National Gay-Rights Group is Right!
NH Dem Chair Ray Buckley (GG file photo)
Click here first to read my post: Is Civil Union Legislation Based on Lies? Then click here and read “Gay-Rights Group Pushed for State Democrats in ’06.” More disturbing is this article from the Boston Globe. Yep, that's right, they were the single biggest donor to the democrats. But, of course the dems weren't influenced by the money, geez, ya gotta explain everything. da mi il soldi!
Spending almost $150,000 on New Hampshire state races by the Human Rights Campaign...I wonder why they just don't call it what it is; i.e., Gay Rights Campaign?...paid off for them. They switched their focus from national politics to influence state politics, particularly NH, Iowa and Oregon. Smart move, I’d say.
I recently read an opinion published in one of the papers that said there was no out-of-state influence regarding pushing civil unions in NH. Well, the Human Rights Campaign donation would prove that person’s theory wrong. Not only did they contribute money, according to the editorial, but an employee traveled to NH to assist with get-out-the-vote efforts and phone-banks. Do you think he was encouraging Republicans to vote?
The President of the Human Rights Campaign states:
“We understood that in order to change things at the federal level, we had to play a role in changing things locally.”
Of course they were successful in changing things here locally. They don’t live in NH and NH citizens didn’t get a chance to vote on the issue of civil unions, but I guess many NH citizens simply are too apathetic to care that NH was being influenced by “outsiders.”
I love Ray Buckley’s comment that “How could you make any sort of promises?” but then goes on to say that he’s known Human Rights Campaign staff for years…ten. Well, duh, most alcoholics know a lot of other alcoholics and most gays know a lot of other gays.
And, of course, Buckley helped engineer the Democratic takeover of the Senate. He stated previously that the number one priority for him was passing civil unions. Screw what voters might have voted on or what their priorities were. We just don’t get a vote, period.
And, yes a “common Republican critique of the issue centered on the lack of public discussion of the issue during the 2006 campaign. Opponents argued that Democrats didn’t campaign on a platform favoring civil unions, and that as a result, voters never had sufficient opportunity to weigh in on the issue.” Hey, I’m an independent and I didn’t get to vote either.
Well, double duh, GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen is absolutely right when he states:
“When voters gave (Gov.) John Lynch the Democratic majority he asked for last fall, it wasn’t because voters wanted to redefine marriage or make radical changes to social policy.”
But that didn’t stop the Democrats from unanimously backing the bill after it passed the House though either did it? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Now Senate President Sylvia Larsen does say something very interesting:
Senate Democrats “had our sights on other topics; it wasn’t on our list.”
By golly it sure jumped on the list and rather quickly I’d say right after the democrats took control. Plus, sorry, but I don’t buy her statement that civil unions weren’t on the list before the election. They just didn’t want NH citizens to know it was on the list since they knew it wasn’t a burning issue for a vast majority of the population.
The stupidest thing Ms. Larsen says though about her meeting with Mr. Solmonese supposedly “once” when she was in Washington D.C. is this:
“There was not a big discussion about legislation that they wanted to see come out of it, but they felt that by helping Democratic efforts they were moving a majority that would be more understanding of the discrimination” facing same-sex couples.
Triple Duh, on this one. No “big”, a nice subjective choice of adjectives…just apparently a small discussion was held. Now what on earth would a homosexual group want to see come out of a discussion, Sylvia? Probably not less discrimination and more rights for the much larger disabled population in NH, huh? I wonder how many phone discussions you had with Mr. Solmonese.
Sorry, but I just don’t buy that Senate Democrats were completely caught off guard on the civil union issue. Obviously, Ray Buckley wasn’t caught off guard. As mentioned in my previous post, there’s been a lot of manipulation and deception going on at the State House and certainly everyone knows Ray Buckley’s a gay activist about as much as everyone knows Bishop Robinson’s a gay activist.
Gov. Lynch certainly didn’t provide any leadership regarding the issue other than to say that he’s against gay marriage. What the heck does he think is the ultimate goal of homosexuals? The slippery slope will continue unless NH citizens demand a repeal of civil union legislation and demand that it be brought to every citizen in NH for us to vote on it.
I’m willing to live with the outcome; I just don’t like politicians telling us what we would have voted for had we been given the opportunity. I wonder if you polled married couples and included that their vulnerable male and female children with raging hormones were going to be intensely recruited by homosexuals to practice homosexuality, are you for civil unions? What's the answer to that "poll?" Oh now, don’t say that doesn’t happen. Ron Tunning said on MTNP that they were “recruiting” new members at Laconia High School. What do you suppose is happening in the Middle School?
Sorry, but a “poll” of any kind is no substitution for a vote exercised by every citizen in the state. We’ve been robbed of our rights here in the State on this and many other issues. Haven’t you had enough? Let’s take back New Hampshire from out-of-state special interest groups and let people living in our state decide what “The New Hampshire Way.” is.
Comments
Judy
Posted by: David | August 28, 2007 8:38 AM
Posted by: judy paris | August 28, 2007 6:01 PM
When are you going to answer some of Kevin Beck's questions? The suspense is killing me.
"Let’s take back New Hampshire from out-of-state special interest groups and let people living in our state decide what “The New Hampshire Way.” is." I have a better idea, lets not let out-of-staters who move into our state, like Skip(Brockton, MA), Doug (Rhode Island) and Judy (Oklahoma), pervert the New Hampshire way....which since as long as I can remember has been "live and let live". We are a State where even if we didn't agree with, or approve of, our neighbors lifestyle we will protect his/her right to live it. Now we have special interest groups like the Groksters trying to dictate how others should live their lives. Doug and Skip, as long as you pick people like Judy to be on your team you will have no credibility, no matter what your topic or position.
