An Oklahoma State Legislator offers up some traditional values thinking on homosexuality: "I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."
Oh noes -- worse than Islam!
« More Wire Stuff | Main | McCain Angry! »
Old School
07 Mar 2008 03:23 pm
Comments (67)
Ah yes, it sure is fun to be reminded that this sort of thing is prevalent. Kind of like the shock of discovering back in November that the Georgia policy response to impeding loss of potable water was to put restrictions on watering? Nope. To pray:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/southern.drought.ap/index.html
Idiots are infiltrating our very government...
All this time I was thinking it was country music that was leading America astray. I guess a gay cowboy might be capable of emitting death rays from his fingertips. Or something. 9/11, 9/11!!
Jesus Christ. Were does the Republican Party find these yahoos?
I thought the biggest threat wasn't the gays per se, rather buggering.
On one hand, this is funny. On the other, it's a scary-as-hell reminder that people really do believe this.
Does anyone know which Oklahoma State Legislator this was?
I know a few residents of that state who may want to give her a piece of their mind.
I thought the biggest threat wasn't the gays per se, rather buggering.
Nope, because this is Oklahoma, where they elected Tom Coburn to the US Senate after he denounced the terrifying threat of lesbian sex in school bathrooms. So these people aren't actually bothering to read the verse in Leviticus very closely.
We're in ur eka springs, infiltratin ur sity counsils!
Is it as big of a threat as "rock and roll"?
I love the part where she talks about toe cancer.
Any commentors from Pittsburg here? Is it really true, as the wingnut legsilator in the video claims, that Pittsburg has a majority gay city council? Hell, I didn't think even San Francisco had that . . .
It's a bigger threat that Rock 'n' Roll! The gays are almost as big a threat as dancing! And have you ever seen the gays dance?!?!?!?
DANCING, PEOPLE!
"It's in Revelations!" - Rev. Lovejoy
Some brief research reveals that Pittsburgh just elected its first openly gay City Council member, Bruce Kraus. I suspect that this news has been transformed into "ZOMG TEH GAYZ ARE IN CHARGE!!1!"
Having said that, take a look at the whole Pittsburh City Council. Maybe she's onto something...
This is Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City).
sallykern@okhouse.gov
http://www.okhouse.gov/Committees/Member.aspx?MemberID=87
Ah, how it warms the cockles of smug liberals to rail against an anti-gay redneck in flyover land. Far more depressing to consider that the real hate for homosexuals -- you know, places where gays get fined, thrown in jail, or even killed and stuff -- happens to occur in "vibrant" countries that are redneck free. Places like where Barack Obama's father came from.
You know, there seems to be a pattern here: Islam and homosexuality don't seem to mix. Good thing Matt wants to make Harvard more amenable to Islam. What happens when the Muslims start getting offended by the gays though? Time to kick the lesbians out of the gyms then?
Every time a troll spots a pattern, a puppy dies.
Hey, didn't you hear, homosexuality is deadly because gay kids are more likely to commit suicide. The suicide comes from the sex drive, not from hatemongering or abusive parents. The best way to protect kids from this deadly scourge is to make sure their parents know if they joined a GSA so it can be disciplined out of them. Naturally, encouraging parents to hate their own children has nothing to do with suicide.
Now I have someone to hate on more than Hillary Clinton!!
"I thought the biggest threat wasn't the gays per se, rather buggering."
You are correct, sir. Heck, it was just at our last meeting we decided to butt-fuck the world into oblivion... they're on to us, my brothers! Head for the nearest bath-house and begin Operation Anal Freedom!
Idiots are infiltrating our very government...
The idiots have long since taken it over.
You're right Fred, Harvard opening up a women’s only hour at one gym is clearly equivalent to the belief homosexuals are the single greatest threat to the country.
Next thing you know you right wingers will start saying torture at Abu Ghraib is no different than your typical frat hazing. Wait…
Ah, how it warms the cockles...
Careful, don't overheat your cockles. Oh, Fred, you old queen, would you just find yourself a cute little middle-eastern boy and be done with it already.
BTW, Fred,
I iz in yu fli ovr, sukin the cok...
Representative Kern is wearing a lovely eagle lapel pin in that picture. I think it's a symbol of her membership in Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly's charming organization.
