Thursday, February 08, 2007

Evil Gays


Every community has its members that you pretty much want to get all Taliban on and drag to the center of town for an ol'fashioned stoning.

For the gay community, I can't think of two people who really need to get some sense beaten into them more than Ted Haggard and Mary Cheney.

In today's New York Times, Haggard boasts of his "complete heterosexuality" after a three-week stint in counseling. Even Lindsay Lohan committed herself to 30 days of rehab, but I guess when you're as demonic as Haggard, you can get on the fast track to "redemption." For those of not drinking the Kool Aid of the power of "faith," it's laughable that three weeks can undo years of lying and self-loathing.

Still, that's the message from the National Association of Evangelicals: “He [Haggard] is completely heterosexual,” Mr. Ralph [a representative for the religious group] told The [Denver] Post, adding that Mr. Haggard’s homosexual activity had not been “a constant thing.”

What's even more frightening about this mess of a story is that Haggard's wife is not only staying with him, they are both taking online courses to get master’s degrees in psychology!




Mary Cheney is another mess. Now that she's pregnant, she and her tight-assed, lame-duck, mass-murdering-war-profiteering-father have made the topic of her insemination off-limits, saying that her choice to inflict her seed on the world is not a political statement.

And truth be told, the Cheneys have more to be excoriated for than their wayward daughter's romps in the hey with arriviste park rangers. Nonetheless, as Dan Savage brilliantly put it in his blog this week:

"...so long as your party insists on making the fitness of homosexuals to marry or parent—or, hell, exist—a subject of public debate, Mary, your decision to become a parent is germane and very much fit for public discussion and debate. The GOP’s selective embrace of some pregnant dykes—only knocked-up lesbians with powerful connections will be treated with respect—is a disconnect that demands answers. From you, from your father, from your venomous mother, from the idiot president you helped elect. Is that fair? Maybe not. Want to blame someone? Go look in the mirror—and then come out swinging, Mary—for yourself, your partner, and your child."

In times of war it's not uncommon to see people turn on their own just to survive. While the "culture war" rages on in this country, the bigger battle is within the souls of people like Ted and Mary who hate themselves so much that they've made it their life's mission to "redeem" themselves for just existing. The scary thing is that these people have a platform and political connections to see that their twisted brand of hate and depravity turns into legislation.

Stone em!

19 comments:

Berdo said...

GCL - Great post. Dick Cheney has stayed completely silent on the issue. Remember his debate with John Edwards in '04 - where he thanked Edwards for the kind words he said about his family and left it at that. Here's a man more than willing to speak his mind, but when it comes to his clear differences with the Republican leadership on same-sex marriage, how fit gay people are to raise kids, etc...he either yells at the interviewer or ducks the question altogether. Mary Cheney could use some lessons in courage from Maya Keyes...but don't hold your breath waiting.

James Henry Bailey said...

Dick Cheney has NOT stayed silent on this issue. He made it clear that he disagreed with the President and his party on marriage rights:

Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

And let's never forget, John Kerry did NOT support giving full marriage rights to homosexuals!!

PS. Thank you GCL for putting me on your sidebar! However, I the link is broken :-( and I moved to www.immovablemover.typepad.com where I linked to you as well. I hope you'll visit me there.

Gene said...

The Cheneys are a disappointment, to be sure(his words of equality sadly do not translate to deeds). The Shafleys are a greater disappointment. The Socarides were the poster boys of split personalities. It takes a certain kind of courage to overcome power, influence, and money.

Maybe in your lifetimes...

That said, while I agree with Savage, his language is a little harsh.

The reality is that Mary and Heather, deliberately, have given the metaphorical finger to the religious extremists. (Even if that "reality" never entered into their deliberations.)

James Henry Bailey said...

Grrrrr...

his words of equality sadly do not translate to deeds

What deeds??? Why do you never support your assertions with evidence!! What has Dick Cheney DONE that contradicts his statement of support.

And why don't you incplde the MANY Democrats who do not support equal marriage rights?? Obama! Kerry! Bill Clinton (jesus f-ing christ- he signed the defense of marriage act!!)

Gene said...

Grrrrr?

In the Catholic tradition there is the sin of "omission" as well as the sin of "commission." Not doing is sometimes just as offensive as doing.

The decision against taking an action is an action. For whatever reason, the Cheneys decided not to participate in a public way on the side of, say, PFLAG. They are not pro-active commensurate with their statements.

This particular post is about, in part, the Cheneys. When TGC chooses to write about others, that will be a more appropriate time for a comment about how leading Dems have disappointed.

Gene said...

Ouch. There are too many initials floating around for this old mind.

I, of course, should have keyed in GCL instead of TGC.

Apologies.

Agape

James Henry Bailey said...

This particular post is about, in part, the Cheneys. When TGC chooses to write about others, that will be a more appropriate time for a comment about how leading Dems have disappointed.

The post is about EVIL GAYS, and GCL chose to hi-light 2 prominent Republicans, one of them unfairly in my view. I contend that he is fighting the wrong enemy! And, while you, Gene, do not want to drag the Democrats into this comment session, you have no problem naming other Republicans!

In the Catholic tradition there is the sin of "omission" as well as the sin of "commission." Not doing is sometimes just as offensive as doing.

