Does A McCain Radio Ad Gaybait?

"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn’t changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it’s something different.

That's a McCain robo-call, confirmed by the campaign. Is this gay-baiting? Or making the point that Romney flip-flops on social issues?

Raising the specter of scary homosexuals and their "special rights" is a time-honored last-minute trick, and what qualifies for the label of 'gay-baiting -- a harsh label, to be sure -- is often in the eye of the beholder.

But about John McCain, a social conservative who opposes gay marriage, we've never had the occasion to ask the question before in the context of his presidential campaign.

Incidentally: it's not clear whether McCain ever personally approved the script.

Comments

Would you have noted that last fact for any candidate but McCain? Do you have a hard on for him?

Posted by Anonymous | January 29, 2008 10:16 AM

What are my special rights? It's a hoary old term of anti-gay rhetoric, but no one has ever been able to explain what it means, actually.

Posted by Michael | January 29, 2008 10:21 AM

It's sad the GOP have to play who's the biggest bigot to get the vote. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds, even Republicans: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set them free…

Posted by Charlotte | January 29, 2008 10:34 AM

What are my special rights? It's a hoary old term of anti-gay rhetoric, but no one has ever been able to explain what it means, actually.
Posted by Michael

I think special rights refer to the power of the gay lobby to force their agenda on others in several ways.

1. The "gay disease", AIDs, gets more medical research than other major diseases that kill far more people. Victims of AIDs, where HIV, MRSE, ameobic dysentary, gnorrhea are transmitted by high promiscuity - get subsidized drugs and medical care in a way that other patients with high drug and care costs, like MS, do not.

2. States have more and more granted civil unions and full medical benefits to gays and partners - while not extending those significant benefit packages to partners of unmarried straights. Like the employed, unmarried woman who cannot cover her ailing mom or disabled sister with work-related employee benefits.

3. A black thug assaulting a white, Asian, or Hispanic is not a legal "hate crime" unless the victim is gay.

4. Under pressure of the gay lobby and gay Moguls in Hollywood, media now has a PC code about gays - only present gays on TV, movies, print in the most positive light. In accordance with the gay agenda, media does overemphasize the importance, numbers of gays, and their indispensibility. Thousands of articles were generated on how we might have "lost" the war on terror by tossing out a dozen gay Arab translators.
On news, minimize or outright ignore the "gay angle" of serial killers like John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dalmer or gay pedophiles and gay pederasts.

5. Aggressive lawsuits against groups wishing to practice free association (religious groups, BOy Scouts, military recruiters, ROTC) that courts have said gays have special legal rights as "legal minorities" to seek special damages and compensation ordinary citizens to not get entitled to.

I am not opposed to civil union benefits to gays and ending any workplace discrimination except the rational fear military leaders have grounded in history that gays do undermine unit cohesion and morale. But private associations can discriminate in membership as an American right of freedom, and efforts to impose a more totalitarian system in America, or one where some are more equal than others deserve to be resisted. Powerful lobbies are all about getting special rights and privileges others don't get. Soviet Jewish refugees vs. Tatar, Chechen refugees/unique to Cuban Refugee privileges/blacks entitlement to multiple affirmative action opportunities.

Now gays, in the latest quest for special rights and privileges..

Posted by chris ford | January 29, 2008 11:23 AM

Shame on McCain. He is a hypocrite and a coward who will do anything to win votes. One time he will call Falwell 'agent of intolerance' and then McCain himself becomes a coward and a bigot, and starts hate mongering. His double talk express is headed straight off to the cliff either in primary or in general election. He is going to piss off both righties and lefties and end up in a crash.

Posted by Bell | January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

It's sad that McCain has taken to blatant lies in an effort to win Florida. He's accusing Mitt of playing values voters for fools, and of flip-flopping on every issue, in RoboCalls all over the state. Pitiful, just plain pitiful.

The fact is that he feels entitled to the nomination, and he isn't. McCain would be a disaster for the party and for the nation, and his delusions of grandeur will have to be cast into a pit for the good of the country.

Posted by Dave | January 29, 2008 11:29 AM

To all the gay haters out here: wish their sons and daughters become gay and get discriminated against. They will realize what it is when it becomes a personal experience.

