Unconnected Gay Dots All Over The Map
It was a mind boggling jog through gay blogs today where in which not a person seemed to connect any dots in the big gay debate the nation is having. So I present to you the romp and how it fits together.
This week, HRC pres Joe Solmonese [this is supposedly a Liberal Leftist Democrat supporting group] threw us all under the bus by praising the 13 corporations that helped pass Tennessee’s anti-gay employment bill. [the bill is not anti-gay – it doesn’t say you can’t hire gays, it only says you don’t have to, there’s a difference.] When these companies came under attack by LGBTs, all of them said “we do not support discrimination” but almost none of them did anything to help get it repealed. And now Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, the very man who just signed it into law has also said that he opposes it. Are you shitting us? Ever heard of “veto power”, Bob? What cowards. [They’re not so much cowards, as not clear enough – what they seem to want to say, but don’t, is that they don’t want to discriminate against gays but that we don’t need a law that says you can’t – and you know what, we don’t – for, well, it shouldn’t be morally right to discriminate against us, and to do what is morally right you don’t need a law.]
Luckily, a Nashville attorney has already planned to challenge the bill in court saying that its wording would also prevent protections for the handicapped, veterans, and anyone not currently protected by the state’s anti-discrimination law. Also, some think the law might get delcared unconstitutional for it’s similarities to the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans. [Wow, more expenditures on lawsuits all because some heteros still can’t deal with reality, we’re here, we’re gay, and we won’t go away. And this, ironically, is part of the process of heteros coming out and accepting the gay folks. The NO GAYS! Movement is having a harder and harder time convincing anyone that what they say is rational, whereby which will achieve non-discrimination.]
Then there were Comments
Cam: And once again Solomnase proves that he isn’t there to help the gay community in ANY way.
But rather, he sees his only job, as helping his friends, and coporate backers continue to screw with the gay community by coming out and providing them cover.
[Ah, elites by any name, Democrats very specifically, for ’tis the power and the glory, not doing anything.]
Mark: Joe S is a useless tool of corporate america. he could give jackshit about the rest of us regular every day glbt people — it’s all about cocktail parties, being in tv and seeing his name in print – sort of like sarah p
[Gratuitous slam at “sarah p” – you know who – who hasn’t said a word about the Tenn. law, and what of any other useless tool of corporate America? Say, oh, anyone in the news and the news media themselves. There’s so many, no point to make the slam.]
Bruno: FAIL, read the Towleroad piece again. He said he’s against discrimination, but he’s in favor of the bill because he thinks it’s up to individual businesses whether or not to discriminate. Typical libertarian Ron Paul-esque crap.
Tmikel: Why didn’t Joe Solmonese THINK before he rubber stamped this bill? Are these yokels incapably [sic, yokel indeed] of thought before action? As for the corporations, well, look at Target. The good thing is that we don’t HAVE to buy their products.
Jim Hlavac: The law is pointless for several reasons. One is that we have won a lot of non-discrimination without any such laws in effect all across this nation. The governor should come to our side not because there’s a law, but because he’s a decent man, that’s part of the process. That quest is not complete, no; but it is happening, and it has gotten better. The outcry alone is proof. But the law wouldn’t help the process, for it’s hearts and minds that need to be changed; and not reliance on the cudgel of the law.
Second, if a company wants to get rid of you, they have numerous ways to do so that don’t involve mention of being gay whatsoever, and that are well protected for the business to use under labor law and contract law. Third, our hetero opponents, whom are many still, can use the law against us by making gay bars hire straight women — send them in to apply; they’ll get rejected; ergo discrimination on the basis of gender or gender identity. That’s the short list of “libertarian crap” versus “socialist crap” that forces people to do things they don’t want to do.
Furthermore, we’re already covered under “marital status” and “religious belief” but we have so far not availed ourselves of those options. Speak to the gay lawyer brigades: I’ve tried.
And in a way of hoisting the anti-gay on their own petards, especially in regards to the “don’t say gay” bill — and not that they are right that we are “sick” and “psychologically unsound” — but let’s quote them on that, then apply Section 504 of the Federal Dept. of Ed laws which says “sick” and “psychologically unsound” children need to be given extra special care and protections. Let them argue themselves out of that sticky wicket.
