Rachel Maddow's Campaign Asylum: The "Don't Say Gay" Gay Debates
By Logan Murphy Saturday Aug 11, 2007 5:04pm
In the wake of this week's Human Rights Campaign/LOGO debates, Air America Radio talk show host, Rachel Maddow had a few words to say about it -- but her commentary wasn't directed at the politicians, it was the group sponsoring it and the people asking the questions. Dr. Maddow wonders why the group sponsoring the debate doesn't have the word gay in it, and also why the ex-girlfriend of a soon-to-be GOP presidential candidate was part of the panel. Interesting...
Login or Register to post comments.
Sorry to do it but..... Frist!!!!!! I've seen it on so many comments. Looks fun and IT IS!!! AH ha haha
You're so childish.
(And darn! you bet me to it...!!)
When The Human Rights Commission was founded, it depended on contributions from all kinds of people, gay and straight. Many of the contributors were afraid that contributions to gay groups could lead to insinuations about the contributors' sexual orientation. The same thing held true for organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights.
The problem was not the lack of pride in who we were. Lord knows, many of us were out there in the streets screaming we were gay and proud. The problem was that the "gay" label had all kinds of potentially unpleasant ramifications for gays and for people who sympathized with us. It isn't a statement about us, so much as the bigoted society we live in that many of us couldn't join or contribute to pro-gay organizations.
"looks fun"??? ... no, it looks silly...
anyway... GO RACHEL ... very good point there...
Love the Rachel.
Peace protesters cyber-hack UN website
Love this too!!
Of all the people they picked Margaret Carlson to be a moderator. I guess Lorrie Morgan was busy that night
THE QUESTION THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AT THE ‘GAY FORUM’
and another good point from candideinnc...
which is what i had assumed was the loginc behind the name...
i like the bigger umbrella idea...
but maybe i can't identify as i'm straight...
i do know i'm a big rachel fan!
just one more quick thought...
whenever i heard about this debate, it was always mentioned that it was sponsored by a gay rights advocay group...
i do not listen to or watch mainstream news though... AAR and the nets...
could be a factor... think?
And why were neither Rachel Maddow, Laura Flanders nor David Bender (from AAR's Ring of Fire) asked to participate in that debate?
Rachel, Laura and David are three rather prominent members of the GLBT community and at least one of them should have been invited to the panel, IMHO.
Rachel, keep up the outstanding work!
Gays have made fantastic state by state inroads re marriage and couple's rights. State level decisions are much safer and more appropriate.
When I think of human rights I think of human rights as a whole. Hunger, medical care, education, jobs.
The gay community by and large is accepted and we've learned repugs are mostly in the closet and deny deny so why bother so much. Sorry I'm not too patient when so much else is crying for attention. dunno, much as I think Rachel is sharp and wonderful, this seems a bit self-indulgent. Sorry.
The whole gay or not too be gay issue is just another cog used to create divisions between peoples different lifestyles, religion, beliefs, culture...this way if the media and public are concentrating on issues such as this and other racism then we are not concentrating on the bigger issues affecting us, such as war, government corruption, lack of work, sky high inflation, etc, etc, etc...just another cog in the racism wheel and we the people fall for it hook line and sinker....instead of just trying to realize people are people irregardless of lifestyle/color or creed.
crazylove @ 11:
Hello Hillary is that you ?
No, I'm not Hillary and yes, this is an annoying self-indulgence in times like these.
katy @ 4:
Pawty poopa! ala arni S.
There's always time for gay rights. Does not have to have a monopoly. But the "there's so many more important things going on to even think once about that" mindset is kind of responsible for the infrastructure meltdown we're facing...
what about Bert and Ernie? They are gay, right?
Andre @ 16:
Tyranny will come to our country wrapped in a flag. Which is exactly what has happened,
Maybe Carlson is a lesbian. She certainly looks a lot like Jane Hathaway. Maybe she was Thompson's lesbian fag hag.
Fascinating. I think it would be a good idea to cover the candidate who took the Logo Forum by storm, Dennis Kucinich! In fact, he appeared on ABC's This Week. I'm surprised that CrooksandLiars has had time to put his appearance up.
Go Dennis!
