 5:50:23 PM


  16. WOW! So glad i could help make everyones' day here...

    Let me state agian... SOMEONE WHO DOESN"T AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT AUTOMATCIUALLY A BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE etc.. etc..

    BUT... the tolerant "left" on this site see things a little differently:

    lets see... Zeke says i'm full of "horseshit" but, he's to sick to debate (Feel Better Zeke!)

    Seann: has admittedly read ONE article on Mel and he is an expert and i am am an idiot...

    Leland: your race baiting "metaphor" is'nt an argument either my friend... comparing the gay rights movement to the plight of African Americans in the US is an insult to all people of color... gays were not enslaved for 100's of years!!!

    and Leland needs "Special Rights" and laws be pasted to make himself feel "OK and excepted" i don't need them, but Leland insists i am the one that is "self loathing" thou protest to much my friend...


    as for metaphor:

    Isn't it funny that it's "metaphor" when the left implies violence agianst those that opppose them, but FACISM when anyone else uses such insiderary language... hat tip to Leland for inviting me over to "nail my dick to a chair" Classy Leland your a real debutante...


    So many commnets... so few ACTUAL arguments...

    Posted by: mark | Nov 14, 2006 6:44:04 PM


  17. Just one more point to add to the ones above before I die.

    If you think civil marriage is a religious institution I have a challenge for you Mark.

    Take two heterosexual Christians and have a priest marry them in a traditional Christian marriage ceremony in the Church before a thousand witnesses but WITHOUT a state license.

    Then take an atheist heterosexual couple and have them married by simply signing forms in a completely secular environment before a registrar and a single witness.

    When tax time rolls around, see which couples’ "marriage" the state recognizes and which couple goes to jail for fraud.

    The state is not and should not be in the business of legislating religious RITES. THAT should be, and IS, left up to churches.

    Additionally the church should not be in the business of regulating civil RIGHTS. Frankly, they don't have a very good record in that regard.

    As a Christian, I don't want the state regulating the religious RITE of marriage any more than I want them legislating who can and cannot be baptized or who can and cannot receive communion.

    The state should regulate CIVIL unions (which they call “marriage”)for ALL people and leave the religious marriage RITES for ALL couples to be taken to their faith and house of worship of their choice.

    Unfortunately we have confused RITES and RIGHTS in this country. Until they are properly separated and the term “marriage” is used to describe the civil right of legally recognizing couples the ONLY option is state sanctioned marriage and I don’t want to be denied this civil right.

    You call this a liberal position but I can't imagine ANYTHING more CONSERVATIVE than not wanting to be taxed to support a government sponsored/supported institution from which you are banned.

    You seem to be under the misperception that what people like me are looking for is a pat on the back from Uncle Sam. That my friend shows your ignorance, or stupidity, I don’t know which.

    I just want my husband and my son protected just the same way my brother wants his third wife and his children from various marriages protected. Does that sound like a left wing screaming liberal gay victim to you? Actually it sounds more like the “family values” that the far right claims to support; only without all the hypocrisy.

    Now, I will retire to my bed to die. I really can’t suffer fools when I’m sick.

    Please forgive typos and grammar. I don't have time or energy for proof reading or editing today.

    Posted by: Zeke | Nov 14, 2006 6:52:16 PM


  18. Zeke,

    what we are really talking about when you break it all down is "symantics" I'm all for state sanctioned "CIVIL PARTNERTSHIPs or CIVIL UNIONs" LEAVE IT TO THE STATES TO DECIDE!!!

    For you and your partner and child.. in the interum i would suggest powers of attorney and having your partner legally adopt your son... And agian, i am not opposed to CIVIL UNIONS... i hope your state passes them soon, so you and your hubby and son will all have those protections.. What i am opposed to is a blanket notion that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, homophobe, self loathing...etc.. etc...THAT IS THE HYPOCRISY!!! and that is what Andy's headline states: Mel is a total homophobic asshole, but he hires gays to work for him... HUH??? that makes no sense at all!

    BTW:thanks for being so civil Zeke, you managed to only call me stupid 3 times. WOW your are REAL GENTLEMAN!!! and as any good debater knows... when the name calling starts the articulate argument has ended!!!

    Take Care & Feel Better Soon!

    Posted by: mark | Nov 14, 2006 7:15:28 PM


  19. Mark, is everyone who disagrees with you not thinking for himself?

    If you'll look at Martinez's record he's done more than not support gay marriage--he's bashed an opponent for supporting anti-hate crime legislation, and he's said that living in a country that has gay marriage would be like living in Castro's Cuba (because Castro is so gay positive (that's sarcasm in case you can't tell)).

    Also, just because YOU don't want to get married to a person of the same sex doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Talk about whiny.

