Republicans know that if they just come out and admit that they oppose Kevin Jennings because he’s gay, that doesn’t fly anymore, so they twist themselves in all sorts of counter-factual knots and pray nobody notices.
We noticed.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Kevin Jennings Is GOP Proxy For Hate Of Teh Gay
October 5th, 2009
64 Comments
To cons, It’s better to be divorced 3 times like Rush Limbaugh than to be gay
Here’s the lowdown on the b.s. william was peddling the other day on Jennings. The latest lie is: “Jennings is a NAMBLA supporter.”
Jennings is not a NAMBLA member or supporter. Here’s the basis of the rumor.
Jennings once expressed admiration for a gay activist named Harry Hay, also NOT a NAMBLA member. Hay was a founder of the gay rights movement and facilitated communication and cooperation among various groups. At some point, some groups wanted NAMBLA excluded from combined events. Hay refused to go along with kicking them out.
Conservatives promote his refusal as support for NAMBLA and Jennings’ tribute to Hay as support for NAMBLA.
Do you really think you are going to continue to get away with this crap indefinitely?
Everyone opposed to Pres Obama is racist; now everyone that wants to a closer look at Jennings’ appointment hates gays?
Cut it out!
Just. cut. it. out.
now everyone that wants to a closer look at Jennings’ appointment hates gays?
No one said that. Well, not until you did.
We noticed.
A long time ago. And we’ll keep noticing. It’s pretty hard not to.
/i
Kevin Jennings Is GOP Proxy For Hate Of Teh Gay
No one said it — except Oliver, in the headline.
But, yeah, I can understand why you thought I was the one who brought it up.
You guys are amazing.
GOP Proxy
Are you a Republican, Frank? I didn’t know that.
Anyway, the GOP and its mouthpieces have been very active in using homophobic stereotyping to trash Mr. Jennings’ reputation. It’s not a secret that Mr. Obama’s Republican opponents would dearly love to force another resignation.
Why would mentioning this fact make you feel personally accused?
Republicans are the #1 bullies of America today. They so hate to see their so-called “traditions” be challenged. I say challenged them.
No, I am not a Republican. So, Quaker, are you saying that Republicans hate gays,AND that because they hate gays, they have doubts about Mr Jennings’ appointment?
Are you saying that there shouldn’t be any doubt about Mr Jennings’ ability to hold that position, unless you hate gays?
Or you simply saying that Republicans hate gays?
Yes, CJ , Republicans are buliies and their traditions should be challenged.
However, it would be ever so much more enlightening if you could give a few examples of Republican bullying; give a few examples of Republican “traditions” (I assume you mean, as opposed to some other people’s traditions); and, finally, please tell me how you might challenge them (for example, maybe you could marry someone who is the same sex as you, or if you are a male, get a girl pregnant, and exhort her to act out her freedom to choose by having an abortion,oh, wait! Here’s one: Pay more taxes than you are asked to, because you reject the last tax cut).
So, Quaker, are you saying that Republicans hate gays,AND that because they hate gays, they have doubts about Mr Jennings’ appointment?
I’m saying that the GOP has long put out the welcome mat to those who hate gays. They’ve even elected more than a few members of Congress who marginalize and vilify gays. Prominent members of the Republican party are smearing Mr. Jennings with anti-gay stereotypes.
Prominent members of the Republican party are smearing Mr. Jennings with anti-gay stereotypes.
I have not read any such thing, but even if they were , that is a far cry from,”Kevin Jennings Is GOP Proxy For Hate Of Teh Gay”.
But, of course, you would swallow molten lead , before you would admit you were wro… wro … wro…
C’mon ! You can do it!
@Frank DiSalle- Look here Frank if I wanted to add some examples I would have but I chose not to. I don’t know what it is with you consistently asking me for answers. You are not my teacher, classmate, or whatever, so go and suck on some balls. Thank you. Happy face
“Jennings is not a NAMBLA supporter.”
True, but Hay clearly was…and Jennings praised Hay in his book. If Jennings knew of Hays’ NAMBLA advocacy and decided to praise the latter anyway, then that is disturbing enough that Jennings should resign.
What reason could there be for Hay to oppose NAMBLA marching in gay pride events other than that he supported the organization?
are you saying that Republicans hate gays
Yes. I mean, it’s in their platform.