IOW, self-loathing closet cases with money -- like David Geffen before he FINALLY came out.
The biggest problem facing the gay community is itself. I say this as a 60 year-old gay man who came out in 1961, joined the Gay Activists Alliance of New York right after the Stonewall riots, and has seen 3/4s of my nearest and dearest die unspeakably painful deaths amidst the almost total indifference of the breeders.
We are taught from childhood that there is something wrong with us. The Church says we're "immoral," psychiatry (until rathe recently) says we're "neurotic," and our parents say "Shut up!" -- unless of course they say nothing at all and simply toss us into the street.
The closet may have fallen apart but its effect remains. Why else are there so many willing to pander to Democrats who will give is
NOTHING ?
Because we hate ourselves so much that we're in thrall to well-connected straights who won't attack us physically or throw up in our presence.
I didn't need these people then and I don't need them now.
And neither should any other GLBT individual with so much as an OUNCE of self-respect.
Equality in the law is not a mere "self-indulgence," as has been suggested here. It is a matter of injustice. I suggest that the writers who claim everything is hunky-dory for gays, and that we need to let this matter sink into oblivion look at the court cases which have been fought recently by the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. The issues gays continue to face in this bigoted society are not little matters. They involve job security, housing, adoption, pensions, insurance--all the important matters that many straight people have the luxury of taking for granted.
I believe that the war is the major issue of this campaign, and I don't want the question of gay marriage to derail the Democrats' success any more than the rest of you. In the process, though, of winning the election, don't insult our efforts at achieving equity in this nation. Support for one cause shouldn't negate support for other causes.
I disagree with her. It is about human rights for everyone. I personally don't even like using labels. What is true in the United States is that no man or woman, regardless of a self-imposed label, can marry someone of the same sex.
So, this might sound ridiculous, but think about it: no straight man in this country has the right to marry another man. But why would he want to? you might ask. Well the answer is not my business or the government's. Of course we can almost certainly tell a person's sex by looking at them, but I think officially speaking, a person's biological sex should be allowed to be kept private when being married. Of course two people of the same sex should be allowed to be married. But since that hasn't happened yet, why not make a constitutional argument that a person has a constituional right to the privacy of their biological sex? Forcing the issue of privacy would pave the way for same sex marriages by eliminating forms that ask for the "bride" and "groom's" name and instead asked only for the names of the two people to be married. Is there any reason that the federal or state governments should need to know our biological sex???????
The closet may have fallen apart but its effect remains. Why else are there so many willing to pander to Democrats who will give is
NOTHING ?
Because we hate ourselves so much that we're in thrall to well-connected straights who won't attack us physically or throw up in our presence.
I didn't need these people then and I don't need them now.
+++++++
The fact is that for society to progress, for the laws to be changed, for the courts to have different judges, for the sake of a leadership that will argue the justice of our position, we DO need these people. There are good Democrats like Dean and turds like Ford. We have to be selective in who we look to for help. But like it or not, we need the help of the "breeders." We need the help of Progressives. If we don't participate in changing the nation we live in, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Yes, now may be a good time for the Human Rights Commission to change its name and accept the fact that it is a gay organization, like Geffen coming out. We have been living in a time of transition for gay people and the society in which they live. Not everyone has developed at the same rate. Patience is hard when facing the death of your friends and lovers. I know.
You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand that if power is going to be wrestled away from the neocon lunatics running this country and if everyone is savvy - the gays will have to keep quiet and the Democrats will have to beef up security on the borders - ON BEHALF OF THE WORKING MEN AND WOMEN of America AND National security.....
These two things will deliver the white house and both houses of congress to the Dems.
if power is going to be wrestled [sic] away from the neocon lunatics running this country and if everyone is savvy - the gays will have to keep quiet and the Democrats will have to beef up security on the borders.
These two things will deliver the white house and both houses of congress to the Dems.
**********
And furthermore, we can win if we don't oppose the war and let the blacks continue to live in ghettos, and permit the infrastructure to decay, and the environment go to hell, and everything will be rosy! Gee, it will be just like having Bush as preznit, won't it? Are you on the DLC?
hmmmmm...rough crowd
Well aren't YOU special.
And straight.
Fuck You and the horse you rode in on!
