Is Homosexuality Immoral? Clinton, Obama Won’t Say

Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, though asked directly, have so far refused to say whether they agree with General Peter Pace that homosexuality is immoral.

Hillary_clintonABC News’ Jake Tapper caught up with Hillary on the issue:

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral”. Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”

“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”

But is it immoral?

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”

Although Clinton has met with gay groups twice this month (GMHC and HRC) and promised the HRC crowd a “partnership”, she refuses to say whether or not she believes homosexuality is immoral. In evading the question, is Clinton simply making a pathetic political dodge to avoid conflict with potential conservative supporters that do believe it is immoral? Or does it speak more (and I sincerely hope it doesn’t) about her underlying beliefs?

Looks like the “partnership” is off to a great start.

Luckily for Clinton, but not for LGBT folks, Barack Obama (also courting gay voters) appears to be opting for the same strategy.

Barack_obamaFrom Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homosexuality is immoral.

Answer 1: “I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That’s probably a good tradition to follow.”

Answer 2: “I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they’re doing all the things that should be done.”

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

It’s a pretty simple question, don’t you think?

John Edwards, so far, has been the most light on his feet on this issue. Asked by Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room whether he agrees with Pace’s comments, Edwards replied, “I don’t share that view.”

We certainly deserve better answers from our candidates, and should demand them.

UPDATE: Our commenter Patrick notes a statement released by Clinton last night, in which she borrows from the Edwards playbook, as noted above: “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.”

Will “I don’t share that view” be the new catchphrase for evasive maneuvering this election cycle? Looks like it so far.

You may have missed…
Gen. Peter Pace Says Military Shouldn’t Condone “Immoral” Gays [tr]
General Pace Expresses Regret Over Anti-Gay Comments [tr]
General Pace’s Remarks Ignite National Debate on Gays in Military [tr]


  1. Bobby says

    Maybe none of us “immoral” gays should support Hil or Barack until they’ve come out and said exactly how they feel.

    I hate these pussy politicians.

  2. says

    I’m cynical and do not expect any major pol, who has a serious shot at the White House, to say the right thing on this topic.

  3. Delores says

    I’m confused. I thought Hillary IS a lesbian or at least bisexual. Is there some speculation here that she is self-loathing and that this is where her stance on the moral vs. immoral issue could be blurred?

  4. Patrick M says

    She tried to fix it later, after figuring out the suitably pr-processed “right” language to use, but it’s still weak. What is wrong with her and with Obama that they can’t be as forthright as Warner, a Republican? Two things to my mind: Either because they do think it is immoral, or they have to pander to the bigots.

    I agree with Larry Kramer that there is not one presidential contender who deserves our support.

    > From today’s NYT: on Wednesday night, a spokesman released a statement from Mrs. Clinton responding to the question: “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,” she said. “It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.

  5. zglass says

    Dear Senator Clinton,

    I am one of your constituents, and was, until today, very interested in the dialogue you began in earnest with the country some weeks ago.

    I write with great disappointment having just read an interview you gave to ABC political correspondent Jake Tapper. During the interview you were asked your opinion about the recent comments made by General Peter Pace, in which he referred to homosexuality as “immoral.” You answered by stating your position that the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is not working, with which I agree. But when Mr. Tapper pressed you to express whether you felt, as General Pace had asserted, that homosexuality was “immoral,” you responded that the question was “for others to decide.”

    Senator Clinton, as a gay man living in the year 2007, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The question of whether homosexuality is immoral isn’t left for others to decide. The question, I’m happy to report, has already been decided. The answer was a resounding “no.”


    No, homosexuality is not immoral. No. It’s not. Yes, some people, mostly fearful heterosexuals or closeted homosexuals, may say that they personally find homosexuality immoral. But, truth is, homosexuality itself, a man loving a man, a woman loving a woman, has already been decided on, and the verdict is in: nope, not “immoral.”

    And who, you might ask, did this deciding? Who are these “others” that you refer to in the future tense, but actually exist in the past, present and future? They are me an my boyfriend. And my friend Oliver. And the cool lesbian that tends bar at Nowhere. We are the “others.” Us and every other gay man and woman in this country who at one moment in time had to confront themselves with all the poisonous, confidence shattering garbage that people like General Peter Pace have polluted our consciousness with. Standing there, staring into a mirror and thinking, “I am a homosexual. Is there something wrong with me? Am I immoral?”

    And every single one of us, Senator Clinton, we’ve answered no. Maybe not the first time we’ve asked, maybe not the tenth. But in the end, we’ve reached what is really an unprecedented consensus on this one. The answer is no. We all thought you got the memo.

    After we answered that question, we went on to discover that we were, throughout history, some of the most moral, spiritual, beautiful, creative beings that have ever walked this Earth. That was in the memo, too. If Mr. Tapper calls back tomorrow, feel free to respond accordingly.

    Which brings me to my disappointment. Senator Clinton, I know you don’t think homosexuality is immoral. I mean, I know that in reality your personal opinion is that, no, of course homosexuality is not immoral. But that is not what you expressed today, given the opportunity to do so on a national stage. Which, to me, suggests one of two things: you are either a coward or a liar.

    Please, Senator Clinton, would you clarify your remarks? I don’t want to think of you as a coward or a liar. Those labels don’t rank very high in my book. Just a notch above immoral, actually.

  6. says

    “We certainly deserve better answers from our candidates, and should demand them.”

    I think you got the only answer they could give, given the backward nature of your culture at this present time.

    Good luck!

  7. RB says

    So who here is surprised by Hillary Clinton’s remarks? NOT ME!I posted some time back on Towleroad that Hillary’s views on how to “serve gays is fried with ketchup” and caught all kinds of crap for the comment! However, as her beliefs continue to “evolve” and of cours she continues to open her mouth and simply speak it turns out that I was not wrong. Interesting…WE DO NOT HAVE A FRIEND IN THE CLINTONS! And in my opinion, either of them!

  8. shane says

    Oh, I get it now: it’s okay for us to die fighting for a country, but we can’t live and be happy in that country.

  9. rjp3 says

    How about they just say: One’s opinion on the morality of sexuality is a personal and private decision based on an individual’s beliefs on how they choose to live their own life. In a diverse nation we should work to allow people freedom to live their lives based on the fullness of their individual spirituality and religious beliefs. There are many religious people who do not feel that homosexuality is immoral. As a Christian I believe Christ’s message was that we are not meant to judge others in this life. That role is left for God and God only. As an American I know that we should work to prevent the one group from imposing it’s religious doctrine onto other groups of Americans who hold different beliefs. As a married heterosexual, I can say any extra-marital sexuality straight or gay would be wrong for me.

    It really is that simple.

    If they need me as a speach writer I am availble. JEES!

  10. Jon Winkleman says

    I think the LGBT Community needs to take a deep breath, step back and think about what the GOP’s underlying strategy is when these things come up before reacting. In 2006 the GOP knew a constitutional ammendment banning the future legalization of same sex marriage had absolutely no chance of passing. They still introducedit, held press conferences and stirred the waters to give this futile bill lots of attention. Why? They wantedto get Democrats, especially those up for election or presidential hopefuls to make statements that can be twisted and used to smear them. Though gays wanted a louder rebuttal, the Democrats voted in a block against the MPA and had a low key response and instead talked about raising the minimum wage, healthcare and Iraq and the average voter was not distracted by this fiasco.