Posted by wtf | January 29, 2008 11:30 AM

Chris Ford,

AIDs kills millions of people every year - mostly heterosexuals. It is caused by an identifiable virus and can be and has become controllable due to scientific research that you claim is unfair.

Some states have granted civil unions and full medical benefits to gays and their partners but not straights precisely b/c straights CAN LEGALLY get married and get those benfits - gays cannot.

Hate crimes laws do not exist in most jurisdictions for sexual orientation - but where they do exist they cover straight and gays alike - it covers crimes based on SEXUAL orientaiton - not on being gay

The media is positively portraying gays? - all I can say is its about time after decades of demonizing people born with an homosexual sexual orientation.

If they do sensationalize a gay crime story - people like you will point and say - see - the gays are evil. What do I have to do with a crime committed by someone who happens to have the same sexual orientation as I do? What relevance does that have?

Chris - enjoy your special rights as an heterosexual - that will not last much longer - because gays are going to have THE SAME rights as you soon.

Posted by G. | January 29, 2008 12:02 PM

Well said G.

Posted by Danjr0802 | January 29, 2008 12:05 PM

Everyone flips out over robo-calls and the like, but with each election cycle a few things become clearer: 1) that every campaign employs them, and 2) that all sorts of things are done without the upper echelons of the campaign necessarily signing off on them.

So, every election cycle, we have to hear about how McCain did this, or Romney said that, when in reality they're only directly responsible for a fraction of the offenses. Supporters (and even campaign management) always get overzealous at some point. All we can do is ask the candidates directly what they believe about this or that.

Posted by Punditish | January 29, 2008 12:06 PM

Oh Mr. Ford, could you advertise your homophobia any more clearly?
AIDS is a gay disease? Tell that to the straight people dying in Africa.
And yes we should pity the poor oppressed unmarried straights. What's preventing them from getting married exactly? Is that gay's fault to with their "special rights."?
And your comment on the 'black thug' only shows you're a racist also.

Posted by Sjorgl | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM

Lumping serial killers and pedophiles in with regular gay men and women is beyond low and just plain lazy. If you don't like gay people just say it and have the courage to own your shallow opinions. You don't know every gay person, Mr. Ford and your vain attempt at stereotyping is disgusting and painful to read. Furthermore, not being fired for being gay, marrying one's partner, and not being discharged from the military (check England to debunk your unit cohesion theory) is far from being a special right, but is rather - quite simply - the right and fair thing to do.

Posted by Shane | January 29, 2008 12:08 PM

Chris Ford is a textbook case of exactly what's wrong with this country.

Posted by Peter | January 29, 2008 12:09 PM

Chris Ford:

Most of what you said is garbage, but two are egregious so I will address them.

"3. A black thug assaulting a white, Asian, or Hispanic is not a legal "hate crime" unless the victim is gay."

Are you kidding??? As someone else pointed out, many, if not most states' hate crimes laws do not include sexual orientation, but that's not the point; A black thug assaulting a white person BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS WHITE is just as guilty of a hate crime as a white assaulting a black because that person is black. This is what frustrates us thinking people about most of those opposed to hate crimes laws; you don't understand how they work and that they don't give "special rights."

"2. States have more and more granted civil unions and full medical benefits to gays and partners - while not extending those significant benefit packages to partners of unmarried straights. Like the employed, unmarried woman who cannot cover her ailing mom or disabled sister with work-related employee benefits."

Unmarried straights can get married!!!! Gay people can't, with one state exception. Of course, as far as you're concerned it's fine that gays are not allowed to get married, which straight are allowed to do, but you cry discrimination and "special rights" for gays because straights can't get domestic partner benefits?! 'You guys can't be part of our sacred institution, but how dare you not let us be part of your cheap imitation institution??' That takes a special kind of Chutzpah.

While the exclusion from marriage is still blatantly discriminatory to gays, allowing gays' partners to get benefits through a parallel institution or legislation brings gays' rights up to ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS, NOT ABOVE, straights. Both groups have a means by which they can get benefits for their partner, gays' being lesser. YOU have special, "sacred" rights, not us.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 12:52 PM

While the call may have been meant to equate "equal rights" with "special rights", perhaps Ambinder would like to argue in favor of giving one group actual "special rights".