Xscuse mi gramar, shud sed "yur" not "yu"
Ah, how it warms the cockles of smug liberals to rail against an anti-gay redneck in flyover land.
Well, an anti-gay elected official, anyway. Sometimes the details matter.
Far more depressing to consider that the real hate for homosexuals -- you know, places where gays get fined, thrown in jail, or even killed and stuff -- happens to occur in "vibrant" countries that are redneck free.
You know, I'm not sure which is more depressing: virulent assholes in other countries and cultures, or virulent assholes in my own country that get elected as popular leaders. I'm glad that you, too, regard both of these things as nasty, nasty business. That does kind of make me feel warm in the cockle region.
Fred writes: "Ah, how it warms the cockles of smug liberals to rail against an anti-gay redneck in flyover land. Far more depressing to consider that the real hate for homosexuals -- you know, places where gays get fined, thrown in jail, or even killed and stuff -- happens to occur in "vibrant" countries that are redneck free. Places like where Barack Obama's father came from."
Fred is a proud member of the Republican Party, an organization as devoted to bashing homosexuals as Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" church is. The GOPers just aren't as honest as the Phelps crew is, and some of them don't actually hate gays - they're just cynically using anti-gay bigotry in order to get fascist warmongering assholes elected to office.
Of course Fred doesn't REALLY give a shit what Muslim nations do to homosexuals - which is why he thinks it's perfectly okay for Dumbya Bush to play kissy-face with Saudi Arabian dictators. Fred greased himself up for Karl Rove 8 years ago and he's been fully submissive to the Rove-Cheney-Bush axis of evil ever since.
Fred is a proud member of the Republican Party, an organization as devoted to bashing homosexuals as Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" church is.
Barack Obama on gay marriage:
I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman
Hillary also opposes gay marriage. While he was president, her husband signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited recognition of gay marriage by the federal government, and then bragged about it on Christian radio.
Rihilism,
I find the way your mind works amusing. Let me follow your logic:
1) Fred points out that liberals like enjoy bashing bigots when those bigots happen to be rural rednecks.
2) He also points out that groups that have more cool points with liberals than rectangular state whites -- Africans, Muslims, Iranians, etc. -- tend be a lot more anti-gay than rural rednecks.
3) Therefore, Fred is a gay pederast.
4) Q.E.D.?
Hate to burst your bubble, but, unlike the folks who dress like this, I have no problem with gays. My girlfriend and I would love more gays to move into our town to boost its property values and hipness quotient, and The L-Word is one of our favorite shows.
What does it mean when Bumiller is attacking you?
Fred writes: "Hate to burst your bubble, but, unlike the folks who dress like this, I have no problem with gays. My girlfriend and I would love more gays to move into our town to boost its property values and hipness quotient, and The L-Word is one of our favorite shows."
Sure, and you're still a member of the gay-bashing party. You just hate A-rabs and Muslims and Africans and you like to watch lesbians on film. And like I said, "some of them don't actually hate gays - they're just cynically using anti-gay bigotry in order to get fascist warmongering assholes elected to office."
That's you, chuckles. Deal with it.
Mixner quotes and writes: "Fred is a proud member of the Republican Party, an organization as devoted to bashing homosexuals as Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" church is.
Barack Obama on gay marriage:
I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman
Hillary also opposes gay marriage. While he was president, her husband signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited recognition of gay marriage by the federal government, and then bragged about it on Christian radio."
As I've mentioned often, I'm no Clinton fan, and mentioning that gay-bashing is a central Repiglican tenet - and was one of their main issues in 2004 - does not constitute an endorsement of the Clintons.
If you look at what Obama said, he used the word "sanctified." I believe he has said he would support civil unions, which is all a civil marriage really is anyway. I don't see him demagoguing on this issue to appeal to asshole bigots like the ignorant fool in the Oklahoma legislature. Idiots like her are wholly owned by the Repiglican Party which has been sucking up to them HARD for three decades now.
"Sure, and you're still a member of the gay-bashing party."
Moe,
There is certainly a minority of Republicans that is intolerant of gays but I'd venture there is more virulent intolerance of gays among Democrats. No, not in the trendy coffee bars Matt Yglesias frequents, but in the union halls and black churches. The Democrats are in no position to throw stones on this.