    Today though different candidates have dlightly differnt positions, all Democrats are demanding a stop to any possible surge, a plan for withdrawal from Iraq and diplomatic engagement of Iran. Now a Republican General stirs the pot on something that is irrelevant to thediscussion of IKraq or the military. In fact also to the discussion of gays in the military. When LGBT issues come up the GOP tries to frame the discussion around the church and personal beliefs even though that is not relevant to civil law. Lifting the military ban does not mean civilians or the enlisted have to personally approve of LGBT relationships just that LGBT should be afforded the same civil protections, priveleges and responsiblities. Getting Obama or Clinton to engage in a debate on the “morality” of a civil issue is a distraction from the real debate. The democratic strategy for lifting the ban is to focus on military preparedness. How can we fight terror when we fire LGBT Arabic and Farsi speaking translators. Are not the LGBT veterens who came home disabledor missing limbs less noble than their straight counterparts?

    Personally as a gay man who sometimes wants validation I would like to hear Clinton and Obama say that homosexuality is as moral as hetersexuality. However as a LGBT activist I would strongly prefer they stick to the party strategy and not lose control of the debate so we can make real change and lift the ban altogether.
    Jon Winkleman

  11. Bill says

    What is immoral is the fact these candidates cannot make a decision about us as people, yet can still beg us for our money and votes. What is immoral is upon receiving our money and votes they push us aside. Anyway, why would I ever ask a heterosexual if they thought homosexuality was immoral. They haven’t a clue. I agree with ZGlass. I don’t even care if they have an opinion.

  12. Crixi Van Cheek says

    Fuhrer Rove could not have dreamt up a better divisive maneuver himself! Now we have the democrats eating their own young and imploding all by themselves. Sure, it would be effin’ wonderful if every democrat was a complete faghag, but it ain’t gonna happen. We better choose our battles wisely or else those stealthily focused Christiac Republicunts are going to win again.

  13. PC says

    Is homosexuality immoral?

    Who the f**k knows!? But until somebody finds out, my homosexual ass is gonna get laid!

  14. martin says

    God, is anyone else sick of Decision 2008 yet? Face it, we’re not going to get a superhonest politician who can win. I’m sure Clinton and Obama don’t think being gay is immoral, but so far they are too cowardly and political to come out and say it. But I disagree with the comment that none of these candidates deserves our support. Remember 2000, when everyone said Gore and Bush would be exactly the same? Thanks to them, we’ve been slouching toward disaster ever since. I just want a Democrat who can win so we can start inching away from the abyss that Bush has led us toward.

  15. says

    I don’t care what Clinton or Obama has to say about the question. It will be their actions that will show me if they support gays or not. If they or any other Democrat is going to be hurt by the answer to this question, presuming saying they don’t think it is immoral, I would rather they not answer the question. The fate of the country shouldn’t hang from a thread over gay issues like it did last time with Gay Marriage. These two politicians already support gay rights, I don’t need a line drawn in the sand that could destroy their chances.

  16. Cody says

    Right now I support any Democratic President hopeful. The truth is, if Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama answer this question in favor of the GLBT community, they could lose the race for office. They have both said enough to insure that they support our GLBT communities. If we (GLBT) continue to probe it will only bring attention to the issue and once again polarize another election.

  17. MT says

    Does it really matter if Clinton and Obama personally think homosexuality is immoral? Morality is a subjective thing. If they respect us enough to recognize us as people who deserve the same rights as everyone else and are willing to work with us, what does it matter if they have a personal distaste for us taking it up the butt? I have a personal distaste for people who drive rusted out trucks and wear wife beaters but that doesn’t mean I’m going to make them stop being who they are. People really need to stop harping on semantics. It’s just as stupid as the whole ‘make Hillary say she’s sorry’ debate. In the end it’s just not important.

  18. martin says

    Amen, Patrick and Cody. Also, yes, as a gay man I am concerned with gay rights. But there are a lot of other important issues that affect everyone as well. Sorry, but health care and foreign policy issues matter more to me than gay marriage at the moment.

  19. Zeke says

    Yet, Senator Warner and former Senator Simpson, from VIRGINIA and WYOMING respectively, and both REPUBLICAN, had NO problem condemning Pace’s comments and stating, unequivocally, that they disagreed with his statement that homosexuality was immoral.

    Frankly, I’m really disgusted with Hillary and Obama’s responses. I think its beyond time for us to expect more from our “gay friendly”, “gay supportive” candidates than just having a “D” after their names. We need to hold politicians accountable for their words and action, regardless of their party affiliation, and demand that they pay us more than lip service in unannounced, unpublicized secret meetings in order to get our support.

    As a member of the United Church of Christ, I’m particularly bothered by Obama’s dodging and weaving on gay issues. I can tell you, with confidence, that he isn’t getting his positions on gay marriage or gay morality from his church. The UCC is supportive of gay marriage and celebrates its gay members, and gay people in general, as creations of God who are perfect just as they are.

    I’m also getting sick of HRC, et al, playing apologist to Democratic politicians and sucking up to them, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, but at the same time refusing to acknowledge the courageous, gay positive words and actions of truly gay supportive Republicans who put their careers where their mouths are; even when it goes contrary to their right-wing, fundamentalist base.

  20. mark m says

    “I agree with Larry Kramer that there is not one presidential contender who deserves our support.”

    In principle I might agree. In practice I couldn’t disagree more. It’s thinking like that that causes voter apathy and allows an idiot like W to reign in office for 8 years.

    8 Years People! We’ve lost nearly a decade to that baffoon.

    And now we have a chance to replace him with someone at least competent (Hillary, Obama, Rudy, take your pick) but no…

    None of them deserves our support so we simply won’t vote.

    And when the next fascist takes the oval office we’ll cry and whine for another 8 years.

  21. Zeke says

    Martin, from your statement I can only assume that you don’t have a family of your own. If you did you would probably better understand the importance of marriage equality and it ranking on the list of policies we should pursue.

    If you want to know just how important marriage rights are for those of us who are parents of children but not legally bound to each other, and where one parent is prohibited from being bound to the child (particularly in states like Florida), check out the archives and read the story of my family and what happened to us a few months back when I almost died. I won’t go into it again but suffice it to say that when you’re in that situation, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING is more important to you than marriage equality.

    Trust me, by your argument, there will NEVER be a right time to pursue marriage equality. There is always something more pressing and there will always be something more important. Try imagining what life is like for long-term, committed gay couples who can’t share legal protections, healthcare, child rearing or any of the other 1000+ benefits and responsibilities that they pay for but aren’t allowed to receive. Perhaps then the importance of marriage equality, for those who want or NEED it, will be clearer and more of a priority.

    I don’t mean to jump down your throat but this issue is one of VERY PERSONAL importance to me and I get really frustrated when I hear gay people who aren’t in relationships and don’t have children saying that marriage isn’t all that important. You may not be one of those people, but experience has shown me that the overwhelming majority of people who share your opinion are.