And I recall that about 20 years ago in Tampa a lesbian couple bought a restaurant, and fired all the hetero staff, and even a pregnant woman, and stated specifically it was because of “heterosexuality” and “incompatibility” with the new focus of the business. The heteros made suit, the business said “it’s legal.” The Judge dismissed the case. Good thing, perhaps, that there wasn’t such a law, or the gay world would have had to deal with hetero waiters, and perhaps the business failed, causing harm to the lesbian entrepreneurs. END
So that’s queerty, so let’s look at this: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/05/video-peter-spriggs-continued-goal-to-pit-every-them-against-every-us.html
Whereby which poor Spriggs laments the progress we’ve made without a blessed discrimination law to speak of. And he says we don’t like African-Americans – and well, I’m down with that – frankly, their stance on gay people is horrendous. And they’re rather clear they don’t like us, and wish to discriminate, and I reserve the right to discriminate right on back at them, and vote 85% against us. Too bad, Jesse Jackson – whose side are you on my man? Do tell, I ask. I haven’t heard a peep from you, sir, on gay things whatsoever since you admitted two decades ago that “everyone knows church organists are all gay.” From a man against stereotypes, sure can hurl ’em. And his “Rainbow Coalition” doesn’t include our rainbow for sure.
Indeed, though, it seems we’re quite welcome almost everywhere in corporate America, and in small businesses too. I don’t know of too many unemployed gay people actually. So someone is not discriminating. And I don’t know any homeless waifs in our “community” either. So there seems no housing discrimination. But that’s just observation, and not political posturing, so is suspect, I suppose, as insufficiently “progressive” and “for” my people, whom are, to charitably put it, ninnies. When more than ½ the people at my own birthday party never even heard of DOMA I’d dare say “ninny” might be a light word for the phenomenon.
Ah, but then, let’s see: http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8472&MediaType=1&Category=26
Where it’s written: ‘When asked how things stand on the issue, Daly replied: “We’re losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don’t know if that’s going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We’ve probably lost on that one.” ‘
And so apparently, we’re winning without any politician’s help, and not much in the way of laws for us whatsoever, and even still quite a few against us – and that’s because this is not a matter of law – this is a matter of humankind – of kindness to one’s fellows even if you don’t quite understand them – and we are among the least understood people on earth, we know (or should at least admit it.) And no law can legislate that, but only provide mush words for the lawyers to play with and political fodder for the blogs and tabloids.
Meanwhile, over at: http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8474&MediaType=1&Category=26
I read: “NOM’s Brian Brown Insists Minnesotans Will Approve Gay Marriage Ban Amendment.” And maybe so, time will tell, and millions will be spent, and the futility and irrationality of it all will surface more and more, and we’ll win if not this go round, the next, for the reality is always stronger than the misguided fools preaching rapture, as is now known.
Though, George Will, in his op-ed piece on Tim Pawlenty’s presidential prospects, points out that Minnesota is the only state to vote Democrat for nine presidential elections in a row. So is Minnesota a “Left” or “Right” state? D or R, I ask, do tell. And is being anti-gay really a “Left” thing, in light of Sprigg’s comments on us and African Americans whom do hate us if Democrat NY State Senator Ruben Diaz and his “worthy of death” march in the Bronx is a clue, and Obama hasn’t said a word, nor called in the miscreant to have a beer with even Solmonese, and certainly not me.
And so a “Republican” comes out for gay marriage, eh? Hmm.
Whom is on whose side anymore? And is being “Anti-gay” a left wing position or a right wing position? It no longer seems to be clear at all.
Not to mention Fred Karger gay man on the Republican hustings, and Gary Johnson www.garyjohnson2012.com a Republican for gay marriage. And John Huntsman, Republican and Mormon and maybe running who’s all for “civil unions” but not the word “marriage.” And Alan Simpson did speak up, and no Pelosi seems mum. No, not so clear at all, and dots are all over the place now, aren’t they? Yes, they are. You need a score card to keep track of it all. That’s what I’m trying to do here.
- Posted in: Uncategorized