And, what John K and "G" miss is things like this. Also, I'd imagine that there are many fewer hate crimes prosecutions when the perps are "special" and the victims are "regular", despite what the laws say. It's not hard to find many examples of advocacy groups complaining for and against prosecutions depending on the "special" vs. "regular" status of the victims and the perps.

Posted by TLB | January 29, 2008 1:18 PM

I'ma gay McCain supporter. I tell people the same thing about Romney's flip-flop on gay rights. There's nothing homophobic about it. It just shows the degree the man is willing to go to win an election.

Posted by Mark | January 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Wow that's almost as disgusting as when Bill Clinton ran radio ads in the South bragging about having signed the "Defense of Marriage Act." It happened, look it up.

Posted by J | January 29, 2008 1:27 PM

Nothing like a little dash of reality to get the gays into a hissy fit.

Many communicable diseases kill far more people than AIDs. Many cancers and diabetes that kill far more get a fraction of AIDs dollars. And that exists because of the gay lobby getting special consideration for their pet disease. That 10 times the people die in Africa of malaria or cholera is irrelevant when the great cause of AIDs and misleadingly claiming it is a straight disease there - and not spread by "down-low" blacks, from prostitutes, and drug use. The disease vectors in Africa are understood and the significant spread to "straights" is from rampant African promiscuity on near-gay levels. Gays made African AIDs a "cause". They don't honestly give a shit about Africans or their more lethal ailments. Africa was a way for the Gay Lobby to claim that AIDs was really a straight disease not locked into gay promiscuity, needle use, prostitutes, and rampant promiscuity involving straight men in Africa using prostitutes and "down-low" butt boys when women were not available. But the truth is different than the illusion the gay lobby tried to create.

Gays commit crimes of pederasty and pedophilia at rates 5-6 times that of straights and have more victims...from US Justice Dept Stats. Its a dirty little secret the gay-PC compliant media scrupulously avoids mentioning or wallows in denial on matters like gay priests being gay is any factor in the molestation of boys or the rampant pederasty straight priests largely avoided...

Shane - not being discharged from the military (check England to debunk your unit cohesion theory)

Everyone did see what gays and meek women did to unit cohesion when the Iranians captured a fey crowd of Royal Navy sailors. There was no cohesion. Just a disgraceful lot led by a look out for #1 officer, a gay sailor "Mr. Bean" who went into gay hysterical crying that the Iranians made him the object of mockery, and a clueless obese female sailor..The Iranians had a pile of fun with them, gave them 50 dollar polyester suits and pink pocketbooks full of Iranian trinkets and sent the whole effeminized bunch (except for two Royal Marines who resisted and kept the military faith and code of honor alive) back to the UK.

G. - Some states have granted civil unions and full medical benefits to gays and their partners but not straights precisely b/c straights CAN LEGALLY get married and get those benfits - gays cannot.

I take the position that benefits from employment should be equally applied. I support civil unions so gays can get legal benefits, but also so two old aunts living together can also have civil union legal benefits. As for medical benefits, my wife and I both get benefits and mine are effectively "unused" because she has a sweet union package. But I can't use them for my ailing Mom. Right now, only gays in certain states get the portability and transfer of frequently shifting benefits to their designated "lover du jour", or pal, or business partner they aren't in a real relationship with because their real lover is already covered with health benefits - while single straights only get them if they go on and commit to formal marriage.
Benefits equally earned should be equally enjoyed. That is the fair way. Legal rights two gays get should be legal rights two widowed aunts get.

Posted by chris ford | January 29, 2008 1:33 PM

TLB: Regarding your link, the political realm is a little different than every day discrimination. I'm not here to debate the merit and morality political tactics between the left and right. I admit I didn't take the time to carefully read your link because I don't have time and have no desire to, but if you would like to make a specific point about it that is on topic, I'll respond.

As for "special" v. "regular," whoever is committing the crime should get prosecuted. If police and prosecutors are ignoring black on white hate crimes or gay on straight hate crimes, they shouldn't be. The law on its face applies equally to everyone. If one group disproportionately commits crimes against another, far be it from me to sit here and agree with you that the victims' protection from that group is "special."

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 1:42 PM

Chris Ford:

Two things:

First, can you give me a link to the US Justice Department Stats that say gays are 5-6 times more likely to be pedophiles?