  22. says

    No one should be surprised by any of this. They will all pander. I say we join the “Draft Gore” movement and get someone who HASN’T pandered over the past few years to run. Al is solidly in our camp, spoke out against Iraq from the beginning and obviously has revolutionized the thinking on environmentalism. It’s cool again.

    So, Run Al Run.

  23. aidanc says

    Jon Winkelman makes a very compelling argument, that said, his principal point ( and one I have heard repeatedly from the strategists) seems to be that we should offer support for the party/candidate who does not seek to actively marginalize us with the unstated and implied sense that we will be taken care of for our support when the power to do something is theirs.In that sense, if an acknowledgement that homosexuality is not “immoral” is going to fuel the wing nuts bigotry and hurt a candidate then fine, dodge it.
    I personally want to believe that this strategy is wise, not because I condone it for the lack of equivocation itself, but because it is just that, political strategy, but I think what your hearing expressed here and by many others in the community is a collective frustration about what happens when the prize is delivered ? Will it really translate into some kind of meaningful advance in terms of LGBT equality ? The History on this issue proves my point and I think people are just sick and tired of it.

  24. Charles says

    “I don’t mean to jump down your throat but this issue is one of VERY PERSONAL importance to me and I get really frustrated when I hear gay people who aren’t in relationships and don’t have children saying that marriage isn’t all that important.”

    So…in other words, gay men in relationships and with kids and just more *important* than those other gays…cool. And gay men and lesbians in relationships and with kids are more deserving of healthcare and legal protections that just plain poor people. Good to know.

    I agree with Patrick and Cody-I simply will not be able to handle losing 4-8 years when this country should be rebuilding its reputation and dealing with issues such as global warming and protection from terrorism to people who think there is only one issue worth discussing.

    They are trying to draw the Dem candidates (who are extraordinarily strong) into a trap and some of us are abetting it.

  25. martin says

    Zeke, point well taken. This should be your #1 priority and concern. I understand the importance. All I really meant to say is that there are other issues out there that matter, too, for those people who don’t have families. You almost sound as smug as married heteros who act like people with children are superior to those who don’t have children, be they gays, single women, single men, etc.

  26. JT says

    There’s only one acceptable candidate for peace-loving gay men and women: Dennis Kucinich. Of course, he’ll not have the big money support, but I sure as hell give him my little money support. Congressman Kucinich is emphatic: full civil rights for LGBTQ people, including marriage. No equivocation. We’re probably going to be stuck with Senator Clinton, Obama, or Edwards as the “progressive” candidate in the general election, but the only way to keep the voice of tolerance and morality in the primary is to support the Congressman from Ohio.

  27. Frank says

    People, stop making excuses for these politicians. What ever happened to principle and political courage? Clinton never says anything without focus-grouping it and Obama looks to be more of the same. At least “faggot” Edwards has the courage to make a milque-toast condemnation of Pace. Gays are equal to straights and we have to stop putting up with this crap. Call them on the carpet!

  28. Derrick from Philly says

    Call me naive, but I thought this was the first time in seventy f____kin’ years that the American public may be ready to consider a true liberal for the White House. Why? Because the conservatives have f____ked up so badly on foreign policy. So, why must Hilary and Barack talk that middle of the road centrist shit?
    May the ancestors forgive me, but when the Pennsylvania Primary comes around I’ll probably be voting for Edwards (unless the great Gore gets in the race).

  29. says

    it’s disappointing to hear all this “political strategizing”. a declaration that being gay is NOT immoral is not something we can take or leave, it’s essential to fighting bigotry head-on. republicans are not going to drop gay-baiting until the public stops being intolerant, and that won’t happen until homophobes are publicly confronted and shamed out of existence. when democrats are too cowardly or opportunistic to make the symbolically important statement that being gay is okay, we’re in trouble.

    besides, we’re not in the general election yet. we have the chance to pick a good candidate instead of cowards like obama and clinton. i liked edwards’s response a lot better, and he also sounds better on global warming, health care, and poverty. why are people excusing opportunism so early in the process? that seems more appropriate 15 months from now.

  30. Charles says

    Derrick, you’re naive. There really is a massive middle in this country and pandering to them is what will win the election next year.

    And I think that there are just some high maintenance people who actually believe that there is someone out there who will fulfill all of their desires in a politician-Edwards is a liberal, but he’s a southerner and voted to approve the Iraq war, so some people wont want that, Clinton is too wishy washy. Obama brings up religion too much, and on and on and on…and how is ‘liberal’ defined anyway? To be liberal now is relative. People keep moving the goalposts as to what will make them happy and then just take their ball and go home and let a reactionary conservative win it all.

    And it wouldnt be the first time in 70 years-like him or hate him, LBJ was a liberal-Great Society, Civil Rights Act, appointing a black man to the Supreme Court.

    Is this all starting unusually early this election cycle? The arguing and the threats to vote for Nader, etc? I’m already getting weary of it.

  31. Patrick M says


    The practical is what this is all about, and not some wishy-washy passive acceptance of crumbs from the table.

    The point is not to “replace him with someone at least competent (Hillary, Obama, Rudy, take your pick)” but that we as gay people deserve a higher standard of treatment, and that our support is not to be taken for granted.

    No candidate should be given the benefit of the doubt any more just because he or she is an alternative to the incumbent (pace Clinton I). Now is the time for each candidate to work hard to truly earn the support of gay people, and to show they will keep their promises over time so that they can be counted as trustworthy and loyal companions in arms, not fair-weather friends who merely tolerate us.

    A basic start is for any politician who expects gay support to unequivocally support us and our right to exist, and that means absolutely no hesitation in saying to anyone at any time that being gay is moral.

  32. martin says

    “No candidate should be given the benefit of the doubt any more just because he or she is an alternative to the incumbent (pace Clinton I).”

    Which is why we’re stuck with Bush still!

    All this “gay issues only” stuff smacks of naive and reckless narcissism to me.

  33. says

    The only politician that I know of who has ever come out and said discrimination against gay people is just plain stupid and that he supports full marriage rigths for gay people is Russ Fiengold and he’s not running.

  34. Charles says

    This is going to sound weird, but is the gay vote really all that important? It seems concentrated on the coasts, big cities, college towns where the Dems have a lock anyway. It seems like the Dems are fighting to hold onto districts that just barely went Dem in 2006 and lean conservative and the Rocky Mountain states, which are more about “mind your business, don’t talk about it” than social activist states-I know that the Dem governor in KS changes the subject with a quickness whenever gay issues are brought up. I think that for the people running for President, a calculus has to be done-would stating my support for gays cost me votes where I need them or get me more votes-from their responses, it’s obvious what they think the answer is.

  35. rudy says

    Not surprised. Not surprised in the least. Politicians shading their statements to offend the fewest fence sitting potential voters possible.

    RB and Zeke are absolutely and unequivocably right. There is nothing more important. This should not be about taking our support for granted or accepting minimal words in hopes of defeating a greater perceived enemy.

    I implore everyone. Think about what was said and, equally importantly, what was not said. We gay people were called “immoral”–fundamentally and irredeemably flawed–not fit to be a part of society.

    We know that being gay is not a choice or a lifestyle but a core part of who we are as humans. And our families know the same. My nine year old niece knows that Pace is wrong and yet she does not have nationally recognized leaders who are willing to stand up and say so. Nor do we.

