"fag enablers" - that's charming

You can't see it very well in this shot, but they also had signs blaming 9/11 and the shuttle crash on gays.

I was pleased to see the crowd listening to these morons was relatively small.

they also had signs blaming 9/11 and the shuttle crash on gays.

One must wonder if they even want people to take them seriously.

not too far from the thinking of the Islamists

"I was pleased to see the crowd listening to these morons was relatively small."

The majority were probably there for entertainment value. Sort of a political lolapalooza.

Wednesday, just a few minutes after 6p.m. eastern, (3 pacific), Cheryl Jacques, the President of the Human Rights Campaign is going to speak at the convention. I look forward to seeing this historic event, and am proud of the Democratic party to stand up for unity for all it's citizens, whether or not they agree with me, they believe in the right for me to be myself. And they will defend that right. They make me proud to be an American! I look forward to the message of unity, and how Kerry will also help us get some respect back in the eyes of the rest of the world, world unity, which will GREATLY assist us in the war on terror as well.

The truth really bothers people. I doubt that the "Dem's" will really be there for the gays as strong as they preach. The gay vote is a vote that they take for granted much more than the minority (black) vote.

Along the lines of what Gene said, check out this post from the gay, Republican boifromtroy. The delegates are more liberal and more activist than Americans as a whole.

I'm not gay I was just making a point. The point that I don't care for politicians as a whole. Two-faced bastards.

Along the lines of what Gene said, check out this post from the gay, Republican boifromtroy. The delegates are more liberal and more activist than Americans as a whole.

When I said unity, I didn't mean to imply that the Democrats were all working for America to sit around a big picnic table and hold hands while singing Kumbayaa. :-)
Democrats do not actively work to discriminate though, even if a segment of the voting base believes in the discrimination.

The Human Rights Campaign does a 'scorecard' on all elected officials in the country, in regards to how they vote on human rights issues. I don't know if cutting and pasting this url will work, but here are the results for California:
source
Every Democrat except 1 (Gary Condit) has a 100% voting record in favor of human rights. The highest score a republican got was 33%, with the majority receiving 0%. No matter what John and Mary, the Democrats down the street may think, historically, the Democratic party has been the party of inclusion, not exclusion, and has actively worked for the betterment of all human rights. This is why I support the party, and what I talk about when I say unity. Unity means tolerance rather than endorsement, as I'm using it here.

There is no viable candidate who will work for 100% equality at this time. When a Democrat does something discriminatory, like when Clinton signed DOMA, we know politics are involved rather than a desire to exclude, because we look at the overall voting record. Clinton, in spite of DOMA and DADT, did more for gay equality than any president to date. Both were temporary, and both will ultimately fail.

As for boifromtroy, it's just proof that gay people run the whole spectrum, from conservative to liberal, from religious to agnostic, from rich to poor, from modest to flamboyant, and that the gay community is never completely united because of these differences. Personally, I have never been one to get so upset by someone snubbing their nose at me, that I would then choose to cuddle up with the one holding the butcher knife behind his back.

Okay.

Thank you for posting the score card, Steve (Boom). I will try to get around to blogging that.

BTW, Andrew Sullivan has a recent piece in The Advocate in which he finally dares criticize the GOP. Taking a break from soliciting minority men for bareback sex, I guess-:). Jeez, what a hypocrite.

they also had signs blaming 9/11 and the shuttle crash on gays.

and...

One must wonder if they even want people to take them seriously.

and...

not too far from the thinking of the Islamists

Or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, if I remember the gist of their post-9/11 "this is god's wrath for America's baby-killing, prayer-free public school, homosexual agenda" quote correctly.

MacDiva, here is the place to get the scorecard for each state: here.

That way you can get more than just California.

I hardly ever read Andrew Sullivan, I almost never agree with his opinions, but I'm glad he's such a listened-to voice out there, he's done much for our visibility overall. As for his hypocrisy, I don't see it any different than many other people at his end of the political spectrum, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, etc. They all have their closets. I think he's just doing his job and trying to be like his peers. :-)

With the DNC Part 2 photos, I declared the Democrats the frontrunners for the American political freak show, getting ahead of the Libertarians.

I was hasty. The Republicans have just proven that the Libertarians come in third in the kook campaign, too.

Thanks for the photos!

Scott,
What? You didn't get the Lyndon LaRouche supporters!? That was the best part. It seems that you got your pictures during the day so maybe they weren't there yet. I was there around 8-10 pm. I saw them outside the Fleet Center and then we had the pleasure of riding home with them on the C line. Holy crap. I was stuck with my fiance in the middle of 20 of them. Singing songs and handing out pamphlets. I wasn't afraid for my safety but I was kind of scared that I would end up on the video the were taking and then be blacklisted forever.

The HRC is not impartial here. They are a left-wing organization. So, it is hardly surprising that they give higher scores to Dems than Repubs

One needs only to do a little research, it took me all of 30 seconds, to see otherwise.

here is the criteria for the 'scorecard'. All issues relating to the gay and lesbian community are listed by year. Along with the vote of each elected official. Since the criteria is then a matter of public record (based on how people voted), there really is no way to make it biased.

I really don't think there is a person alive, who can come up with verifiable proof that the Republican party has a better track record with human rights, than the Democratic party does.