Of course, it's less fun for a smug liberal to call out a black preacher on his gay-baiting than it is to censure a gay-baiting redneck. But that's less because liberals are pro-gay than it is because they are anti-white.
Fred,
What do you mean by Iranians tending to be more anti-gay? Give me proof of a gay lynching that was carried out by actual Iranians, as opposed to Iran's medieval government. I can tell you one thing: the average Iranian does not spend his day thinking about how to hold back the homosexual agenda, and Iran's last prime minister before the revolution was pretty flamboyantly gay, as were all of Iran's major poets. So keep your bigotry to yourself.
As I've mentioned often, I'm no Clinton fan, and mentioning that gay-bashing is a central Repiglican tenet - and was one of their main issues in 2004 - does not constitute an endorsement of the Clintons.
The problem is that your criticism is so unbalanced. But then, it's pretty clear that your boundless hatred of Republicans is really the only thing that animates you in life, and a balanced evaluation of the two parties' positions on gay issues is beyond your abilities.
I live in Oklahoma City. It amazed me when I moved here how pervasive this kind of crap is. There are a ton of really cool normal people here but this state has a higher percentage of bat shit insane assholes that anywhere else I have lived before. This state actually has a very rich and cool gay community. But I would say that I over hear something that just make we turn my head and stare at lease every other day. I would say that the lack of education is truly amazing in this state.
"and Iran's last prime minister before the revolution was pretty flamboyantly gay"
Can you Iranians get your stories straight (no pun intended)? From you I hear that except for your country's "medieval" government (which was swept in by a popular revolution 29 years ago), Iranians are cool with gays, and as evidence of this, you note that the last pre-Islamic Republic government had a gay prime minister. From most other Iranians key-tappers on the Interwebs, I hear that we Americans were evil for supporting the government with this gay prime minister, which stood in the way of the desire of the Iranian people to install the new government you call "medieval".
"Hate to burst your bubble...
I'm flattered, really, but you're not my type.
"I have no problem with gays..."
Whew! That's a relief. But, wait a minute, what about gay muslims? Got ya there, Fred. Oh noes, whatever will you do when they come to your town.
"My girlfriend and I would love more gays to move into our town to boost its property values and hipness quotient, and The L-Word is one of our favorite shows."
By the way, Fred, "boy" is "gay" for a man, and no, gays (unlike certain heterosexuals) don't usually assume other gays are pedophiles, even the closeted ones... just wanted to contribute to your personal hipness quotient.
And, yes, I know it's sometimes hard to tell cause all teh gays tend to look and act alike, but some gays are not impressed by someone's williness to "want" us for strictly selfish economic reasons or to satisfy heterosexual male fantasies (suprisingly, not all lesbians look like supermodels).
But if you're truly intent on having some queer boys movin' to your town, perhaps you should consider moving out. Not your girlfriend, of course. She can stay so the gays will have someone to go shopping with...
Fred quotes and replies: ""Sure, and you're still a member of the gay-bashing party."
Moe,
There is certainly a minority of Republicans that is intolerant of gays but I'd venture there is more virulent intolerance of gays among Democrats. No, not in the trendy coffee bars Matt Yglesias frequents, but in the union halls and black churches. The Democrats are in no position to throw stones on this. "
Sure they are, pal. The Repiglicans ran on gay-bashing in 2004 - like I said, it was a central part of their plan that year. Democrats, for all their faults, have done no such thing.
The anti-gay faction of the Repiglican party isn't just the vocal bigots, it's also people like you who continue to support a party that's an organized, deliberate hate group.
Repiglicans continue to elect pigs like the woman that inspired this thread - or have you forgotten her? And there are some even worse than her on the federal level, including Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma.
Mixner quotes and writes: "As I've mentioned often, I'm no Clinton fan, and mentioning that gay-bashing is a central Repiglican tenet - and was one of their main issues in 2004 - does not constitute an endorsement of the Clintons.
The problem is that your criticism is so unbalanced. But then, it's pretty clear that your boundless hatred of Republicans is really the only thing that animates you in life, and a balanced evaluation of the two parties' positions on gay issues is beyond your abilities."