    Do not settle for less than full recognition of our right to be who we are and to exist as we were made.

  36. Patrick M says

    Charles, I think you are dead-on about this, unfortunately, and it makes my point all the stronger.

    Martin thinks that the “gay issues only” stuff is why we’re stuck with Bush, which obviously doesn’t match up with the reality of how proportionally small the gay vote is and how it is already so tied up with Democrats in urban centers.

    So the reality is that as gay voters, we don’t have much political power to wield. The minimum we can and should do is to find a candidate who is trustworthy and who we can support honorably.

  37. Jonathon says

    Any answer other than, “No” really means “Yes”. There is simply no other way to look at it.

    Neither Hillary nor Obama will get my vote in the primary. I really can’t stand either one of them. This is just the icing on the cake.

  38. adamblast says

    1) Hillary and Obama are both far too calculating and timid on gay rights issues to deserve my trust or support. Their answers are insulting, and they’re already showing an eagerness to sell me down the river for other people’s “more important” votes.

    2) I want a Democrat to win.

    Where do I go from here?

  39. Charles says

    Thats not what I mean totally, Martin, or maybe I am reading it wrong-I mean that in raw numbers and in terms of location, based on the Electoral College, there are more absolute numbers of voters that will react negatively to visible, vocal support of gays and lesbians than there are actual gay and lesbian voters.

    i.e.-there are a lot of gay voters in NYC, but not enough that if they didnt vote, it would give NYC to the GOP. But the same number of voters in Virginia (just an example) that are undecided and truly dont see homosexuality as moral could give Virginia to the Dems and thus put a Dem in the White House. New York is in the bag, so the Dem candidates have to worry about those people in Virginia, Arizona, Montana…

  40. ggreen says

    When will people wake up to the fact that neither of these candidates is electable? When large parts of the electorate believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife neither a black man nor a woman have any chance of winning the office of president. Independent voters are frightened of both Clinton and Obama. Republicans are praying one of them gets the Democratic nomination it’s a sure-fire winner for the racist anti-woman Republicans.

  41. adamblast says

    If Edwards is actually *more* electable than Hillary and Obama in the final election, and if his responses to gay rights issues are both more honest and more brave… why are we wasting breath on the media darling front-runners?

    Is it even possible for Edwards to win the nomination?

    I am still completely undecided as to who to vote for in the primary… But it’s beginning to look a lot like Edwards or a Gore draft.

  42. adamblast says

    That’s assuming the whole thing isn’t sewn up before my primary starts. Damn, American politics is depressing.

  43. Charles says

    Which is why Edwards will ultimately be the nominee(IMHO).

    I’m black and I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I just do *not* want a Republican in there at all. Even a qualified one.

    And it’s not just racist anti-woman GOPers-it’s been shown over and over that white voters will say they would vote for a black candidate but when faced with reality in the booth, won’t do it. It’s called “Bradley syndrome” because it was first noted in California when Tom Bradley (ex-LA mayor) ran for governor and everyone thought he would win, he was leading in the polls, and he lost big. And it happens over and over-I think the dam might be breaking with Deval Patrick in Mass. and with Obama,but this election is too important to test that theory. I’ll vote for Obama if he makes it to my primary-I’m only 30 and I never thought I would see a viable black candidate with a chance in my lifetime and I am so excited about him.

  44. John says

    I think if elected President, Senators Clinton and Obama will not be at all reliable as partners with the gay community.

    I sincerely believe that if John Edwards were elected president he would be the least likely to negotiate away or abandon the homosexual agenda.

    Since John Edwards really truly could win election and I believe him to be the most trustworthy of the three democratic frontrunners, I am supporting him for President.

  45. Stephen says

    Obama and Hilary won’t say homosexuality is immoral. No surprise there! Translate: They do believe it is immoral — though they’d probably not use that word (they haven’t yet!). To speaketh is to loseth votes.

    Of course, homosexuals and lesbians are different in their sexual preference/behavior and they are certainly in the minority. Hence, they could readily be referred to as ‘not normal.’ That is NOT a negative connotation.

    But, I do believe, according to a greater power, whom I DO believe in (and Jesus Christ as his son), I would say what they are afraid of saying, i.e., it is immoral if one truly believes scripture and in God. If one doesn’t think it is immoral and does believe in God and the Bible as His word, then you too have to jostle, manuever and wiggle your words to answer the same question.

  46. adamblast says

    Stephen, there are plenty of ways to answer the question that are more satisfactory, without giving the impression of going against Biblical doctrine… (Not that politicians should have to adhere to Biblical doctrine in our supposedly free society.) How about:

    Q: Is homosexuality immoral?
    A: The lesbians and gay people I know are every bit as moral as anyone else, and I am proud to have them as friends and supporters.

    That doesn’t answer the abstract question, and reframes it in the personal terms that most Americans already accept: my gay friends are perfectly moral and normal.

  47. Leland says

    Cousin Zeke: You know there is no one posting here more demanding of full-equality than me; a passion that often gets me condemned. But have one of my great cream cheese brownies and stop and rethink your contrast of Simpson/Warner with Hillary/O’Bama in the context of “all other things [NOT] being equal.”

    Simpson is not even in office anymore, let alone running for Prez, so he has room to be candid about his changed views, which despite his history of antigay votes [FOR, e.g. DADT and DOMA, not to mention his demonization of Anita Hill which, as someone else pointed out, leaves us with fascistic, lying, antigay Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court FOR LIFE…], I give him credit for. And I give credit to the even more surprising remarks from Warner. [Simpson has been affiliated with a pro-gay Republican group for some time.] But Warner isn’t running for Prez either and despite Virginia being rather antigay he seems to have a patent on his Senate seat and can get away with throwing such one-day lavender roses.

    YES, it is REPULSIVE of Hillary and Reverend O’Bigot not to condemn Pace. But, again, this election, like 99.99 % of all elections, is going to be about having to intelligently choose the LEAST IMperfect candidate not the most PERFECT and certainly not refusing to vote at all. I guarantee you Karl Rove has a roaring hard on right now every time he sees Dems attack other Dems.

    Those who have noted my frequent defenses of Hillary and Bill might wrongly conclude that I am a Clinton partisan, just as those who have read my attacks on the Reverend O’Bigot might think I could never vote for Obama. I do think Hillary has more potential for us once elected than O’Bama, but my only real dog in this hunt is working to see that the next occupant of the White House is a Democrat [any of those running would be better for several reasons, few of them gay-related, than any Repug running], which speaks also to an ELECTABLE Democrat, but, in terms of their POTENTIAL for advancing gay rights once elected, all Dems are virtually cut with the same cloth save for O’Bama whose willingness to exploit religiosity both offends and scares me. Nevertheless, I repeat: I would still vote for him over any Repug running.