I'm not shutting up. And neither is any glbt individual with an ounce of self-respect.
candideinnc @ 26:
**********
And furthermore, we can win if we don't oppose the war and let the blacks continue to live in ghettos, and permit the infrastructure to decay, and the environment go to hell, and everything will be rosy! Gee, it will be just like having Bush as preznit, won't it? Are you on the DLC?
No. I'm just being realistic about the chances of some great "Savior" appearing to give everyone in this country what they want on a silver platter.
This nation needs serious government reform before it's too late. Bickering over gay rights, animal rights, black rights, etc, are exactly what these political scam artists want. To distract you while they slip their hands in your wallet and then sell off all your assets to China.
I honestly fail to see some of her points here. Air America Radio doesn't have 'politics' or 'left' or 'liberal' or 'progressive' in its name either. The name argument doesn't really fly (!) with me. It seems to me like there's a lot of other problems with HRC that could be brought up more efficiently.
And then there's the Fred Thompson ex's argument: what does a previous relationship has to do with anything? Is he somehow contagious? Is there a point where you are allowed to discriminate on previous relationships but not on sexual orientation? I like her show and usually find it humoristic, but that particular episode remains puzzling to me. Am I missing something here?
sad but true... the hrc is a crock. as a gay man i dont even bother to donate to them; they are a waste of an effort.
Ambigious names are a plague in the gay community. here in uber-liberal berkeley, our gay center is called "Pacific Center for Human Growth".... which doesn't have the word gay nor the letters GLBQT or anything. The number one roadblock to gay rights are sabatuers within the gay community, people who just aren't trying.
20 years ago, the Supreme Court endorsed inequality by saying the crimes against nature laws were legal. Prior to Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidates wouldn't mention gays, much less endorse their causes. 11 years ago, the candidates would sometimes endorse the concept of gays in the military. This year, all Democratic candidates have endorsed civil unions.
My bet is that in 4 years all the Dems will endorse gay marriage, and the Repugs will come out in favor of civil unions. In eight years gays will not be an issue in presidential politics at all.
But it won't happen if gays roll over and play dead. You want us to stop being a political issue, help us change the government.
Until we all get it through our thick heads, that we are all equal, nothing will change. Organizations created to secure political rights transform into nothing more than the clones of the government that they pretend to despise and begin stomping on all who dare to think their rights are more important. We are all equal. That is all that should matter. All these stupid groups should champion that cause instead of finger pointing out different groups. That my friends IS the problem. No matter how well intended media personalities are, they do nothing more than hurt their own causes and alienate those that normally could care less what others do with their personal lives. Being proud of what or who you are, does not mean you have to repeatedly beat people over the head with it regardless of your situation. Bedrooms should stay in the bedroom and stay out of politics. I thought the constitution already took care of the rights of all. Oh ya, I guess that's just a stupid piece of paper.
Is the the most juvenile 'advanced' country on the planet or what?
We either respect equality or we don't, which is it?
Hey, Rachel,
You shamelessly stole the Scooby Doo "huh" idea from the Stephanie Miller show.
Don't complain that other people infringe on gay ideas until you are willing to give credit where credit is due. :)
I love you and Stephanie, but be willing to share the credit.
huh? @ 36:
Are you frickin' for real?.....
candideinnc @ 22:
There's a time for everything and THIS ISN'T IT!!
candideinnc @ 33:
That's exactly what Mike Gravel (who I believe took the show) said, much to the surprise of the audience and the chagrin of Joe Solomonese. HRC is a huge money operation and without a cause the justification for collecting will dwindle. Should Mike or Dennis make it to the White House, it won't take long for HRC to lose its foothold. No wonder Solomonese tried to lock Gravel out.
I think this is why HRC appears to be endorsing Clinton as she, and the other big money candidates, don't have "Equal Marriage" in their vocabulary. Therefore the cause will have a longer life.
Call me jaded.