There's nothing unbalanced about pointing out the FACT that the Christian Right is a subsidiary of the Repiglican Party. That's a fact. And it's the Christian Right that is the most anti-gay faction in American life.
I can hardly wait for Fred's defense of Hagee on the grounds that liberals are fonder than conservatives of bashing Pope Benedict.
GOP:
"We know we belong to the fools,
And the fools we belong to have rules..."
"This state actually has a very rich and cool gay community."
Luckily, Oklahoma City is too far inland to be drown by a hurricane driven ocean surge. But, perhaps it explains the twisters.
An optimistic view would be that there are actually signs of progress. Stamping out onanism is no longer seriously attempted. Divorce and even contraception are tolerated. And even mixed race marriages. Islam is kind of distant. One could think that of all places in "fly-over country" Oklahoma City should be familiar with terrorism and the danger of rigth-wing lunatics but well...
So what is the deal with gays? My theory is that this is the last "legal game" left. Aliens are comming close, but whipping out real hatred against folks who mow you lawn etc. and are not even "uppity" is somehow not working too well. Bashing blacks is no longer possible even in Oklahoma legislature.
Sure they are, pal. The Repiglicans ran on gay-bashing in 2004 - like I said, it was a central part of their plan that year. Democrats, for all their faults, have done no such thing.
Moe's basically right on this, but it should be noted that Bill Clinton did run ads on Christian radio in 1996 promoting his signing the Defense of Marriage Act. That would qualify as running against the gays.
Rihilism,
"Whew! That's a relief. But, wait a minute, what about gay muslims? Got ya there, Fred. Oh noes, whatever will you do when they come to town?"
I'd prefer the gay Muslims to the non-gay Muslims, because if they are gay, they are most likely secular and unlikely to be jihadists. In fact, if some gays (Muslim or not) want to open up a gay disco next to the Muslim social club we have downtown, I'd be thrilled.
"By the way, Fred, "boy" is "gay" for a man..."
Do you apply this terminology to black gay men too?
"suprisingly, not all lesbians look like supermodels"
"Surprisingly"? I don't think anyone's under this illusion.
"But if you're truly intent on having some queer boys movin' to your town, perhaps you should consider moving out. Not your girlfriend, of course. She can stay so the gays will have someone to go shopping with..."
Why should I consider moving out? Don't "queer boys" like diversity?
Dilan: "Sure they are, pal. The Repiglicans ran on gay-bashing in 2004 - like I said, it was a central part of their plan that year. Democrats, for all their faults, have done no such thing.
Moe's basically right on this, but it should be noted that Bill Clinton did run ads on Christian radio in 1996 promoting his signing the Defense of Marriage Act. That would qualify as running against the gays."
You're generally swifter than this, Dilan. Seriously. I mean, you DID notice the "central part of their plan" phrase, didn't you? Why bother quoting it if you didn't consider it?
A few ads on Christian radio 12 years ago don't qualify as a party-wide slant to me, and I don't think they would to any rational people. The gulf between the Repigs and the Dems on this issue is as wide as any difference between the two parties.
Every time a sincere commenter engages in "debate" with a troll, a kitten dies.
Please. Stop killing kittens.
piotr writes:
An optimistic view would be that there are actually signs of progress. Stamping out onanism is no longer seriously attempted.
No doubt, one way to make me reconsider self-medicating would be launching a campaign to STAMP on it.
But as for attempting it seriously, such things are surely best attempted in jest. Or haphazardly, when you happen to stumble upon it and are within stamping distance.
But Oklahoma is one of the states that matters!!!
Stamping out onanism is no longer seriously attempted.
Although oddly, when I lived in OKC and Norman, god, 35 years ago, there was a local chain of Onan gas stations . . .
Moe:
I think it was a central part of Clinton's plan in 1996. He was triangulating. He had Dick Morris working for him (at least until footgate). Bashing gays was part of the plan. He didn't need to worry about them voting for the other party.
Dilan:
It's not 1996 anymore. And you're just playing devil's advocate in an attempt to look fair, when we both know I'm quite right about the gulf between the parties on this issue.