Second, great, since you take the position that employment benefits should be equally applied, then you'll certainly take the position that marriage rights should be equally applied. That way, both straights and gays can have the option of either marriage or civil union/benefits. If you take that position, I'm in full agreement with you. However, if you maintain that gays don't get to marry, but unmarried straights get to get a civil union, then you are the one advocating special rights.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 1:49 PM

I will NEVER vote for John McCain after the way he has behaved this past weekend.

Never. Period. No matter what.

Posted by Carolina | January 29, 2008 1:52 PM

I will NEVER vote for John McCain after the way he has behaved this past weekend.

Never. Period. No matter what.

Posted by Carolina | January 29, 2008 1:52 PM

chris ford,

I'm not going to start to rebuke you on your self-constructed fairy tale reality about AIDS or your incomprehensible rant about the British sailors, but I would like to let you know that two widowed aunts--provided they live together and contribute to one "domestic unit"--certainly CAN register for domestic partnership benefits, at least here in the District (and I know other places as well). I can't do anything about you being a bigot, but at least I can try to keep you from being ill-informed.

Posted by adam | January 29, 2008 1:53 PM

Mark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/29/mccain-accused-of-gay-bai_n_83843.html

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 1:55 PM

Adam:

Good point. I got so lost in the audacity of Chris' argument given his stated facts that I neglected to realize he's got them completely wrong in the first place.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 1:57 PM

Mark:

Hahaha, sorry, I forgot that we were on a forum attached to the same story. I guess that link's not going to change your mind about McCain. Still don't get you though.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 1:58 PM

I'd like to grant Chris Ford the special right to never be able to legally adopt, wed or reproduce (that last one was for me. please, please, do not reproduce)

I'd also like to grant you the special right to not be able to enjoy married income tax benefits, not be able to pass your estate onto your spouse without massive tax ramifications.

I'd like you to be granted the special right of always having to file your tax returns separately from the one you love.

I'd like for your spouse to not be entitled to assume your theoretically higher social security income when you drop dead of a heart attack (hopefully when you witness Hillary and Bill re-enter the White House).

I'd like for you to never have been able to be wed to your wife. I'd like for you to become the color blue, so that you may enjoy the pleasures of stigmas you have no control over. I'd like there to have been only one other blue person on the planet, and for that person to have been Adolf Hitler.

I'd like for you lose all of your friends and family because of who you fell in love with. To that end, I'd like you to fall in love with O.J. Simpson and spend your live with him.

Most importantly, I'd like to see you be granted the special benefit of being the first to walk on Mars without the special benefit of a space suit.

Go to blazes, Chris Ford. I have no doubt you will eventually be relocated there.

Posted by Someone Very Special without Benefits | January 29, 2008 2:14 PM

It appears as though the stats that Chris Ford is referring to regarding rates of paedophilia don't originate with a U.S. Justice Department study. Rather, they are from a study conducted by Steve Baldwin, executive director at the Council for National Policy, a collection of social conservatives. Not surprisingly, the study is being disputed. You can read about the report here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

There's quite a raft of scientific evidence to the contrary. The following article is a bit dated but has some decent references:

http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm

Cheers,
-J

Posted by James | January 29, 2008 2:19 PM

James:

Thanks for those links. Didn't think Mr. Ford had real stats, and I was right.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Again, Chris Ford, you rock. I sure hope you are a Ron Paul supporter!

Posted by Bjorn | January 29, 2008 2:25 PM

Again, Chris Ford, you rock. I sure hope you are a Ron Paul supporter!
Posted by Bjorn

Thanks, Bjorn!
I supported Thompson, now shifting to Romney. But I have nothing but admiration for Ron Paul and his great constribution to America keeping valuable libertarian ideas and philiosphy alive. Ron Paul ensures the libertarian component of Republicanism remains alive and well, the corporate Currupticans get their just reprimand, and libertarian ideas inform and refresh and temper the Judiciary.

Like many dreamers and idealistic thinking sectors of US Society - black civil rights, progressivism, gay activism (witness the self-righteous hissies here) - libertarianism by iself may not be what American society will accept the "whole package" of, but over the years take great ideas and practices from.