To those that say that we as a society can't address and advance GLBT issues by naming them:
How poor must your view of society be that you think that America can't see beyond labels. We need, and in fact have an America that is beyond that. The minority that condemns gays as a group is on their way out...out of the political offices, out of the GOP(witness the number of GOP closet repressions that have led to horrible ends) and out of the churches. We don't want or need that kind of hate in the Democratic party. Name it, face it. Yes, our candidates do in fact *gasp* talk to gays.
crazylove @ 14:
How are your basic civil rights indulgent any time anywhere? If you are beat up, treated as a second class citizen, and not even allowed basic rights to marry etc., it is not induldent to be intersted in what polititians say about 'gat politics'. Use your head/heart.
I think crazylove is right, we can't push too fast. Maybe in 40 or 50 yrs we gays can finally be granted equality, a full CENTURY after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We should be able to wait that long, right? I'm in my mid-40s, so that'll just mean I have to wait until I die to have equality. And I'm perfectly willing to do that, after all precious crazylove finds any discussion of gay rights annoying. Now who wouldn't agree to live their entire life as a 2nd class citizen in order to spare some hetero-privileged fascist twit from being annoyed?
Johnny @ 42:
Please don't misunderstand. It is just that we're in such fundamental deep shit as a country and as a people. I am 200% for gay rights and any other group (mine is ignored completely as a struggling single parent have NO equality platform nor do I complain about it because no one really gives a shit, but that's o.k., that's life).
We're more concerned with human rights that are more basic at this time. Hunger, education, torture, inappropriate intrusions on our freedoms. I worry about the world my son will face and yours too.
I am sick of this divisive shit. We're ALL up the creek and have to be unified about our survival. You me black white jew gay straight muslim christian blond brown IT DOESN'T
MATTER.
I am only saying it is time for ALL OF US to just work together and get our priorities straight.
forestyan: Good point!! What does a name like "Air America Radio" tell us about the bent of the station, either?!?
Rachel, love ya, but pitching at windmills here, hon....
There's plenty to be frustrated with the choices of HRC, without piddling over the name. I happen to like the implication that yes, we're part of the human race, too (dammit), so its never bothered me or seemed inappropriate.
After Thom Hartman, Rachel Maddow is my FAVORITE Air America talker.
Gays still don't have basic civil rights, in most states, around 35. And this is 40 yrs after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Great sacrifices were made to get blacks their civil rights, it's our turn, and we've waited plenty long enough, 40 yrs longer than any other group.
"Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page. "
keiran @ 41:
Of course, violence against any group is hideous, terrible and absolutely wrong. I too have prejudices and disrespect coming my way by virtue of woman alone with a child, if I told you it would blow your mind. There are states that are waking up to gay marriages and unions and legal rights between couples, totally wonderful.
For example if we'd all work together to bring power back to the states it would be nobody's business who marries who.
The black experience too is outrageous, or to be a fat person is outrageous, or a jew is outrageous, my experience is outrageous. Many people suffer in silence without recourse.
I have no voice. The homeless man in an alley get clubbed to death by kids "for the hell of it" have no voice.
LET's WORK TOGETHER. Everyone suffers. It is a truth of existence.
There are states that are waking up to gay marriages and unions and legal rights between couples, totally wonderful."
Yeah, a tiny handful. Meanwhile the vast majority of states don't even grant gays basic civil rights. And gay rights doesn't = gay marriage. People who want to make gay rights sound frivolous always pretend it's all about gay marriage. "Them whiny homos are making a fuss over nothing!" No, us "whiny homos" are making a fuss over being the last minority group that's being denied basic civil rights in two thousand freaking seven!
The black experience too is outrageous, or to be a fat person is outrageous, or a jew is outrageous, my experience is outrageous."
Get it through you thick head, gays are the only group who are not covered by federal civil rights laws. The vast majority of states of have no laws protecting gays. We're the only group left who it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against.
The homeless man in an alley get clubbed to death by kids “for the hell of it” have no voice."
Yes, and perhaps that homeless man in the alley is gay, and ended-up homeless because he was fired for being gay, and had no legal recourse. You don't like any special attention being focused on gays, then you can wait until we enjoy the same legal protections you do, period!
Johnny@48, you insist. I tried. Night!
Yes, you tried to make it sound like millions of Americans being denied basic civil rights in 2007 was no big deal. And you failed.