For all of his "triangulating" I'd bet Clinton got the great majority of gay votes in 1996, because the GOP was Jerry Falwell's party then just as it's the party of Huckabee and Robertson and Hagee now. You can play but, but, but Clinton all day and that fact won't change until the GOP does.
Maybe OK is just warning Seattle to scrub all the gay off the team they purchased in David Stern's E(N)Bay auction.
Dilan:
I went and looked it up. Clinton whipped Dole 66-23% among gay voters in 1996, "triangulation" notwithstanding. That was the year Dole returned a $1000 donation to the Log Cabin Republicans.
I suggest that the GOP has regressed since then. Of course I also think the median IQ of GOP voters has been on a steady decline since Teddy Roosevelt died.
Seen one chimpanzee, you've seen them all...
Fred seems to think that his homophobia cancels out his Islamophobia. Nobody here is claiming that the Iranian government is better on gay rights than ours, so basically we are seeing the Chewbacca Defense. Just wait for Fred to pull out a kitty and say "look at the kitty! It's a kitty! Pretty kitty kitty kitty!"
"Iran's last prime minister before the revolution was pretty flamboyantly gay, as were all of Iran's major poets. So keep your bigotry to yourself.
Posted by Persian | March 7, 2008 5:40 PM"
That's fucking awesome.
"it's also people like you who continue to support a party that's an organized, deliberate hate group."
Two possibilities here.
One: You are exaggerating to the point of madness. This is the most likely explanation and not too unusual for you. There's a big line between "not agreeing with the interest groups representing a minority" and being a hate group against them. Republicans do not forbid gays from being in their party, they allow politicians who believe in civil unions, and are running a guy who opposed a Constitutional Amendment on the issue. The party perhaps abets homophobes, but there's nothing in it encouraging hatred of gays. The Republicans who have such hatred would have it regardless.
On another matter Fred Phelps was a Democrat who supported Al Gore.
Two: On some level what you say is true, but it's also true of every political party. Every political party at times panders to the fears and hatreds of their voters. Democrats have been willing to pander on fear of Mormons and Pentecostals to name a couple. To an extent a person picks the party that matches their own bigotries or at least bigotries they can tolerate. So going by the "hate group" notion the problem is the Republican Party is an inappropriate hate group to Moe. The Democratic Party is a hate group he can share the hate or at least tolerate their hatreds.
I've always thought this sort of talk rarely comes from people confident and at ease with their own sexual preferences.
The relationship between Islam and homosexuality is actually quite complex. Homosexuality was rampant in the medieval Muslim world. On the eve of the siege of Constantinople, Mehmet the Conqueror promised his troops their pick of 'the women and young boys of the City' for three days. Mehmet himself was a bisexual, and had the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras and his family beheaded because he would not yield up his 14-year old son for the Sultan's pleasure. The fact that Muhammed condemned homosexuality had little more effect than the fact that he condemned usury (somehow that never stopped the moneylending profession throughout India from being dominated by Muslim usurers wringing blood from the Hindu peasantry.)
"The relationship between Islam and homosexuality is actually quite complex."
So's the relationship between Catholicism and homosexuality. There've been a number of gay Popes (including the current one), so I'm not sure what your point is except that it allows you to bring up "Muslim usurers wringing blood from the Hindu peasantry".
Thomas R. -
Puuuullleeeeease.
The party perhaps abets homophobes, but there's nothing in it encouraging hatred of gays. The Republicans who have such hatred would have it regardless.
"Abets"? How innocuous. Yes, I recall Jeese Helms was often known for saying, "Tut, tut, them gays are such a problem". Just the other day, Hagee said, "Whatever will we do with those nice young men who 'choose' homosexuality. It'll all come to no good, I tell you."
With the 1992 "Culture War" speech by Pat Buchanan, the Republican party fully embraced the "demonize the gays" strategy that has worked so well for them (including 2004 in Ohio). The most vocal homophobes are the power brokers in the Republican party. To suggest otherwise displays ignorance or a superhuman level of cognitive dissonance...
"Why should I consider moving out? Don't "queer boys" like diversity?"
Really, Fred, this is getting embarassing. How many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested?
"Fred seems to think that his homophobia cancels out his Islamophobia."