    You should look more at Martinez's statements before you go around saying he's some sort of friend to the gays because he hires a few greedy self-loathing hypocrites.

    Posted by: Daniel | Nov 14, 2006 7:20:02 PM


  20. I agree with everything that Zeke said.

    Mark in your first post you called Michael and Leland intolerant. First of all, they were joking about throwing rocks and you know that. Second, I can't stand it when somebody calls another person intolerant because they are intolerant of intolerance. And yes denying marriage to homosexuals is being intolerant because it prevents homosexual couples to enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples can enjoy. Any logical person would agree with this but you have probably been listening to too many right wing neo-conservative bigots to think logically.

    Posted by: BEN | Nov 14, 2006 7:21:08 PM


  21. Does anything in my comment qualify as an ACTUAL argument Mark?

    Do you have a family Mark or are you basing YOUR not needing the rights and benefits of marriage on your needs as an individual?

    Is it beyond your comprehension that there might actually be gay people whose wants and needs reach beyond their dicks and beyond their single minded selfishness?

    I wish you could spend a day with me and my family Mark. It just might open your mind and heart to a gay world that is more "normal", "conservative" and "family values" based than you could ever imagine.

    I honestly feel bad that you haven't been exposed to gay people who are honest, kind, responsible, thoughtful and civic minded.

    I have to say that I find it strange that you are so quick to chastize average citizens who dare express an opinion about a PUBLIC SERVANT's position but are so quick to defend the public servants right to his opinion that he is in a position to turn into legislation that would potentially harm millions.

    I also think it's clear that you are all about defending people's right to free speech and expression as long as it is speech and/or expression that you approve of and/or is socially conservative.

    I think you've got just about everything twisted around backwards.

    And in case you've missed it, I used to be a Republican and I am the one who DEFENDS conservatives here.

    Posted by: Zeke | Nov 14, 2006 7:35:25 PM


  22. I live in Florida Mark. My partner of 15 years is not allowed to adopt the child that he and I have raised since birth. My partner is the ONLY other parent my son has ever known...

    Oh forget it, I'm not going through all of this again. If you really give a damn about reality, check out the archives for my story.

    You are terribly naive if you think that powers of attorney, which I have done, are worth the paper that they are printed on.

    I sincerely hope that you never find yourself with a family that is in need of the benefits and protections that you are so flippant about dismissing now.

    Geesh, just when I thought I couldn't feel any worse, along comes Mark.

    I'm done. Good night.

    Posted by: Zeke | Nov 14, 2006 7:42:54 PM


  23. So, according to Daniel anyone who doesn't agree with him is a self loathing hypocrite... nice argument! your quite the debator!

    and to Ben who can't enjoy his relationship with another man UNTIL it's recognized by the state...im PRO CIVIL UNIONS (read my earlier post) BUT to Ben i am listening to to much Rush or Sean and implies once agian (as many above have) that i am stupid.

    Well, calling me stupid isn't an argument and NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED MY POINT: What i am opposed to is a blanket notion that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, homophobe, self loathing...etc.. etc...THAT IS THE HYPOCRISY!!! and that is what Andy's headline states: Mel is a total homophobic asshole, but he hires gays to work for him... HUH??? that makes no sense at all!

    Your as bad as BUSH: "Your either with us or agianst us! Well, the real world is a little more nuanced then that... So if Mel Martinez isn't willing to be my best man, hang out in the Castro, and watch Queer Eye...Then he is a de-facto BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE, GAY HATER etc... etc...

    How consilitory of all of you! No wonder the gay rights movement seems to be taking steps backward! To get some respect... you've got to be willing to give a little too...

    Posted by: mark | Nov 14, 2006 7:43:18 PM


  24. And forgive me if I don't feel like being tolerant of people who look at my family and call us the greatest threat to all things good and holy.

    Posted by: Zeke | Nov 14, 2006 7:47:19 PM


  25. Zeke,

    you asked: Does anything in my comment qualify as an ACTUAL argument Mark?

    my answer: NO!

    You then go on to pelt me with red herrings and hyperbolic statements about me that you could not possibly know about me! I never said i was single, i never said i was a republican, i never said i have no family... BUT, all of theses things are just another clue of your weak argument!

    Zeke also states: I also think it's clear that you are all about defending people's right to free speech and expression as long as it is speech and/or expression that you approve of and/or is socially conservative.

    But alas, couldn't i say the same thing of you Zeke... (replace social conversative with secular progressive)

    Back to Mel and my ORIGINAL POINT: We know one thing about Mel Martinez... he opposes same sex marriage... Andy and you above then apply to him a huge label of bigot, homophobe etc.. etc... explain, how you can qualify this?

    LET ME KNOW... and FEEL BETTER ZEKE!

    Posted by: mark | Nov 14, 2006 8:06:10 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Making the Out 100« «