Hey, this may be off topic somewhat, but when I was over at Air America's website, I came across this little tidbit. Basically it tells how the Justice Department is outsourcing the hunt for internet porn. Just when you think this regime can't get anymore batshit crazy - well, here ya go!
http://tinyurl.com/2gscmm
Hell, if they needed somebody to search for internet porn, they should've given me a call (and I would have done it for half of what "Morality in Media" was paid. Would've provided some really high quality stuff, too!) I do have a serious question, though. If internet smut is so all pervasive and such a threat to our dear young children (like they say it is on practically every fucking episode of "Law and Order SVU"), then how come the Bush regime is paying some guys to search for it?
So the homeless man dead in the alley was gay. & he lost his job as a Priest at the churches youth camp. I see how he was violated.
Rachel... Rachel... Rachel...
Sometimes we can rise above it being just one issue. Sometimes to protect gay rights the best thing to do is to advocate Human Rights.
Don't you think that the conference would have been pretty damned short otherwise?
"Ms. Clinton how would you protect Gay and Lesbian Rights?"
Can you think of any other questions that would arise that weren't part and parcel of the same thing?
Straights just have no right to act condescending about the advocation of gay rights, when we still don't have basic civil rights in 2007. You can stick your self-righteous condescension up your pampered, hetero-privileged asses, until gays have the same rights you've taken for granted your entire lives.
Gays most likely constitute seven or eight percent of the population. They vote in much greater numbers than the general population, and are much more likely to be Democrats than Repugs. Democratic politicians ignore them and their issues at their own peril today. Until our laws are reformed to afford the same rights to gays as to straights, everyone better get used to the aggravation of hearing about gay rights. Don't expect us to apologize for it.
Self-indulgence? Standing up for your rights? All of you straight people reading this who think gays are just whiny-ass complainers, consider this:
You meet the man or woman you want to marry and spend the rest of your life with, but you can't because there are laws written specifically with YOU in mind to stop you from getting married. Would you take the time to complain? I would.
BillW @ 52:
Should I be offended by this? Sounds pretty inflammatory to me...
Boy did I miss where Rachel Meadow said SHE is gay in reporting this piece?
Oh right we already know that and we already know that HRC is a LGBT org.
As we KNOW she's lesbian--oh you don't already know that?
If you are just stumbling onto this post?
Why is she so concerned about who's sleeping with Margaret Carlson...?
I mean you could make a point like what the hell was a hetero moderator doing there....but that was what I liked that she brought a perspective to the forum.
ANYWAY This issue is SO stupid and gone over through the years sad to see a talent like MS Meadow's wasted on this. I did have more respect for her but I guess she's still bruising from being snubbed or for calling Melman a homo on TV to have any self respect.
Whats in a Name?
Come on should it have been Homosexual , Lesbian, Gay, Queer, Transgender, Bisexual campaign foundation ?
I mean when it was formed the T and B were not around.
Rachel SHOULD have been on the panel! Can you imagine any of them trying to weasel out of responding to one of her questions by either digressing to a completely different matter or giving a non-answer?
candideinnc @ 3:
So, really, we have no problem being gay; we just have issues with making people who would be our friends SAY the word gay, for fear that they might have to -tell someone- that they're STRAIGHT?! Oh my GOD, cats sleeping with dogs, pure madness, PAAAANNNDEM-- wait, what?
Sorry, but I'm totally for Rachel's commentary. If you're still too afraid of the word Gay, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE OUR FRIENDS. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO PANDER AROUND SAYING HOW MUCH YOU SEEK EQUAL RIGHTS. If you believe in equal rights, you don't believe the word Gay (or Lezbeean, or Bisexual, carpet muncher, mr. pole pleaser, WHATEVER, hehe) is a curse word, and you aren't so afraid of your own sexuality as to fear having to confirm it to someone else.