So, for that reason that libertarianism is not a great total fit for governing America, I won't vote for Ron Paul, but I admire him enough that I contributed to his campaign and unreservedly cheer "Go, Ron Paul!!" the same way I cheer other noble unelectable reformers like Nader, Pat Buchanan, Gene McCarthy if I was older..

I certainly see McCains ad as gaybaiting, while I see Romney as the moderate, prudent guy who would seriously consider some of Ron Pauls ideas and keep a good portion of them while McCain, after 25 years in Congress, has a sneering contempt for new ideas on the Left or Right.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 29, 2008 2:57 PM

Here are some articles that help to debunk the opinions about gay people not serving openly in the US military:

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/01/02/2

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/28603/edition_id/543/format/html/displaystory.html

I hope this sheds some more light on this issue.

The following countries, including the United Kingdom, allow gay people to serve openly: Israel, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands. I am unsure if this is a complete list, too. Based on actual research of this topic, these countries have not experienced significant issues with their inclusive policies. Republicans who do stand by DADT do so to please a portion of their voting block only. It is not a sound policy.

Posted by Shane | January 29, 2008 2:58 PM

Please add to that list: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Apparently 24 countries allow gay people to serve openly. None have reported unit cohesion difficulties.

Posted by Shane | January 29, 2008 3:11 PM

Chris Ford:

I'm just curious. You say that along with gay activism, black civil rights [activists] are dreamers and idealistic thinkers and that American society will no accept the whole package. Do you think that is right? Are black civil rights activists just like us "self-righteous hissies" of the gay rights movement? Seems like you'd just like us all to shut up since America doesn't like us.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 3:30 PM

Chris Ford, I sure wish you blogged somewhere, but reading your comments here and elsewhere is keeping me busy enough right now.

Our country would be quite a different place if Pat Buchanan had won in 1996. If only the internet had been as prevelent then....

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney supporters both have shown Ron Paul supporters more respect than the other candidates, and we appreciate and will remember that. The McCainites and the Guiliani crowd (now dwindling) have shown us the door.

Posted by Bjorn | January 29, 2008 3:33 PM

Bjorn:

The country sure would have been different if Pat Buchanan had won in 1996. The man is a Christian Domionist who would have turned us into the Christian version of Iran complete with public execution for adulterers and gays. Probably your kind of place though.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 3:37 PM

John K.: unfortunately, we live in the real world, not the [insert your ideology here] Universe.

In the real world, people like MFB (see my link above) use hate crimes laws and the like as a power base and to push a far-left ideology. And, in the real world, no matter what the laws say they are applied differently - what non-far-lefties would be forced to acknowledge in a racist fashion - depending on the characteristics of the perps and the victims.

Posted by TLB | January 29, 2008 3:43 PM

I think special rights refer to the power of the gay lobby to force their agenda on others in several ways.

1. The "gay disease", AIDs

firstly, AIDS is not a 'gay disease'... although it was labeled as such by repugnicans.

---
2. Like the employed, unmarried woman who cannot cover her ailing mom or disabled sister with work-related employee benefits.

would the married woman be able to cover her ailing mom or disabled sister with work-related employee benefits? no.

As for unmarried couples not getting the same rights of employee benefits. if they're opposite-sex couples, the CAN marry... and in some states (and with many companies as well) they're covered if they can show co-habitation.
---
3. A black thug assaulting a white, Asian, or Hispanic is not a legal "hate crime" unless the victim is gay.

umm... BULLSHIT. if that 'black thug' is screaming anti-white hate phrases while attacking the white person... or anti-Asian rhetoric while attacking the Asian... its prosecutable as a 'hate crime'.

funny, religion is already protected... guess that's why giving hate crimes protection to GLBT's is a 'special right' huh?

---
4. Under pressure of the gay lobby and gay Moguls in Hollywood, media now has a PC code about gays - only present gays on TV, movies, print in the most positive light....

blahblahblah... okay. umm... let's go back to 1998 shall we?

who used gay baiting to stir up the American public? hint, it wasn't 'gay activists'... it was kkkarl rove and co.

America needs a 'group' to dispise... he threw the GLBT community to them.

as for serial killers and pederasts, if you believe the statistics about what percentage of the world is GLBT... straight serial killers and pederasts outnumber GLBT ones by 1 in 1,000,000. check your facts... you sound like rush limbaugh and fred phelps' illegitimate lovechild.