What have I written here that suggests to you I am afraid of gays? Nothing, as far as I can tell. I grant you that I am afraid of the more radical adherents of Islam, but who isn't?
"Really, Fred, this is getting embarassing. How many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested?"
You should feel embarrassed, having to resort to this puerile tack a second time.
Hey, our city council may be full of hell-bound Sodomites but we've got five Superbowl rings and, you know, isn't that what really matters?
That's the difference between the industrial heartland (Pittsburgh) and the plain old heartland (Oklahoma). In the Rust Belt we care about culture.
Now Terry Bradshaw and 'Mean' Joe Greene may have flounced around the Steel City throughout the 1970s holding hands and wearing nothing but leather chaps and construction boots, but -- damn it -- we supported their choices! Why? Because they came through with the culture! The Superbowl rings!
Okay, anyone want to give an over/under on when in the next 6-1/2 weeks before the Pennsylvania primary we local yinzers will first see Hilary paying homage to something pigskin related? Me, I'm guessing it'll come across as very heartfelt and sincere.
Mr. Rihilism,
I'm not a Catholic, but I have the same contempt that any decent person would have for unfounded allegations of homosexuality against the current holder of that office. If you have issues with the current Pope (and I have plenty) then criticize him on the merits, not on some baseless accusations of homosexuality. There is not one documented case of a practicing homosexual Pope.
Is it that difficult for modern people like you to understand that a man might voluntarily choose to be celibate and sublimate his sexuality for the sake of something higher. Truly, you show a marvelously narrow and maimed vision of human potential.
If I remember correctly, there was at least one documented case of a transvestite Pope.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has paid out billions in settlements over pedophile priests.
So, yes, it's "difficult for modern people like you to understand that a man might voluntarily choose to be celibate and sublimate his sexuality for the sake of something higher."
History doesn't support the concept well.
RS Hack writes: "If I remember correctly, there was at least one documented case of a transvestite Pope."
They all look the part. And I understand that by tradition they all go commando, all the time.
"If I remember correctly, there was at least one documented case of a transvestite Pope."
Numerous Popes have been sexual libertines of one variety or another. Hector is simply wrong. I have no idea what the orientation of the current Pope is, but why would anyone be surprised if he were? It would be like being surprised if a baseball player chewed tobacco.
This was a terrible, terrible video that exemplifies the most idiotic excesses of the remaining PC left -- a breed one thought had gone extinct round about 1994.
"Word matter"? "We are listening"? "We heard that"? What the hell is this supposed to mean? If the woman is convinced that homosexuality is evil, as wrongheaded and offensive as such an opinion may be, then by all means she should go ahead and say so. What earthly purpose is served by declaring that we liberals and gays are secretly monitoring her every word and she better watch what she says? The sign-holding routine seems to reference a trope out of the Maoist Anti-Rightist Campaign or the Cultural Revolution. Does it make sense to try to convince right-wingers that there really are secret gay agents infiltrating their meetings and taping them in order to publicly humiliate them and destroy their careers?
If the lady said something offensive, fine. Put in the newspapers, campaign against her, whatever. But it's her VIEWS that are wrong, not the fact that she dared to speak them without realizing that the walls were listening.
Sheesh.
Moe,
There have been quite a few Popes who broke their vows of celibacy, in a heterosexual manner. some of them were even 'sexual libertines', by the standard of the Middle Ages. As far as I know there's no evidence of a practicing homosexual Pope. Do you have any such evidence?
The bit about 'going commando', I will pretend not to notice.
Mr. Hack appears to have some bizarre ideas about 'Transhumanism', whatever that is, so I'm not sure why you feel inclined to give him any credibility.
Comments closed March 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I remember the first time I drove through rural North Carolina and discovered preachers on the radio who incessantly talked about nothing other than homosexuality. Not only did they not talk about personal salvation and other standard Christian beliefs, or about things like helping the least fortunate-- they didn't even talk about other right wing stuff like abortion. It was all gay-bashing, all the time.
I think a lot of conservatives who are personally comfortable with gays are deliberately blind to exactly how vehement the hatred of gays is in certain segments of the population.
Posted by Dilan Esper | March 7, 2008 3:48 PM