    My concern with the “absolutist” position can be summed up in 2 words and a number: Ralph Nader 2000. Don’t leave anyone alone with anyone or thing that you care about or let drive heavy machinery who still believes that Ralph Nader or rather those who chose so-called principle over practicality and voted for him did not GIVE the White House to George Bush and his brown shirts. As such, Nader voters [and those gays who didn’t vote at all] are not only responsible for the worst demonization of us at the highest level of elected government in our history which empowered our reversals on the state level, but for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and its associated war-profiteering, the further rape of the environment, enriching pharmaceutical companies at the expense of senior citizens, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    And it is not just the holding back or throwing away of gay votes that are at issue, but withholding funding. Donating money is the first way one affects which person gets the Party’s nomination, and, then, which Party wins.

    Believe an old, scarred, jaded warrior: I wish it were as simple as changing reality by holding one’s breath. But even children learn at an early age that doesn’t work. We MUST elect one of these Democrats and then consider our options if they continue to fail us.

    Luv ya, Ezekiel.

  48. Jimmyboyo says


    Based on a fairytale book that supports slavery, that said shrimp are evil and anyone eating them must be stoned to death, that said the sun orbits the earth (book of Joshua), has Unicorns in it( 9 books in the bible have Unicorns), etc etc etc

    Not to rehash the crap

    Anyway; an old chinese proverb most definetly considers politicians immoral

    “Do not give power to those who seek it”

  49. Jimmyboyo says


    It is better to stand up for what is right and go down in flames than to compromise one’s self just to get a dem in office.

    history remembers those that held fast to being true to themselves while all alone….where as the compromisers are forgotten by history

  50. mark m says

    Patrick, it simply comes down to idealism vs. pragmaticism. I absolutely agree with your assertion that gays deserve the very best support from candidates.

    The reality is that politics is a game that often can’t be won with mere ideals. I wish that weren’t the case, but alas, it is.

    So you have a choice. You can vote for the person most likely to affect change in the White House, or you can vote for the person who mirrors all of your ideals down to the letter – but who will never darken the steps of the White House.

    I actually want to see things change.

  51. Leland says

    “It is better to … go down in flames …history remembers those that held fast …”

    Thank you, Ralph Nader.

  52. Jimmyboyo says


    Be as sarcastic as you wish. But The history books are full of those that stayed true and held fast whil standing all alnoe. The compromiseres get forgotten.

    Maybe if the issue had to do with reichen you would hold fast.

    Anyway; honestly it is not as important as you claim that dems take the white house. Dems are well on there way to taking more senate seats and more house seats. With more senate seats then the can hamstring any repub president as well as push trhough their agenda.

    I honestly find it funny that all the gays that hold fast to an outmoded fairytale named jesus despite all prevailing logic and archeological evidence are more than willing to compromise on what is right and good for them and the gay community. They are more than willing to compromise the truth as far as gay rights go but would never compromise their precious fairytale. LOL

  53. Jimmyboyo says

    Mark M
    My brother…I choose GLORY for myself. I will stand true for my rights and the rights of the community and not compromise just to take an elected office.

  54. peterparker says

    I have it on good authority from a friend who works as an attorney in the City Attorneys’ Office for The City of San Francisco that Barack Obama is the presidential candidate who refuses to be photographed with S.F. Mayor Gavin Newson, the man who famously began marrying GLBT couples when he concluded that State of California laws were unconstitutional. I think that says pretty clearly what Barack thinks of the GLBT population.

  55. mark m says


    What I am trying to communicate to you in a much gentler tone than Leland’s is that there is idealism and then there is reality. It’s easy to sit in an ivory tower and pontificate on what history remembers and doesn’t, or what stacks of college texts tell you about this issue or that issue…

    And then there is the world at large, with all its contradictions and pitfalls and shades of grays that don’t conform to the blacks and whites of idealism.

    There are a lot of democrats who are still angry at people who voted for Ralph Nader and allowed Bush to be elected into office. That idealism is responsible for who we have in the White House today.

    And I haven’t read a single one of your posts that indicate that you think the current President has been good for this country. So it’s easy to see why some Democrats would still harbor resentment to all those idealists, who (in their opinion) threw their vote away by backing a dark horse candidate.

    History isn’t going to remember Ralph Nader, but they’ll be talking about W and what he did to this country for decades.

    You know I have admired and backed your passion on many issues. However, friend, sometimes you’re position must be re-evaluated.

  56. Jimmyboyo says

    I want to hear Gore’s response to this issue.

    Jack Murtha the other day said that this election is Gore’s if he enters. That Hillary has the wrong stand on iraq….yesterday she said that the US will keep forces in Iraq if she is president….and that Obama is too inexperienced.

  57. RB says

    Charles, you comment “I just do *not* want a Republican in there at all. Even a qualified one” is unbelievable! I cannot believe that anyone would make what appears to be such a narrow minded comment and actually believe it!!! What are you thinking my friend?

    While I am a gay republican I cross party lines for “qualified” candidates that are the BEST choice everytime. In this election, I cannot support Obama or Clinton as I am so opposed to both of them. However, it is not because they are dems. What amazes me is that there are repubs that have come out against Pace’s comments and people like you will NEVER give them credit.

    We NEED people in both parties to fight our battle for equality! We need liberals and conservatives alike on our side and there are rational level headed repubs that are willing to stand up for what is right. One of the largest hurdles we face as a community is OURSELVES!!! Simply stated…WE DO NOT VOTE! If every GLBT person in America would actually vote and could be counted upon to go to the polls we would live in a much more tolerant world. AS it stands now, Clinton and Obama can give us lip service, pander to the great American “middle” and get away with it because at the end of the day they know we will not go to the polls!!!

    Yes marriage equality IS important whether you have kids or not! If you are younger and do not have a family then maybe those of us that do and came before you will find a way to make it easier for you one day than it was for us. So this whole you have a family and are more important than I crap is only one more way to divide the already divided gay community! 2 – 4% of us make it to the polls and we fight all the way. Again Charles, you comments among others here, are as misguided as I could ever imagine!!! WE NEED EVERYONE OF US AND EVERY SYPATHETIC REPUBLICAN, STRAIGHT, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, ETC PERSON IN AMERICA IF WE WANT TO ADVANCE OUR RIGHTS! So please do not talk to me about NOT voting for a “qualified repub” simply because they happen to be a repub!!!!! You really show your lack of maturity and understanding for the battles we face as gay Americans!

    I will now retire my soapbox….and thanks Rudy for you voice of reason!

    Take care


  58. says

    Okay Stephen,
    So let’s all note your Biblical morality

    Exodus 21:20-21
    20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property

    Leviticus 25:44
    ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves

    Titus 2:9
    Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

    1 Peter 2:18
    Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    There’s a whole lot more were that came from.
    So let’s recap: slavery is good while two men loving each other are evil.

  59. Jimmyboyo says

    Mark M

    I wouldn’t consider Nader the idealist candidate. Anyone who cared to know already knew that his backing was from oil companies, republican groups, etc to upset the dems chances.

    Nader is not a good example of standing up for principal.

    How about this. The #1 movie at the moment depicts a small band of idealists. Idealists that fought and died for what they considered right aginst overwhelming odds. They could have compromised and snuck off to found another cuty state in another area while leaving all their women folk back in sparta to get conquered by the persians. At that time in history it was quite easy to just pack up and move to a new area. they could have spared their lives and progressed by founding another city state somewhere else. BUT their sacrifice….the sacrifice of their very lives is what they comited to and history remembers and thanks. More progress was acomplished by their standing fast than if they had compromised in some way.