---
5. Aggressive lawsuits against groups wishing to practice free association (religious groups, BOy Scouts, military recruiters, ROTC) that courts have said gays have special legal rights as "legal minorities" to seek special damages and compensation ordinary citizens to not get entitled to.

While I have no problem with privately funded groups that want to discriminate based on sexual preference... I DO have a problem with being forced (like every other American) to pay taxes supporting these groups.

if the KKK applied for tax-free basis and government funding... and won it. would you be disgusted when the NAACP filed suit? probably not.

as for special damages and compensation ordinary citizens aren't entitled to?... show me proof that this has ever happened.

On the other hand... if you're married, you're entitled to 1200+ Federal benefits that I'm NOT entitled to.

I could care less about a church wedding... I just don't see why I should have to pay estate taxes if my partner dies, and you don't. one of those 'federal benefits' I'm not entitled to.
---

I am not opposed to civil union benefits to gays and ending any workplace discrimination except the rational fear military leaders have grounded in history that gays do undermine unit cohesion and morale.

(umm... studies have shown 70% of US soldiers have no problem with gay/lesbian soldiers. in fact, most of them have indicated they know gay/lesbian soldiers as well. so much for undermining unit cohesion huh?)

But private associations can discriminate in membership as an American right of freedom, and efforts to impose a more totalitarian system in America, or one where some are more equal than others deserve to be resisted.

(private associations ARE free to discriminate, yes... however, giving a group 100 year lease on property owned by the government is giving them a deal, is it not? why should taxpayers finance 'private associations'?)

Powerful lobbies are all about getting special rights and privileges others don't get. Soviet Jewish refugees vs. Tatar, Chechen refugees/unique to Cuban Refugee privileges/blacks entitlement to multiple affirmative action opportunities.

(now I understand, you're just a bitter bigot. I pity you. I wonder when any of your children/grandchildren/great grandchildren will come out of the closet [hint, one of them is GLB]... what'd be your view of them then? if they found the love of their life and wanted 'special rights', would you be against it?)

Now gays, in the latest quest for special rights and privileges..

Posted by chris ford | January 29, 2008 11:23 AM

Posted by Jeff Fallert | January 29, 2008 3:49 PM

Chris Ford:

Take the time to scrape the tarter off your yellow teeth and have a real debate instead of hiding behind that shiny monitor, throwing out twisted non-sense and lies to argue a point that make you more of a fool that you realize. As a social psychologist I can assure you that homosexuals are not "5-6 times more likely" in committing pedophilia or sexual crimes. On the contrary, heterosexual males are far more likely in committing rape, pedophilia and adultery (the last being fact as heterosexuals are legally able to marry). Your ignorance is so disturbing and pathetic my first instinct was to laugh when I read your "comment", which quickly morphed in to anger. The ignorance and bigotry you display is no different than the racism behind Jim Crow Laws, segregation and lynching. It appears everyone has [logically] countered your fictitious "facts" before I had the unfortunate encounter with your posts, thus my stating anything further will likely fall on your [blind] eyes. As someone who personally knows hetero- and homo- sexual service men and women, I can assure you that the majority of them know of their comrades sexuality and DO NOT CARE. In fact, they respect and admire one another more so than had they not been closer with one another [non-sexually of course, as I'm sure you're twisted mind will warp that statement for your own personal bias]. This concept of sexual orientation permeating and twisting society is conservative rhetoric designed to frighten more people to the poles. It is NOT based on fear. Please, tell me how homosexuals are going to destroy this country? Is there a group of gay bandito's driving around quiet, heterosexual suburban enclaves at dusk, just waiting to ambush another American family at dinner? Let me guess, in your little mind they dress all in black, with matching hoods and clothes [and pumps], only pounce in on another family at dinner and f$*k each other in the a$$. Another family is ruined.

Chris (and Bjorn and TMS), get actual FACTS to back up your false, conservative rhetoric. An actual study supported by a respectable, non-partisan and unbiased group with scientific data to support anything you state as "truth" would be sufficient (this does not include articles written by conservative pundits or an article about an EX political figure from 7 years ago in an attempt to state that civil rights advocates are bias - again, one person does NOT represent a group of many, no matter HOW you twist it).