CJ: I ask you for examples, knowing you have none. I know you have none, because there aren’t any. And because there aren’t any, you must be — how do I put this delicately? – full of shit.
Now, go suck on your own balls, you nitwit/
Zython : Let’s see: CTRL+F “gay” Nope. Didn’t find it.
If Jennings knew of Hays’ NAMBLA advocacy and decided to praise the latter anyway, then that is disturbing enough that Jennings should resign.
First, it’s “Hay,” not “Hays.” If you’re going to malign the reputation of a dead man, at least do him the courtesey of identifying him correctly.
Second, Hay’s “advocacy” consisted of not running them off.
Third, Jennings’ praise of Hay had absolutely nothing to do with NAMBLA and everything to do with Hay’s other work in promoting gay rights.
So no, it’s not “disturbing enough” to demand Jennings’ resignation. No, really, it’s not.
I have not read any such thing,
I see. If Frank has not read about it, it cannot be true.
If you “have not read any such thing,” that means you haven’t bothered to click the link in the post you’re commenting on.
Good to know.
Yeah, Quaker , real clever.
The point is that I have not ready anywhere, as written by Republicans , that their object to Jennings’ appointment is based on the fact that he is gay.
When I say “I haven’t read it” that is my clever way of saying, “Show me a Republican statement that he or she objects to Jennings’ appoint because he is gay, or because they the Reublican in question, hate gays.
You know you cannot, so you play word games.
Well, keep on playing, bit please be aware that it serves no purpose as far as I am concerned. You may have a smug look on your face , there in the basement, and your leftie friends may be tittilated, but you look foolish to me.
At some point, some groups wanted NAMBLA excluded from combined events. Hay refused to go along with kicking them out.
Sorry to break it to you but Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA goes far deeper than this.
Sorry to break it to you but Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA goes far deeper than this.
Do questions swirl?
@Frank-Why do I need to provide examples to you? Are you some kind of authority that I must answer to? NO, you are not. Also if these pass few months is not enough demonstration to you that Republicans are bullies….then oh well suck on it.
“go suck on your own balls”, Umm hate to break it to you…..I am a girl.
You may have a smug look on your face , there in the basement, and your leftie friends may be tittilated, but you look foolish to me.
You can see me? Your powers exceed my greatest fears.
Sorry to break it to you but Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA goes far deeper than this.
Really? Then cough it up. And while you’re at it, please explain why it has anything to do with Jennings.
Quaker: Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of the word “may” ?
The point is that I have not ready anywhere, as written by Republicans , that their object to Jennings’ appointment is based on the fact that he is gay.
Good point, Frank. Since Republicans haven’t come out and said, verbatim, “I hate gays and I oppose Jennings because he’s a butt pirate,” then clearly the opposition is based on something other than his being gay. Right.
Good point.
If Jennings knew of Hays’ NAMBLA advocacy and decided to praise the latter anyway, then that is disturbing enough that Jennings should resign.
False.
Sorry to break it to you but Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA goes far deeper than this.
Proof, please.
You may have a smug look on your face , there in the basement, and your leftie friends may be tittilated, but you look foolish to me.
Ohhhh SNAP! In your fucking basement! He just… didja see that… holy crap! In. The. Fucking. Basement. PWNED! Such a putdown! Legendary! In the basement. Wow. The originality, the poise, the timing… such a perfect smackdown. In. The. Motherfucking. Basement. Wow. Awesome. Suck on that, lefties!
I see. If Frank has not read about it and agrees with it, it cannot be true, no matter what.
Fixed that for ya.
Another guilt by association attack.
If the right is going to play that then I guess Sarah Palin is a White supremacist, and a witch hunter, and a terrorist.
If the right is going to play that then I guess Sarah Palin is a White supremacist, and a witch hunter, and a terrorist.
As if she wasn’t bad enough already.
I guess Sarah Palin is a White supremacist, and a witch hunter, and a terrorist.
She needs to denounce all those sorts of people or quit her job immediat….oh, wait!
“Since Republicans haven’t come out and said, verbatim, “I hate gays and I oppose Jennings because he’s a butt pirate,” you’re gonna have to come up with something more than, “I just KNOW Republicans hate gays, I just KNOW it!” , to be convincing.
And don’t make the mistake that Zython made, that because the GOP platform contains a plank that opposes gay marriage, that that is evidence that they hate gays.
because the GOP platform contains a plank that opposes gay marriage, that that is evidence that they hate gays.