    What is 4 years of a hamstrung repub while the senate and house are majority dem? We in the modern era do not understand true suffering and sacrifice.

  60. Charles says

    Wow, you are really fixated on me, aren’t you? I guess I’ll be flattered.

    “there are rational level headed repubs that are willing to stand up for what is right. ”

    Well, they arent exactly the face of the Republican party and they are shoved in the back and muzzled while gay baiting is used by the GOP as a tool to gain votes and divide and conquer the opposition.

    And as for “we do not vote” what is there specifically to vote on? It’s almost a matter of “vote for what is offered or stay home” And do we define ourselves solely as gay voters? What does that mean? Does a poor gay guy necessarily have the same concerns as a wealthy educated gay urban professional? We dont have the cohesion of the black community (as an example) and that’s not even saying much, considering the generation gap that’s emerging among them.

  61. mark m says

    Well Jimmyboy if you and I are lucky, Gore will enter the race and say all the right things and still get elected President and this argument between pragmatics and idealists will, for a while anyway, be moot.

    And I hope Frank Miller writes a comic about it. :)

  62. Jimmyboyo says


    I suspect that you and I might find ourselves joining forces in the 08 election. If hillary and Obama keep up this BS about us then i will gladly voluntere and vote for Guilliani if he gets the repub nomination…..and I say that as a died in the wool ultra ultra ultra liberal. Guilliani so far is the most pro gay candidate….and a dem controlled house and senate with Guilliani as president could be the best thing for this country and the gay community.

  63. Jimmyboyo says

    mark M LOL


    I am dieing to hear Gore’s response to this issue.

    If he is going to enter it will be after the Nobel Peace Prize. Huge press with that event

  64. mark m says

    Gore vs. Guilliani

    DREAM RACE. I mean seriously, first time in history I could swing either way.

  65. adamblast says

    RB– While I don’t personally condemn gay republicans, there is ample reason for most gays to view them as only marginally better than, say, Nazis out to destroy them. The republican party has made gays their clear enemies. It’s hardly “narrow minded” to avoid the party that proudly calls you disgusting and perverted and seeks to make you 2nd class in the constitution.

  66. Jimmyboyo says

    Mark M

    If nothing else it would be interesting.

    On the swinging note. I heard you swing nicely in the the shorts department. :-) swing away

  67. martin says

    “Martin thinks that the “gay issues only” stuff is why we’re stuck with Bush, which obviously doesn’t match up with the reality of how proportionally small the gay vote is and how it is already so tied up with Democrats in urban centers.”

    That’s not what I meant at all. I meant that if we end up with someone who doesn’t bow down and worship gay rights, but who is still supportive and much better than any Republican, then I will vote for that person. I won’t throw my vote away on a third-party candidate. Anyway, Mark M. said this all better than I ever could.

  68. rudy says

    RB, Please do not retire your soapbox and that goes for you too Leland, Zeke, Stephen, Jimmyboyo, Charles, MarkM, and everyone who has posted on this thread. We need this diversity of voices heard in our community and in society at large. When this many intelligent, articulate, and motivated gay men can unite to condemn and to demonstrate by example the immorality of calling us immoral, then I am truly heartened.

    This coming presidential election is highly likely to be a watershed event. We need all participating.

    As I posted earlier in other threads, I believe that Gore is likely to emerge as the brokered candidate following a punishing primary season. Guiliani is similarly likely to be the last Repub standing after a bitter battle.

    My bellweather is my fabled Democratic Aunts who have never voted for a Republican but could not bring themselves to vote for Gore. They still do not believe or trust him but view him more favorably overall and certainly more electable than HRC and Obama. Giuliani could win them over but it is going to be difficult. I would say that their votes are Gore’s to lose, but he proved able to accomplish that seemingly very difficult task before.

    It is not too early to begin agitating for your favored candidate. Hold them accountable. Our country needs to see just how moral my gay brothers truly are.

  69. RB says

    Jimmyboyo I agree with you comments 100% and intend to vote for Guilliani myself. I think we need a new direction and sadly enough neither Clinton nor Obama are heading in the right direction. People think that they will get a another “Clinton” presidency, but they will actually be getting a Rodham and that is very different! She is not for us and is willing to say whatever her audience wants to hear! Remember, she is the master politician that guided Bill to the White House! Snake, watch out!

  70. ShawnSF says

    When you listen/watch the current batch of pathetic losers running for President of the United States of America it makes me that much more determined to ONLY put my time/energy/efforts/$$$ towards INDIVIDUAL leaders,activists,politicians,policy-makers who are UNEQUIVOCALLY on my side as a taxpaying,gay man in this country. I will continue to listen to the authentic voices of Integrity and Courage of Truthfulness both past and present as represented in the words and actions of Harvey Milk,Martin Luther King,Abraham Lincoln,Mayor Gavin Newsom,Assemblyman Mark Leno,Howard Zinn and many others. Fuck Hilary and Obama-they can kiss my immoral ass!

  71. Leland says

    Thanks, Jimmyboyo, for proving how shallow your thinking is by using as an example of your Holier Than Thou argument a movie which is rabidly homophobic. Not only does its lead “hero” characterize gays as [in modern terms] child molesters and portrays the “bad guys” as led by a bejeweled flaming fag, but the entire movie is dishonest from the start because most historians insist that that hero himself and many of the rest of “the 300” were gay or, at least, bisexual. Fine example, fine.

    Your repeated myth than Guiliani is the most pro-gay candidate [sorry, RB] is no less fictitious than the film. It’s actually, hogshit, for which you can submit no evidence. And, please, Jesus, Mary, & Fucking Joseph, don’t again use the fact that he temporarily lived with a gay male couple after having dumped his wife for his mistress—that’s no more prove of his superiority as a candidate that would be his saying, “Some of my best friends suck cock.” Not only has he no better position on gay marriage than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc, but one of his PAID advisors is former Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle who’s said that “amending Iowa’s constitution to ban gay marriage is a quality of life issue…[an important] signal we send our kids.” Nussle also want the US Constitution amended to ban gay marriage, too. And, below are a few other FACTS [sorry if they give you a rash] from a recent link provided by Andy about candidate Giuliani who rimmed homo demonizer George Bush with public praise at the 2000 and 2004 Repug conventions.