If ignorance is bliss, you are truly the ruler of Eden.

Posted by Heterosexual Supporter of EQUAL RIGHTS | January 29, 2008 3:53 PM

I love all the rabid ranting about "gay agendas" and now HIV/AIDS funding is somehow preventing America from finding a cure for Cancer and the Common Cold. (Of course the idiots who refuse to fund stem cell research in a desperate attempt to pander to people who think the Earth was created in six 24 hour periods has NOTHING to do with that...)

I'll tell you what. I'll make you a deal. Pass all the anti gay laws you want. Ban same sex marriage. Selectively interpret 8 verses of the bible to your heart's content.

And in return. I get to calucate the dollar value of all the rights that you get and I dont and then DEDUCT that from my federal income taxes. You don't want me to be an equal citizen of the United States, fine. But then you dont get to tax me as one.

C'mon Wingnuts! Put your money where your mouths are!

Posted by DaveinCA | January 29, 2008 4:00 PM

Heterosexual Support:

Hahahahahahaha, Lewis Black rules!

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 4:01 PM

Heterosexual Support:
Hahahahahahaha, Lewis Black rules!
Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 4:01 PM

You caught that eh? lol I was going to footnote that as a reference to Lewis Black, but I was so irate I didn't bother even proof reading my comment (hence all my grammatical mistakes).

Posted by Heterosexual Supporter of EQUAL RIGHTS | January 29, 2008 4:25 PM

Heterosexual Support:

Thank you for your passionate support.

Posted by John K. | January 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Chris ford is clearly and asshole who, while arguing about why gays should get 'civil unions' and not marriage, would have been right at home making the same 'separate but equal' case about drinking fountains in 1955.

Posted by Ted | January 29, 2008 6:27 PM

Chris... your vicious comments, suggestions and "facts" about the GLBT community remind me of another group of people... the German NAZIS. Hitler would constantly distort facts about the Jewish people to create hysteria and fear. Hopefully, in the year 2007 people can look past hate-mongers like yourself.

Dave M.

Posted by Dave Morgan | January 29, 2008 6:48 PM

I hope people can overlook assholes like Chris in 2008 too.

Posted by ken mellman | January 29, 2008 7:12 PM

And the homo hissy fit continues.

As the "love that dare not speak it's name" becomes the "love that refuses to shut up".

Posted by Chris Ford | January 29, 2008 8:33 PM

You know Chris....

I hate to tell you this but your freudian slip is showing..

Well adjusted Heterosexuals are not threatened by the idea of equal rights for Gays and Lesbians.

Paranoid self-hating closet cases on the other hand...

Posted by DaveCA | January 29, 2008 9:22 PM

Chris,

If you don't like homosexuals so much, explain why you are interested in reading all these comments? Something tells me you're making a nice home in that big, cedar closet, right next to your mothers fur collection.

Posted by Heterosexual Supporter of EQUAL RIGHTS | January 29, 2008 11:30 PM

Robo Calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.

Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org.

Here is a quote from a member this morning:

I value my privacy. I pay for my phones,lines, etc. I regard
unwanted phone calls (particularly robo calls) as an invasion of that privacy.

Regards,

Shaun Dakin
CEO and Founder
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry
http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org

Posted by Shaun Dakin | January 30, 2008 10:19 AM

The real question is not whether McCain is "gay-baiting" or simply pointing out that Romney is a waffler. Whether you favor "gay marriage", gun control and abortion or not. The issue is can you trust Mitt Romney, and the answer is NO!!!!!!!!! The man has been all over the place saying whatever he thinks will get him elected.

Vote for Huckabee !

Posted by Randy Davis | January 30, 2008 9:30 PM

Huckabee does seem like a pretty cool guy but he pardoned something like 2 or 3 more criminals than the previous 2 or 3 governors combined. I don't have the exact numbers but I have heard it from quite a few places and neither of them were from Mitt or McCain. That reason right there is why I would not vote for him. Honestly it appears that Mitt has changed positions but I think that was to win as gov. of Mass which is very very democratic. My opinion is he changed for that and now he is stating what he really thinks.

Posted by Chad | January 30, 2008 10:46 PM

Sorry, I meant 2 or 3 times more criminals.

Posted by Chad | January 30, 2008 10:54 PM