And to say that this depended on contributions from straight people, so we couldn't use the word gay is the most escapist hypocritical thing one could say as a gay person. "Well, we couldn't do this without straight-money, so we have to act like spineless money grubbers in order to fight for our cause." that is horrible, and a leaf taken out of the democratic corruption playbook. (or repub playbook too I guess. they just dont' advertise how spineless they are)
Anony-mouse says: And to say that this depended on contributions from straight people, so we couldn't use the word gay is the most escapist hypocritical thing one could say as a gay person. "Well, we couldn't do this without straight-money, so we have to act like spineless money grubbers in order to fight for our cause." that is horrible, and a leaf taken out of the democratic corruption playbook. (or repub playbook too I guess. they just dont' advertise how spineless they are)
*****
Oh, baloney! NONE of the earlier gay organizations called themselves "Gay" or "Homosexual." They all used some term that basically hid their identity because the impact on the lives of contributors could be enormous. Imagine a teacher contributing to a gay organization in 1960. They would have been fired, I can promise you!
Congratulations, anony-mouse, on being so brave about your sexual identity. I am sure you will tell me you are an old man/woman who has ALWAYS been brave and never in the closet. Good for you! Lots of people 20, 30 or 40 years ago didn't feel that comfortable, and for good reason. Times have changed, and being an out person today myself, I can assure you it is a lot easier to come out today than it was 45 years ago.
So wear your "gay" label happily, but don't spout bullsh*t about "hypocrisy" when people years ago were pioneering the way to make life better for you today!
candideinnc @ 62:
Actually, I don't wear the Gay Label proudly, nor any label. First off, I'm bisexual, second off it has nothing to do with you, even if you are gay. It's a personal choice (and/or biology, don't care what anyone's standpoint is on it, because it doesn't matter). and gay people were still around too, before when you were "pioneering the way to make life better for [me] today!" So, a hell of a job you did, huh?! That's why we're still arguing over equality right? it was soooooo much harder to come out back then..! Pitty you! Pitty You! and you say my post is bullshit. funny. the point is that there is inequaltiy, not that there is slightly LESS than when you were tortured for being a homo.
Also, I never defended ANY of the Gay Rights groups or those 'friendly' to us. YOU put those words in my mouth of your own accord. The reason I don't wear the label proudly is because of retards like you brandishing truth (or more accurately, you own personal pain) like a flaming purple cock, in the name of Gay Rights. All I ask (and subsequently complained about) is that people not be afraid to use the word Gay for fear of being picked on, while calling themselves our supporters. If you say "I'll back you in a fight" and then claim not to know my name when push comes to shove, because you might actually get hit, then you are not my backer. So pull your middle-aged panties out of your ass and think before you post.
and P.S. I am only 26, and I was scared as hell when I figured out that I was gay (in high school). I was raised in a strict conservative Roman Catholic family, and was told subsequently that I was going to hell for my preferences, even though I hadn't even had sex with anyone yet (let alone another man). It sux to be dumped by your family, no matter what the illegitimate reason, no matter which decade. I've also been threatened physically, and I'm rather small so that's a pretty scary concept too. Good thing I run fast and have some form of martial arts background. But I'm full of shit because it was so much harder for YOU? EAT ME.
The word is "pity." No one was asking for pity. I think I was trying to help you understand with a bit of historical perspective, but you are obviously not up to that. And, frankly, you seem to be the one whining about how your life "sux [sic]," how scared you were, and that your RC family said you were going to hell. Who is looking for pity here?
I only mentioned my life after you insulted my character without knowing me, and in your arrogance tried to pin me down as some kind of stereotype. Also, it was rather hypocritical of you to put me down for how long I've supposedly been out of the closet as opposed to you (somehow this makes your argument valid?) , so I figured I'd correct you on the issue. I need no pity from you, (although I spelled the word wrong the first time around... my bad, it totally negates my point, doesn't it?) nor does this previous post do anything to add to the debate except incite more personal argument. so let's not troll-roll okay?
I'm against breasted males. Can we fit my prejudices in somehow?
What a sure fire way to win the presidency in 2008, ride the gay wave all the way into the White House. And Dems. wonder why people look at them as "fringe". I have nothing against gay people and I've plenty of gay friends and co-workers, my point is this...why such a big deal for a group that makes up 10% of the population at most? Human rights is one thing, sure gays should be able to marry, but asking if it's "something you're born with"!?!?!? Probably something most straight people don't think too much about. Sure most are born gay, but can someone really deny that some people choose to be gay? Why are Dems. tying themselves to this issue so tight? They should just say 'Let gay people marry' and move on to something that represents the other 90+% of us.
Login or Register to post comments.