    As mayor, he never worked to see that New York would, like San Francisco, implement a contracting law that would require “companies doing business with it to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees and also provides civil rights and workplace protections to transgendered persons.
    Bereavement Leave: In 1989 as candidate for Mayor, Giuliani criticized Mayor Koch’s plan to offer bereavement leave to gay city employees, calling it (through a spokesperson) “an ill-conceived political giveaway.”
    City Travel to Colorado: In 1993, he opposed Mayor Dinkins’ ban on travel by city employees to Colorado, imposed because of a boycott to the state’s antigay ballot initiative.
    Ruben Diaz: Soon after becoming Mayor in 1994, Giuliani supported Ruben Diaz, who sat on the Police Department’s Civilian Complaint Review Board, who wrote a homophobic and AIDS-phobic column about the upcoming Gay Games being held in the city. The Mayor was quoted as saying, “I don’t condemn him” and said Diaz’s views reflected “a couple of thousand years of moral theology.” [OMG. THAT’S WORSE THAN HILLARY AND OBAMA’S EVASION ON GENERAL PACE.]
    DAS: Again in 1994, word circulated that the Department of AIDS Services might be eliminated and the rumor was reinforced when the Giuliani Administration held an evaluation process that was closed to public input and by invitation only. (DAS was not eliminated, but the incident furthered the distrust that already existed between LGBT community organizations and the Mayor.)
    Office of Lesbian and Gay Concerns: Soon after becoming Mayor, Giuliani eliminated the Office of Lesbian and Gay Concerns as well as liaison offices to other communities.
    Multicultural curriculum: Giuliani opposed the inclusion of lesbians and gay in multicultural curriculum.
    Board of Education: He appointed openly homophobic Irene Impellizzeri to the Board of Education and appointed AIDS-phobic board member Ninfa Segarra as Deputy Mayor. [OMG. THAT’S WORSE THAN HILLARY AND OBAMA’S EVASION ON GENERAL PACE.]
    St. Patrick’s Parade: Giuliani participated in the parade and supported the Hibernian’s exclusion of ILGO.
    Matthew Shepard: Giuliani defended the use of force to control demonstrators marching in honor of slain Matthew Shepard, furthering a perception among a number of communities in New York that the NYPD was becoming increasingly independent under Giuliani.

  72. Patrick M says

    Congratulations everyone – this is one of the most provocative and interesting comments discussions I have seen on Towleroad, and thankfully yet hasn’t descended into flame wars.

    Just to add/ respond to a couple of things: I am practical when all is said and done, and do not advocate the perfect at the enemy of the good. Some bottom lines:
    – W. and the Republicans have pushed a hostile bigoted anti-gay political wedge environment, and no gay person should ever trust them
    – Nader, and any other likely third-party candidate, are spoilers and wasted votes
    – The Democrats are the most open to supporting gay rights in theory – or at the least not demonizing gay people

    At the same time, I stand by the comment that “they do not deserve our support.”

    While at the end of the day, we may decide to give the votes of our community to the candidate least offensive to us (the Democrat), this doesn’t mean that they may actually have done anything that has built trust, or demonstrated a long-standing commitment to supporting the rights of gay people – and reversing the tide of prejudice.

    The threshold for capitulation by the gay community is still too low, and it’s time for candidates to truly earn votes in their words and deeds. I want candidates who defend gay families, who do point to their friends and family who are moral and brave and amazing citizens, and who walk the talk by supporting gay people in a way that builds bridges and reduces prejudice. That type of candidate is one worth supporting.

  73. martin says

    RB, you call Hillary a snake but not Rudy? Puh-fucking-lease. Just watch as HE waffles on his alleged support of gay rights–and hasn’t he already? He can only ride his 9/11 aura (which is mostly bullshit, by the way) so long before people wise up to him. You may think Hillary or other Dems are wafflers and phonies, too, but at least they’re not in a party that practically thrives on hate, gay baiting, and homophobia.

  74. Jimmyboyo says


    I guess if it doesn’t deal with reichen you won’t pay attention to it. Lets try Guilliani’s own words

    Going back years

    – gays should have the right to marry
    – Abortion should be publicly funded (this one in particular suprises me that he is ahead in the polls because I would think the xtians would be flipping out over this more than Rudy in drag)
    ad infinitum

    To cite modern pop culture as a refernce is perfectly fine despite all the historical inacuricies with said movie.

    Anyway; lets try Rosa Parks sitting in the fron of a bus all by herself….history is full of examples where as you and compromisers like you are lost in the dust bin of history never to be remembered.


    DEBATE ROSA PARKS Tell her that standing firm, holding fast, being true to yourself though completly alone doesn’t amount to anything

    AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about

  75. Jimmyboyo says

    Leland would have said to rosa parks “compromise, sit in the back of the bus today and maybe we can sit up front tomorrow”

    leland would have told Galileo “compromise today and maybe we can get them to accept reality down the road” (down the road was over centuries later…the vatican did not officialy aknowledge that the sun orbited the earth till the 1970’s!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    leland would have said pastuer (spell check) “compromise today that there are not microscopic viruses” and then of course no cure for small pox etc etc etc


  76. me says

    I’ll sum it simply: Clinton believes it is immoral but will not say so for fear of the reprocussions. Her whole career has been built on what she feels is the majority of a particular issue.
    PS) People who believe homosexuality is immoral are not closeted homophobes or fearful heterosexuals. Although I can understand where these assumptions come from whith all the hate that exists. it’s not true. Believe it or not some people are truely of Christian faith. Not these organizations today who claim God and preach hate but people who love all as borthers and sisters. the worse thing they would do is pray for you.

  77. Jimmyboyo says


    Job and 8 other books in the original hebrew refer to Re Em

    Re Em directly translated is ONE HORN The King james transalted one horn to Unicorn…the NKJ NIV etc have changed it to auroch due to the controversy One Horn creates. The Ancient Auroch though had 2 horns.

    The only creature on with anything resembling one horn would be the Indian Rhino…That isn’t even a horn, but rather is made up of hair. No jew of the time period would have even heard of let alone seen such a creature. G inspired, well a divinity one would hope would have been better at communicating with their stenographer

    Re Em One Horn…UNICORN Uni meaning One and Horn meaning Horn

    :-) Don’t ever go there on what the fairytale bible says with me. I almost became a monk back back when I was still brainwashed by the fairytale.

  78. jon Winkleman says

    First off, In my earlier post I did not disclose that I am on the board of National Stonewall Democrats or attended a meet up for my Senator in NY because my comments here are my own and are not representing either NSD or a presidential candidate whose staff I am not on. In terms of disclosure I did use my real name unlike 24Play whose anonymous screename doesn’t give anyone any clue as to who they are? Log Cabin? Edwards supporter? Nader staff? Or one of the crazy NYC LGBT politicos who are bent on attacking all other LGBT activists to boost their own standing.

    However though I do support Clinton over Obama my commets also defended Obama’s response so it was hardly shilling for a candidate.

    I cannot speak for what’s in the heart of either candidate. However I can say after listening to Clinton run in NY in 2000 up to the present she consistantly repeats the line “We need soilders who shoot straight, not who are straight.” I have literally heard her say this first hand at least a dozen times. She has been consistant on this issue. Also her NY staff is very LGBT friendly in fact she has some wonderful LGBT staffers. Again I do not work for her and have little inside knowlege of their hiring processes. However for someone who is constantly being protrayed as overly “careful” and “deliberate” it would seem unlikely that they would hire staff that the Senator considered “immoral.” From whatI have seen of this staffer they probably consider him “indispensible.” Though I do not have a personal relationship with Clinton, I know a good number of LGBT activists who do. Clinton’s choices in staff and freinds give us a far better window into her heart than speculation on campaign rhetoric. I have little knowlege of Obamas staff and personal friends. In NYC he has reached out to LGBT voters. I would look at his staff and social circles to give an indication as to where he stands in his heart. Though I currently am not supporting him I cannot honestly accuse him of thinking we are “immoral” at this until I hear something more substantial one way or the other.