I understand the "sin" of commission. It's yet another means of subjugating the individual to religious dogma, and I refuse to place any value on a statement that is totally contradictory in terms.

Mr. Cheney's statement, DURING AN ELECTION CYCLE, was in fact, a deed!

As far as doing nothing, he did NOT support Bush's amendment. He did NOT sign or put forth any bill that would restrict marriage from same-sex participants.

It is totally fair to question his support for a party that would restrict the protections extended to his daughter and grand child. And it is wrong of him to refuse to do so.

However, he is NOT the enemy. Nor is Mary Cheney. They are not EVIL by any definition.

Haggart, on the other hand- I wanna kick him 'till he's dead.

ThatGayConservative said...

It couldn't possibly be that Mary is serving in a role model capacity. Who knows? Maybe some folks might change their minds when they see her with her partner and their baby. Especially those folks who aren't as hardline as libs ASSume we all are.

But no. Mary hasn't shaved her head and stood up to "fight". Naturally, no matter what she does, the angry, hate filled fags will keep their panties in a bunch.

And once again I ask you, David, how on earth is he a "war profiteer"? Or do you not have any idea except to use that DNC lying point?

ThatGayConservative said...

Ouch. There are too many initials floating around for this old mind.

I, of course, should have keyed in GCL instead of TGC.


You may call me Rob.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

JHB I am STUNNED that you would not think Dick Cheney and is sellout daughter Mary are evil. That bitch has crawled into bed with a party that hates you and me and now I'm supposed to think twice about calling her and her war mongering father out?

ThatGayConservative said...

That bitch has crawled into bed with a party that hates you and me and now I'm supposed to think twice about calling her and her war mongering father out?

God you're so full of shit! How does it feel to be so miserable and full of hate?

James Henry Bailey said...

GCL: I maintain that the Cheneys have a lot to answer for their failure to reconcile their support for a party that would deny Mary's daughter equal protection.

However, it's important not to disregard his vocal dissent from the Bush administration on this issue.

Also, I would be happy to learn exactly what Dick and Mary have done to warrant such hatred.

GCL said...

They're Republicans and Republicans hate gays, are pro-war and are anti-immigrant.

James Henry Bailey said...

I have many Republican friends. I did not realize that by virtue of being a Republican they were gay hating anti-immigrant cunts and bitches. I'm sure they will be enlightened to hear that.

Again, nobody has offered any proof, or even evidence of exactly what Dick and Mary have done.

GCL, I strongly suggest you look to your own party to find the real gay haters and liberty stealers. I have offered many instances of anti-gay behavior from Clinton, Obama, Kerry, etc. and yet you can't offer ONE thing that Dick or Mary have actually done.

ThatGayConservative said...

They're Republicans and Republicans hate gays, are pro-war and are anti-immigrant.

You just proved my last point. You're full of shit.
Thank you.

James Henry Bailey said...

That bitch has crawled into bed with a party that hates you and me and now I'm supposed to think twice about calling her and her war mongering father out?

Typical liberal "diversity" and "accpetance" for you.

Berdo said...

GCL -

Why do you take a perfectly good argument - like your original post - and then completely destroy it by making a reductive argument that Republicans are "pro-War," "Anti-Immigrant" and "Anti-gay." Ridiculous, every one of them, save to some degree the "anti-gay." There are huge immigrant issues in this country...do you have a shred of an idea of what those problems are? Is it possible that a Republican may actually be looking for a solution that works - rather than one that makes everyone "Feel good" but accomplishes nothing? We are in a war the senate unanimously voted for before Bush even took office and before 9/11 even happened? Is it possible there's a reason for that beyond just loving blood and war? You're going to need to start considering these issues if you are to have any crediblility when making your case.

GCL said...

Berdo, thanks for keeping me in check. In short, I think the Republican party has been hijacked by a fanatical movement that wants to preserve our nation's sovereignty at the expense of its citizens safety and well-being.

And you're absolutely right, the Senate did vote for this war and those people all have the blood of our soldiers and the civilians that have been murdered in Iraq on their hands.

This was is more of a strain than illegal immigration. As I see it, here are the values of the Republican party:

-- Preserve the sovereignty of straight white people

-- Elevate the role of the evangelical church to the point of making them another branch of office

-- Funnel money toward a losing war

-- Screw the poor

Berdo said...

GCL -

That may be your take on the Republican party, but I suppose it doesn't impress you that you are demonstrably wrong. I say this as an registered Independent.

Two quick items. The highest ranking African-American female ever - Condoleeza Rice - is a trusted Bush confidante. The attorney general is Hispanic. You may not like their politics, but he has done precisely what we are supposed to do - that is - hire the best person for the job and consider their credentials and positions and not their ethnicity. People don't suddenly become White simply because you don't alighn with their views.

Republican administrations - from Reagan on out - have done more to elevate the socioeconomic status of the poor than any Democrat ever will. And that is also provable, should you be interested.

Coming from someone who decries the Patriot Act and is quick with a sharp retort to any anti-terrorism, security measure the Bush administration takes, your criticism of the administration's lack of concern for the safety of its citizens is rather remarkable.

I am not sure if this "thanks for keeping me in check" response was meant snidely or if you took my post that way, but I absolutely hope it wasn't and certainly know that it was not intended that way.