Well, it’s certainly not evidence that they are particularly fond of them, is it?
Listen, conservatives are in bed with the religious right in this country. There’s no disputing that. And the religious right is, at the very least, very uncomfortable with gay people. I would argue that this manifests itself by supporting discriminatory legislation, like Prop 8 in California and constitutional amendments against gay marriage. Would I use the word “hate”? Maybe not, but it’s certainly not far off.
And don’t make the mistake that Zython made, that because the GOP platform contains a plank that opposes gay marriage, that that is evidence that they hate gays.
Right. They don’t hate gays. They just don’t want them to have the same rights as, you know, regular people!
Second, Hay’s “advocacy” consisted of not running them off.
You think it’s a good thing, Quaker, that Hay did not run NAMBLA off? Why?
Really? Then cough it up. And while you’re at it, please explain why it has anything to do with Jennings.
Oh it doesn’t have anything to do with Jennings. But suck it up. Guilt by association nonsense is something that the left perfected. The whole, “If you don’t denounce it, you agree with it” horseshit is one of the major plays in the Democratic playbook.
Getting back to Hays. There wasn’t just some disagreement between him and gay groups about NAMBLA. He spoke at their conferences and also wrote a promotional blurb for a pro-NAMBLA book. He also said the following:
I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.
If the right is going to play that then I guess Sarah Palin is a White supremacist, and a witch hunter, and a terrorist.
Well that’s basically what the left accused her of, so you’re not stretching really.
@Jay- Please provide a link?
“Well that’s basically what the left accused her of, so you’re not stretching really.”
Oh no, we are just throwing back her poison she spew out in the election. How quickly people forgot the “paling around with terrorists” statement she made.
Oops I didn’t mean for that to be a “?”.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=927
The thing is Kevin Jennings is not Harry Hay. People are trying to morph the two together as one person that thinks the same. Kevin Jennings had admiration for Harry Hay for what he did for gay rights not for what he did for NAMBLA.
It’s wrong for people to insinuate that some how those things go hand to hand. They don’t.
cj, I agree with you. But I have to be honest and say I am not going to shed tears over this. The Democrats are merely reaping what they have sewn. They perfected the art of using guilt by association tactics and would make hay with the “if you don’t condemn it, you condone it” nonsense that has so permeated politics over the last 8-10 years.
I don’t agree with what the GOP is doing with regard to Jennings and this guy Hay (who I’ve never heard of until this and who I find to be a repulsive human being with his NAMBLA activities) but they’re just taking a page from the Democratic playbook.
Just like a few Protestant religions and the GOP are not interchangeable, eh, Mambo and CJ ?
@Jay-Democratic playbook? Please~ Republicans sit back while they let the far right speak on their behalf. Republicans not only sit back watch they also stroke and parade the far rights craziness as much as they can. And it’s biting them in the butt.
@Frank- If some of your talking points and policy influence comes for Protestant religions no they are not interchangeable. Republicans are willingly allowing the religious right to dictate what the Republican platform will be.
If you don’t like the direction the Republican Party is heading don’t be mad at Democrats or the left get mad at Republican leaders because they are the only ones that can change that it.
Oops “Republicans not only sit back and watch they also stroke…”, “influences come”, “then no”.
Geez…Oliver, can we get some kind of editing function added to our post?
Just like a few Protestant religions and the GOP are not interchangeable, eh, Mambo and CJ ?
What?
In the motherfucking BASEMENT! Hahahaha! Classic stuff, Frank, absolutely legendary.
And don’t make the mistake that Zython made, that because the GOP platform contains a plank that opposes gay marriage, that that is evidence that they hate gays.
You have a better explanation?
In the motherfucking BASEMENT!
How about a translation for us English speaking folks?
You have a better explanation?
Of course I do. If it happens to be your desire to protect the sanctity of marriage by insuring, as best you can, that only men and women marry, that says absolutely nothing about your attitude toward gays. That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.
Am I going too fast for you?
Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.
Unless you have some evidence of a connection to the contrary?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=927
Yeah, I read Mr. Zombie’s crap, Jay. You still got nothing and Mr. Hay is still dead and Mr. Jennings still isn’t a “NAMBLA supporter.”
