Ann Coulter | GOProud

BigGayDeal.com

Ann Coulter: Marriage "Is Not A Civil Right – You’re Not Black"

Politico reports on Ann Coulter's appearance at Homocon in New York City last night. The event was put on by the conservative gay group GOProud, whom writer Ben Smith apty describes as "the tea party of the gay rights movement."

Ann-Coulter So what did Coulter have to say? Well, this:

Marriage “is not a civil right – you’re not black,” Coulter said to nervous laughter. She went on to note that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”

Adds Politico: "Coulter’s talk drew a mixed response, but her presence marked the increasingly mainstream Republican embrace of gay rights. Coulter had a falling out with a conservative website that has published her, WorldNetDaily, over her attendance. 'She’s doing something important – she’s showing her base that it’s OK,' said one attendee, Michael Lucas. (Lucas also confided to a reporter, 'I wonder what Ann will think about the fact that I am the biggest producer of gay porn on the east coast and probably in the whole US.')"

Never one to turn down an offer to speak, Coulter also spoke to CBS News last week about Sarah Palin's influence: "(For Palin) to give up what she has now and run for president would be like Rush [Limbaugh] giving it up and running for president. She has more influence than a president does."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. As if we all really needed yet another reason to hate Michael Lucas: He's a Conservative. Asshole.

    Posted by: Bobby | Sep 26, 2010 5:15:33 PM


  2. I'm sure they loved her saying all those hateful things. She certainly can't hate them as much as they hate themselves.

    Posted by: Chicago | Sep 26, 2010 5:28:43 PM


  3. I'm really starting to resent this idea about gays being the wealthiest demographic... It might sound empowering, but it's basically saying look, you've got the resources to do whatever you want, you can get by without federal recognition of your equal rights because you're stacked with cash. Fly to Miami for a white party and stop bitching? I wish!

    Posted by: Jesus | Sep 26, 2010 5:46:06 PM


  4. The sunt... that's c with a cedilla

    Posted by: Tone | Sep 26, 2010 5:56:36 PM


  5. Oh and on the subject of how much cash we have, that was debunked over a decade ago. We are not richer, homophobia both internal and external has seen to that.

    Inflating our incomes in order to scorn us is just one more way we're oppressed. For every gay man donning his Prada shades and flying off to Ibiza there are ten others who are average or just getting by.

    Posted by: Tone | Sep 26, 2010 6:01:46 PM


  6. I'm not sure what demographic info the GOP uses for ANY of their ideas, but clearly they only use numbers that suit their purposes. I do not think lesbians are wealthy as a group. There are definitely very wealthy individual lesbians (or couples) but I once read the median income for lesbians based on the 2000 census was under $30,000. And single gay men still have an average income ceiling compared to heterosexual married men.

    Posted by: TheWeyrd1 | Sep 26, 2010 6:04:07 PM


  7. I find Ann Coulter to be a skinny bitch with a ravenous need for attention and relevance of which she has little. But shockingly, I do agree with her about Sarah Palin. Why would someone give up so much influence by putting herself in a position where she cannot Tweet answers, give press conferences with no questions, and potificate (stupidly) in speeches. If she ran for President, she would be required to give interviews and possibly debate. And she refuses to do that because a) she's not very bright bordering on stupid, b) she is not articulate nor formulate answers quickly if they aren't already written down for her, c) a bitch which shines through when she's cornered in a debate or an interview and she is easily cornered.

    In a few years I forsee Anne opening for Sarah on their comedy tour, or maybe doing the female version of The Odd Couple at a dinner theater in Oklahoma.

    Posted by: Bart | Sep 26, 2010 6:47:41 PM


  8. 'She’s doing something important – she’s showing her base that it’s OK,'

    ... to accept our cash, come to our meetings, and insult us with attacks on our rights and old lies about our lives.


    'I wonder what Ann will think about the fact that I am the biggest producer of gay porn on the east coast and probably in the whole US.'

    I don't know about Ann, but I'll make it a point to buy west coast porn.

    Posted by: BobN | Sep 26, 2010 6:48:33 PM


  9. Let me get this straight (no pun), the biggest producer of Gay porn supports, by attending this event, anti-Gay policies.

    Let's put all that Gay buying power we're supposed to have to good use and not buy any porn from his company.

    Posted by: A.J.A. | Sep 26, 2010 6:48:49 PM


  10. I also resent this "we're the wealthiest demographic" thing. As if we're all millionaires or something. Yes, there are wealthy gay people. But there are also gay people who are struggling to get by, financially. And there are homeless GLBT people. This "wealthiest demographic" thing directly plays into the "we're seeking special rights" thing the bigots uses against us.

    Posted by: Terry | Sep 26, 2010 6:49:22 PM


  11. "I'm not sure what demographic info the GOP uses for ANY of their ideas, but clearly they only use numbers that suit their purposes."

    It goes something like this: A gay magazine, such as the advocate, with an upscale readership surveys its readers and reports a higher than average income. conservative pundits seize on the data to start rumors that gay people have mnore money than anyone else.
    This, of course, ignores the fact that all the poor, gay low-skilled workers in coal mines in West Virginia or working as farmhands in Mississippi don't subcribe to any such magazine and so do not show up on the survey of THAT magazine's readers. Also, without being financially stable and being among poorly-educated peers, poorer gay people are unlikely to feel safe and secure enough to self-identify as gay in ANY survey.