    As far as my comments on the Democratic strategy on lifting the ban, I first learned about that in December 05 from Barney Frank. He met privately with National Stonewall’s board and said that if the Dems gain controll of Congress in 06 they will go after the ban. However they will do so more strategicly by not focusing on the issue as a matter of injustice and morality but to use Bush’s military disasters to tie the issue to one of military preparedness. When Condi Rice complained about the lack of Arabic and Farsi translators Rep Gary Ackerman (D NY) brought up the discharge of LGBT translators. It’s hard for the Republicans to oppose the issue when we talk about firing translators or LGBT vets returning home from Iraq. The Democratic strategy rests on the brilliant premise of framing the debate on discharging valuable much needed soldiers at a time of war rather than a subjective debate on religious beliefs and teachings.

    The GOP did the same thing with the marriage debate. Marriuage equality only effects CIVIL marriage not religious marriage though ceremonies may sometimes overlap. Divorce is nationally recognized but the Catholic Church still considers Giuliani married to Donna Hanover and sees Mrs. Judith Giuliani as his mistress. The GOP framed LGBT relationship equality around the issue of the government imposing it’s beleifs on your church rather than a civil issue of power of attourney, taxation equality, inheritance and proerty right, joint custodial rights and such. We make a mistake when we debate back on church or moral issues. We win when we reframe the question. If I work just as hard as my coworkers and contribute as much to the pension fund shouldn’t my family have the same right to inherit my pension as my straight coworker?

    My arguement has little to do with team Clinton. I’m a big fan of George Lakoff (Think Like an Elephant). We need to recognize these Republican strategies for what they really are and that they seldom have anything to do with the issue being discussed. Second and more importantly we need to step back take a deep breath and think of a strategic way to reframe the debate on our terms in a way that gives us the political advantage.
    Jon Winkleman who is fully disclosing his real name

  79. Jimmyboyo says

    jon Winkleman

    please defend your candidate’s words yesterday….

    She said if elected president she WOULD KEEP USA forces in Iraq

  80. jon Winkleman says

    Jimmyboyo I will defend her carefully if you can portray her position on Iraq honestly. She has repeatedly called for bringing the combat troops home and ending the war before 08. She also pledged if Bush did not end the war before 08 as President she would end it promptly. She has also been pushing to defund the war in Congress by cutting funds for contractors such as Hailiburton, private security for contractors and oil companies, defunding subsidies towards the Iraq military to force their hand on taking over so the US can leave. She does not fund defunding the military direcdtly as this president has shown he has no hesitation throwing undertrained unequipt soilders into harms way. We tried that in Vietnam and many thought opponents of the war had noble intentions but left soilders out to dry. You mayprefer someone elses strategy over hers but she is trying to pressure Bush now and planning on ending our involvement in combat. We have “forces” all over the world that are not engaged in combat. We still have “forces” in Korea even though we are no longer engaging in warfare.

    There are many Democratic candidates working towards the same goal of ending our involvement in the current Iraq Civil War (that we did create). Let’s not help GOP Hawks by throwing spurious accusations at rival Democratic candidates who have all pledged to support the same end. A withdrawal from Iraq. I’m happy to engage in any honest debate of the pros and cons of any candidates plan. Whomever wins theDemocratic primary willget my support, donations and free time. I am confident any Democrat running will bring about a faster end to this war than any of the Republicans running.
    Jon Winkleman

  81. Jimmyboyo says

    Ny Times reports (March 14th) that Hillary will MAINTAIN a scaled back USA force in iraq if elected.

    Jon child, you are playing with a big dog now.

    lest anyone forgets…Bush Jr has sworn up and down for years that he would scale back as the Iraqis step up…..In other words Hillary is just repeating the same clap trap as Bush. She will keep us in Iraq

    Take it up with the NY TIMES kid

  82. 24play says

    Jon, I merely wanted to let everyone here who doesn’t recognize your name that, while you may not yet be on the payroll, you are most definitely both a cog in the Democratic machine and a total Shill for Hill. And your comments should be taken in that context.

    Thanks for jumping back in to make all three points crystal clear. And at such length!

  83. Leland says

    WHAT are you smoking, Jimmy, and can you pass it around? Or has Giuliani’s public, documented position on gay marriage changed from only 14 days ago:

    Giuliani Smeared by ’08 Rival
    G.O.P. Frontrunner Called ‘Pro-Gay Marriage’ by Romney

    March 1, 2007— – Rudy Giuliani is fast becoming the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination and he’s starting to feel the heat.

    The former New York City mayor — who sits atop the Republican presidential field according to two recent national surveys — IS WRONGLY LABELED AS BEING “PRO-GAY MARRIAGE” by former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview which is set to air March 6 on the “700 Club.”

    “He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun,” said former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in an interview taped in Boston on Feb. 28. “That’s a tough combination in a Republican primary.”

    Giuliani is often described as being “pro-gay rights” because he signed a 1997 bill creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City. HE HAS NEVER, HOWEVER, BEEN “PRO-GAY MARRIAGE.”

    Romney Camp Can’t Back Up Claim
    When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor’s claim that Giuliani is “pro-gay marriage”.
    “It is sad,” a source close to the Giuliani campaign told ABC News, “but unfortunately not surprising, that Mitt Romney’s flailing campaign has chosen to misrepresent Rudy’s positions. He can’t keep his own positions straight let alone Rudy’s.”

    A Romney campaign spokesperson declined to offer a retraction of the former governor’s “pro-gay marriage” claim, arguing that Romney is still the more socially conservative candidate because he is running for president as an opponent of the legal recognition of non-marital same-sex unions and because Romney has renounced his past support for abortion rights.

    GIULIANI DISCUSSED HIS OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE and his record on domestic partnership benefits during a FEB. 5 INTERVIEW with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
    “MARRIAGE SHOULD BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN,” GIULIANI told the conservative talk show host. “HERE’S EXACTLY THE POSITION I’VE ALWAYS HAD. And it’s the same — and I feel the same way about it today that I did eight, ten years ago when I signed the domestic partnership legislation: MARRIAGE SHOULD BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. IT SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY.”

  84. parker says

    I dunno, but does anybody feel like me? I’m a 42-year old contributing member of society and yet, still, I am called upon to justify my existence. What other group of citizens has to do that? Why do we even accept it as part of American life?

    The only person to whom I have to answer about the morality of my life is myself and my God (in whatever form that might express itself.)

  85. brian says

    It appears that most gays and lesbians are only thinking in terms of Hilary and Barak when it comes to the next President of the U.S.

    Why is that?

    We have a third choice!


    He was not afraid to voice his diagreement (the first time he was asked, not the second or third or fourth time)of General Pace’s personal beliefs that being gay or lesbian = being immoral.

    I think, we as a community, should start taking a closer look at John Edwards as our next President!

  86. says

    I think Senator Clinton’s comment was fine. If she thinks my being gay is immoral that is perfectly fine with me. I think it is immoral for women to have abortions. The legal choice should exist, like gay marriage, and those that think it is immoral shouldn’t have one. And, my moral judgements about the issue should be kept to myself as I am not a woman. The partnership she speaks of is sincere I think. Like my view of abortion, her personal judgements shouldn’t mean anything in her view of what is legally acceptable.