If it happens to be your desire to protect the sanctity of marriage by insuring, as best you can, that only men and women marry, that says absolutely nothing about your attitude toward gays.
Except that gays “don’t deserve” marriage.
That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.
That’s bullshit. Just because you don’t see something as a right doesn’t mean the right doesn’t or shouldn’t exist. I’m sure there were plenty of slave owners who didn’t see blacks having a “right” to be free.
Or a more modern example, when Prop 8 took away the right for gays to marry, just because people didn’t “see it as a right”.
Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.
It’s cute that you say “heterosexual marriage” as though gay marriage will outlaw it. They’re not mutually exclusive.
In addition, I’m sure there were people who thought that being anti-abolitionist was not the same as hating blacks.
Unless you have some evidence of a connection to the contrary?
The fact that there’s absolutely nothing to gain from it except unnecessarily hurt homosexuals.
How about a translation for us English speaking folks?
Your oh-so-original snark above, Frank. They were your words. I was just enjoying them.
If it happens to be your desire to protect the sanctity of marriage by insuring, as best you can, that only men and women marry, that says absolutely nothing about your attitude toward gays.
What do you mean by the “sanctity of marriage”? And how does allowing gay people to marry say ANYTHING about heterosexual marriage?
That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.
Right. Not allowing them to marry = not depriving them. When they may want to marry. But they shouldn’t be allowed to, because it’s scary. Marriage is sacred, dontcha know. Right.
Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.
No, there’s much more to demonstrate hatred of gay people than merely denying them marriage rights. Of course, denying them marriage can, and often is, a portion of the pie.
In the basement. Hahaha, I cannot stop laughing.
By denying gays to marry you’re also denying them to benefit from tax breaks that marry couples have. You also deny them a say so in what happens when a spouse is hurt or dies. You also deny them to receive benefits from a decease spouse’s inheritance(even if they didn’t know they had one), worker benefits, or State & Federal benefits.
Deny a gay couple of marriage is denying them of a comfortable life, security, and a peace at mind they are PROTECTED by law that they too have rights just like heterosexual couples do.
What do you mean by the “sanctity of marriage”? And how does allowing gay people to marry say ANYTHING about heterosexual marriage?
I mean by the sanctity of marriage the belief, shared by millions, that marriage is holy and blessed by God, because it binds a man and woman together for life to raise their own family, and to make their way in the world together, as one.
Now , if you don’t believe that, that matters not one little bit to me, or the people who do believe it.
If allowing gay couples to marry, says nothing about heterosexual marriage, then isn’t it safe to assume that people who favor heterosexual marriage aren’t necessarily saying anything bad about gays?
If I were a Yankees fan, would that mean that I wish the Boston Red Sox couldn’t play ball anymore ?
In the basement. Hahaha, I cannot stop laughing.
Nope. I still don’t get it.
Who cares?
CJ: a) I am not opposed to gay marriage (so there goes you “conservatives don’t want gays to get married” theory)
b) Whatever happens to gays when they marry, or doesn’t happen when they don’t, is of no concern to people who think that the term “Marriage” only applies to a union between a man and a woman. This does not mean they hate gays. Maybe they don’t care about what they want, but that doesn’t mean they hate them.
c) It so happens that if a gay person has a dependent child, he or she can take a sizeable deduction , even if he or she is not married to anyone.
d) What law is there now that says gays are entitled to marry, and with which Republicans are interfering?
I mean by the sanctity of marriage the belief, shared by millions, that marriage is holy and blessed by God, because it binds a man and woman together for life to raise their own family, and to make their way in the world together, as one.
Tough shit on this idea. Separation of Church and State. That’s literally all that needs to be said.
Anything else?
If allowing gay couples to marry, says nothing about heterosexual marriage, then isn’t it safe to assume that people who favor heterosexual marriage aren’t necessarily saying anything bad about gays?
Frank, this is nonsense. In this case, you are using the phrase “favor heterosexual marriage” to mean “only allow heterosexual marriage”. No. That’s bullshit. Personally, I “favor” heterosexual marriage, simply because I am a heterosexual. If and when I do get married to a woman, I recognize that Bob and Steve’s gay marriage is not, in any way, a threat to my own. It’s nonsense.
But if you believe that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals, then yes, you’re a bigot.
so there goes you “conservatives don’t want gays to get married” theory
Because if a single conservative doesn’t oppose gay marriage, then that means that the movement in general is not anti-gay marriage. Who do you think is opposing homosexuals here?
to people who think that the term “Marriage” only applies to a union between a man and a woman.