    That illusion of big gay income is combined with the fact that many gays making the same income as their straight neighbors may have a higher DISPOSABLE income due only to the fact that gays are more likely to have only kids that they have decided that they can afford.
    A straight neighbor making minimum wage might easily have 5 kids he couldn't afford, by accident. So the gay woman making $15,000 a year at the 7-Eleven is "richer" than the straight co-worker making $15,000 a year at the same 7-Eleven (based on "disposable" income), but only because that gay woman is unlikely to have kids unless she decides she can afford them.
    Ironically, that gay woman is also likely to encounter numerous economic disadvantages compared to her straight counterpart, such as having to pay extra for health coverage for her wife and any kids she does eventually have, extra legal fees to try to have adequate protection for her kids, no federal social security survivor benefits if her wife dies, etc., etc.

    So I think really when the bigots try to say that gays have "more income" what this really derives from is the idea that gay readers of a particular magazine have more disposable income. Whether Coulter is too dumb to know the difference or is intentionally trying to mislead the sheep with twoisted "statistics," I don't know.

    Posted by: GregV | Sep 26, 2010 7:00:23 PM


  12. It's really odd: as I began to read this article I wasn't shocked that she insulted the audience. But, I became shocked once I realized this is a BENEFIT for a gay group. How fucked is that, that she would show up to essentially just insult you/us with shitty, unfunny jokes?

    I barely read anything with her name on it, and I should just go ahead and make that complete and avoid her name at all costs. She's an attention junkie and a sad person.

    Posted by: princely54 | Sep 26, 2010 7:01:03 PM


  13. She really isn't worth the attention, and as far as I'm concerned GoProud can go f*ck themselves (comment would not post without asterik).

    Btw, Jews as a group were among the wealthiest demographic groups in Germany just before the holocaust. Civil rights isn't always about absence of economic opportunity. Remember it's liberty and justice for ALL.

    Posted by: Fahd | Sep 26, 2010 7:10:36 PM


  14. Some of Michael Lucas' films involved piss, which is something the anti-gay groups always use to say why we shouldn't be allowed to get married. he can fucking kiss my ass.

    Posted by: AlexM | Sep 26, 2010 7:20:58 PM


  15. "...as far as I'm concerned GoProud can go f*ck themselves (comment would not post without asterik)."

    @Fahd: are you sure you couldn't post that GoProud can go fuck themselves? I've never known this site to censor such statements. Maybe your first post just didn't take for an unrelated reason?

    Posted by: GregV | Sep 26, 2010 7:32:07 PM


  16. "But, I became shocked once I realized this is a BENEFIT for a gay group."

    @Princely54: This isn't just any gay group. It's GoPROUD: a group of gay Republicans who spend their lives in a state of shame.

    Posted by: GregV | Sep 26, 2010 7:36:39 PM


  17. Biggest gay porn producer on the East coast, maybe even the country? I wish I had some of what Lucas' rich husband buys him to smoke! He's not the biggest producer on either coast, period. He can loaf around on his rich husband's dime (did I mention he's kept, err, married to an extremely wealthy Wall Streeter?) and insult the rest of us all he wants... and rich husband will keep writing those checks to keep baby doing something.

    The best thing that could come of mAnn Coulter's appearance at the event is a boycott of Lucas' crappy movies.

    Posted by: Jamie | Sep 26, 2010 7:39:41 PM


  18. Ann Coulter is the anti-christ.

    Posted by: Harry | Sep 26, 2010 8:06:39 PM


  19. Fuck Ann Coulter and fuck anyone hiring her!

    Posted by: Bobby | Sep 26, 2010 8:19:13 PM


  20. I'm sure the GOProud boys and girls would drool and applaud in her crazy, anorexic presence even if she poked them in the eyes with sticks.

    But, more importantly, Politico's statement quoted above, "Coulter’s talk drew a mixed response, but her presence marked the increasingly mainstream Republican embrace of gay rights" is complete nonsense. Coulter wasn't embracing gay rights. She was collecting a paycheck from a group of delusional gay people who haven't the slightest interest in fighting for gay rights. And there is no Republican embrace of gay rights outside of a handful of Republicans who do not hold public office. Pro-gay Republicans in power are a myth.

    As for Michael Lucas, who really cares what his political views are? He's always prided himself on being a douche. But note to ALEXM: any kink found in gay porn is also found in straight porn, so anyone who uses that argument against marriage equality is as unhinged as GOProud.

    Posted by: Ernie | Sep 26, 2010 8:21:31 PM


  21. I'm sorry, but this is fricken bizarre... like Jews inviting the Gestapo to a Gala event. GOProud is anything but... more like GOP_self_loathing.

    Posted by: Mike | Sep 26, 2010 8:52:50 PM


  22. Ann Coulter, and Michael Lucas both worthless whores! The only way Michael Lucas was able to stay in this country, was by fucking fat old men for money....then he found one desperate enough to pay him to live with him and get him a green card. The the fat old Wall Street guy bankrolled his porn. ML makes the worst porn there is...so hopefully any fans he may have outside of the log cabins and goproud tent will boycott his glossy pitiful crap!
    Two good things came out of this...goproud confirmed that they are self-hating homo's, and gay people can add Michael Lucas to their boycott list along with Target and Best Buy!! Go go go!!!

    Posted by: Bobo | Sep 26, 2010 9:01:26 PM


  23. I can't even get mildly irritated over this. It further pushes goproud into the fringes of respectable debate (IF that were even possible), and the best name that they could get for a comment was from a fame whore pornographer. Nobody takes these bigots seriously. It's a joke, so laugh already.

    And by influence (re: coulter's reference to palin), she means profit making potential.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 26, 2010 10:18:02 PM


  24. Correction. I meant fame whore who happens to be an actual whore... These people have no influence or power. They're detritus.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 26, 2010 10:20:41 PM


  25. @ Ernie - i am aware i am just making a point,

    Let's also not forget that Manhunt.net is own by a bunch of self-hating republican'ts

    Posted by: AlexM | Sep 26, 2010 10:22:54 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «SNL Takes On Gay Weddings, Christine O'Donnell« «