The LaRouche supporters have been out in Downtown Crossing everyday for the past month, though it is usually just 3-4 of them handing out pamphlets. There wasn't much going on in the "Free Speech Zone" when we were down there around 5pm. I have a better schedule of the planned protests now, so I should pick up some of the larger events later in the week. Though I doubt anything will top ANSWER's parade of lunacy on Sunday (from my first post).

Now, LaRouche is someone I have never been able to 'get' at all. If there is a rationale behind his various incarnations, I don't see it. Unless. . . . Can being a perennial candidate be a rationale in itself?

Again, great job Scott, we really appreciate your sharing the pics with us.

They (the dem's or "Fem's) are fag enabler's. Eveyone has a right to their moral beief's without having the will of extremist gays imposed on them. Gays are not minorities and their lifestyle should not force insurance companies, etc, to recognize a gay spouse.

Insurance is high enough without having to pay millions of extra dollars to the queen home-makers who don't work with HIV. Group family coverage is already expensive. I don't need to have my premiums doubled because my co-worker Steve married his "sissy boy" Jim who in turn contracted HIV prior to the two meeting.

Think about it. You work at a small company who gets a good group rate. Then suddenly Jim gets AIDS from a gay affair then passes it on to co-worker and "hubby" Steve. Now the group rate nearly doubles and a good and decent mother can hardly afford to pay for her four year old daughters severe ear infection because the groups insurance company is paying around $5,000.00 a month for AZT cocktails for two peoples immoral and wreckless behavior.

Marriage has always been defined as a man and a women and should stay that way. It is the last chance to salvage what is left of a good and decent society.

Whether male or female I think it is clear what the rectum was intended to do. Exit only!

Anti-gay, with any luck, you'll be a keynote speaker at the upcoming Republican Convention.

Thanks for the spiel, mein herr.

yes, thanks for the look at the mind behind the signs

Eveyone has a right to their moral beief's without having the will of extremist gays imposed on them.

This is true. And the federal government acknowledging the household HERE, in no way imposes on Skeeter and Ellie Mae in Tennessee.

Gays are not minorities

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Minority: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

and their lifestyle should not force insurance companies, etc, to recognize a gay spouse.

It's odd that a big fear of right wingers is that allowing gay marriage will 'force' companies to recognize a gay spouse. While technically, allowing gay marriage will require that, the fact is that most companies already have domestic partnership programs. These DP programs are already underwritten by...you guessed it....insurance companies. At the end of 2003, a full 40 percent of the Fortune 500 offered DP benefits. Roughly 18 percent of private employers add DP programs to their business each year. This is not forced by the government, but by the need to acquire and keep a viable workforce. Whether or not the government permits gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before all insurance companies, private employers, large corporations, etc. recognize DP benefits, simply as a need to remain competitive in a free market economy.

I don't need to have my premiums doubled because my co-worker Steve married his "sissy boy" Jim who in turn contracted HIV prior to the two meeting.

I don't need to have my premiums doubled because the neo-con in the office next to me wraps his big fat greasy lips around a cancer stick and sucks in all sorts of garbage with the fervor of a newborn puppy at mommy's teat. There's proof that smoking is harmful, it would be great if my rates go down because we refuse these self-destructive individuals coverage.

Think about it.

Actually, rather than think about it, we can look at the thousands upon thousands of large AND small businesses that already offer DP benefits, including HIV treatment and see results for ourselves. It's a waste of our time to think of doomsday scenarios when the reality is that it doesn't happen that way.

"Gay couples aren't more expensive to insure - or retain
Perceived cost remains the primary disincentive for employers when deciding to enlist partner benefits, as they believe adding more enrollees to a plan will increase premiums and add further risks - one concern being that male same-sex partners will be at a greater risk for AIDS. However, this is offset by the reduced likeliness of pregnancy. McDonnell said, 'It costs nothing extra. Same-sex couples tend to be cheaper.'"
source - non-biased Salary.com which analyzes employment trends.

Marriage has always been defined as a man and a women and should stay that way.

How many times do we have to go over this? Do right wingers never study history? Marriage has been between a man and his 'property' (the woman was property), then it was harems, polygamy, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, common-law marriages, etc. and in Medieval times it was SAME-SEX*, marriage changes throughout history to fit the demands of the society at any given time.

Whether male or female I think it is clear what the rectum was intended to do. Exit only!

Many people, straight AND gay, agree with this. So we all know it would be wrong to punish the majority of a group for the actions of a minority in a group. There are millions of straight Americans who do not tell their sexual partner that they have HPV. This is why an estimated 80% of Americans are infected with some variant of the HPV virus. It would never occur to rational businessmen to cease benefits to all straight people because of the actions of some.

Personally, I can't imagine a more degrading, embarrassing situation than going about continually spouting rhetoric and doomsday scenarios to the general public, which is filled with liberals AND conservatives who bother to look at employment data, logically and realistically and competitively, and see that such falsehoods are exactly that, falsehoods. (Most people outgrow the need for a nightlight because they eventually learn that there is no bogeyman under the bed.)

*This research done on same-sex unions in premodern Europe was done by a Yale Professor, so before we disregard it as erroneous teachings, we should keep in mind the Presidents that are educated by Yale Professors.....