These people are either idiots, bigots, or political appeasers.
I should expand a little bit.
shared by millions,
First, there are also millions that share the belief that gays should be able to get married.
Secondly, the truth or value of a judgment is not tied to its popularity. I do not care if 5.9 billion people out of the 6 billion on the planet oppose gay marriage. They’re STILL wrong.
and to make their way in the world together, as one.
If this is all God’s plan and whatnot, why don’t we just go back to the way women were treated in Biblical times? Chattel, property of the man? Would you like to do this, Frank? Maybe allow men to marry MULTIPLE women? The point is that the current “traditional” view of marriage in this country is really quite new. It’s continually evolving. And as such, homosexuals being able to marry does not mark a major deviation from the norm. Even if it did, it’s STILL the right thing to do.
It so happens that if a gay person has a dependent child, he or she can take a sizeable deduction , even if he or she is not married to anyone.
There are other rights not afforded gay people, as a consequence of being unable to get married.
What law is there now that says gays are entitled to marry, and with which Republicans are interfering?
Well, Republican fucktards from Utah heavily supported Prop 8, which overturned the ability for gay people to be married in the State of California. I know that it’s not exactly the question you asked, but it’s still important.
t so happens that if a gay person has a dependent child, he or she can take a sizeable deduction , even if he or she is not married to anyone.
Yes, and if that gay parent dies, his or her partner may loose custody of the child that they raised together.
@Frank- So you opposing gay marriage is over a word?
So you are in favor of allowing gay couples to get the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples, and to receive benefits from State and Federal government, or work benefits as long as they don’t use it though the means of marriage?
Also the point is that there are laws AGAINST gays for marrying. If there were any laws allowing gays to marry we wouldn’t be having this debate, now would we?
CJ : Please read all of my comments on the subject of gay marriage. You may, if you wish, read all of my comments on gay marriage that have ever appeared in this blog.
You will see that I have never opposed gay marriage. I do not oppose gay marriage. I am not all lit up about it, but I don’t care one way or the other.
Unlike you lefties, I understand what the objections to gay marriage are, and I can appreciate their concerns, and I do not believe that of some arbitrary number X of people who oppose gay marriage , that even 10% of them hate gays.
Now, if you insist on believing that all people who oppose gay marriage hate gays, then, of course, for you, what I said can’t possibly be true.
Thus, you have a problem. I have none.
Southern Quaker: Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.
Unfairness, unfairness! Unfairness everywhere.
So you are in favor of allowing gay couples to get the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples, and to receive benefits from State and Federal government, or work benefits as long as they don’t use it though the means of marriage?
Nope. I didn’t say that, or anything like that. It is not that simple, although I know all you lefties wish it were.
If I were a Yankees fan, would that mean that I wish the Boston Red Sox couldn’t play ball anymore ?
So marriage is a zero-sum game? God you’re an idiot.
Thus, you have a problem. I have none.
So it’s OUR fault that they’re being disingenuous?
I understand what the objections to gay marriage are
No, you don’t.
I do not believe that of some arbitrary number X of people who oppose gay marriage , that even 10% of them hate gays.
I believe that you’re WAY off on your estimate.
Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.
Dunno if this is true. It doesn’t matter though. The Mom and Dad in your example had the OPTION of getting married if they so chose. Most places in this country, gay couples do NOT have that option. Bad analogy.
Unfairness, unfairness! Unfairness everywhere.
Yes.
It is not that simple
Yes, it is.
So marriage is a zero-sum game? God you’re an idiot.
Heh. I think that’s what he’s saying.
@Frank- I will only answer to comment that see and want to answer to. My comments were direct response to you comment you made here on this thread not anywhere else. And you didn’t even answer my questions. Nice.
“Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.”
Can I call bull-shit? If the child biologically yes he can. If you are talking about a non-biological father, but has been in the child life since birth it would be easy for him to go though adoption or courts can find that he is the parental guardian and give him custody if no family member protest. But that could be cleared up though marriage.
Again if a gay spouse happens to die his/her spouse is not entitled to his/her benefits or even custody of the child because THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED or have to safe guards for these things.
Family members can contest wills and have a better chance of winning when it’s against a same-sex partner.