Posted by: David | August 28, 2007 10:14 PM
Posted by: judy paris | August 29, 2007 8:17 AM
The fact that you assume that anyone who argues in the defense of the rights of gay Americans is gay themselves will be part of your downfall. I myself have no need of or will ever have a need for a civil union. I also don't have a need for anyone to "validate" me... if I did, I guess I might be ranting on radio shows and trying to foster support for a failing hate group. Kevin Beck has answered every one of your questions but you have yet to answer any of his - your statements of "because it's the truth" isn't an answer.
As for my personal investment in this issue.... 1) I've known great people who are gay 2) I believe that for Democracy to prosper, everyone should have equal protections under the law. 3) I can't stand it when someone lies as much as you do.
"I've lived in NH since 1980 which would certainly make me more of a NH citizen than anyone from the Human Rights Campaign who has never lived here now wouldn't it" Again, LMAO, in fact, ROFL. Of course you would be more of a NH citizen “than anyone …. who has never lived here” but not more than the people who are in the Human Rights Campaign who DO live here ... in fact I'm going to look for their site right now to make a donation. Here it is.
"Why can't YOU live and let live? Is it because you're attempting to try to put your shame out? ". This seems to be a common tactic for you and your cohorts. When confronted with any accusation against you, sling it back as a defense instead of answering the accusation directly. Your saying in order to "live and let live" if I see someone mugging someone in the street I should leave the mugger alone? Allowing gay's civil unions does not affect your rights or threaten your family in any way. The only shame I would feel is if I sat back and let a self righteous bigot like yourself deny other Americans their freedoms without saying a word.
You used Simon LeVay as your proof that gay's aren't born gay. When it was proven that Simon LeVay believes it's mostly biological and beyond an individual's control, you moved on to biased Christian scientists as your proof. Why do you not believe in Simon LeVay's work now? Even if gay's chose to be gay, why do you feel they aren't deserving of civil rights protections. Isn't democracy about freedom of individual choice? Are you not protected from discrimination based on your choice of being a religious individual?
"No, you're concerned about you, and you alone. " As I stated, I don't currently, nor will I have a need for a civil union. You seem to think that fighting to deny other Americans protections under the law is normal but defending the rights of others makes you self serving. When you spread your propaganda against gays and fight to deny them rights, you aren’t talking about sick pedophiles preying on children, your trying to deny the rights of Doctors, lawyers, firefighters, Police Officers, the guy/girl behind the Dunkin Donuts counter, people serving and dying in our Military.....basically, hard working Americans who happen to be gay.
Posted by: David | August 29, 2007 3:03 PM
As David summarizes, she has answered none of the questions asked of her on the Chimpanzee Refuge, has asked no questions here or there that have gone unaddressed (or any questions, period, that I can see), and has unabashedly dodged the decimation of her "scientific" claims(LeVay, Abbott, et al.) and the exposure of her blather as basic homobigotry and homofear, the latter best exemplified by her hard-wringing about kids being "recruited" into gaydom. Most people are able to leave this sort of hysterical thinking behind by age 13 or so.
Judy also tosses yet another bone of hypocrisy on the funeral pyre of her bad ideas: She declares that people seeking the practical benefits of civil unions merely want the world to "validate" their beliefs, yet the entirety of her own justification for opposing homosexuality is nothing more than an attempt to get the world to validate her cherished Christian mythology.
New Hampshire is not a medieval theocracy, Judy. If you want to live in one, pack your bags and move to Alabama. And regardless of people's individual feelings about homosexuality, at least there's evidence that it exists.
I'll say it again, simplified just for her: Judy's stance regarding civil unions is expressly a desire to get everyone to accept her brand of Christian mythology. On the contrary, gays' seeking civil unions is an attempt at achieving equality and has no effect on the lives of others, however opposed they may be on moral grounds.
Judy lost this argument long before she started it, both rhetorically and in practice. Her incompetence and dissembling merely makes this more evident and grotesque.
Posted by: kemibe | August 29, 2007 3:31 PM
Posted by: Pricilla | August 29, 2007 7:50 PM
Posted by: judy paris | August 29, 2007 8:55 PM
I'm going to boil this down to one topic, since you seem focused on whether or not gays are born gay, I want to take another route. Since I don't pretend to be an expert on civil rights and I’m assuming a little bit here... I'd like anyone (except for cult members) to correct me in my assumption. Let’s forget about whether a homosexual has a choice in the matter or not. Gay people exist. Some are living their entire adult lives in a committed relationship. Some are raising children together. All of these are facts. So my question is, does one need to be born into a particular group and have no choice in being in that group, to have civil rights protections? The debate on whether someone chooses to be gay or not will rage on, but I'm curious as to whether Judy's assumption that homosexual couples only deserve to have their union protected under civil laws if they’re born gay is true.
Posted by: David | August 29, 2007 11:25 PM
"Try this if you're not afraid...God says, "See Me and You will find Me...if He doesn't exist you won't find him. You think God is a "myth" so what do you have to lose? Man up if you're not afraid and if He doesn't exist, you won't find Him will you? You'll be "right" and I'll be "wrong"...isn't that what you're seeking?"
What exactly does it mean to "man up" with regard to this dreck (or anything else)? Do you really believe there's something in there that I've both avoided answering previously and even lends itself to the fuzziest of answers?
"Where's your proof that your 'scientists' all agree that homosexuals are 'born that way' ... Where's you're proof positive that all scientists agree that gays are "born that way? ... Show me a proof positive that the only reason homosexuals are homosexuals is because they're 'born that way.'"
Notice the words I've italicized in this quote? (Nice use of scare quotes again, by the way. These nicely dissolve what minimal credibility your arguments might otherwise contain.) These words indicate your absurd loading of your demands and questions. I have not said that all scientists unequivocally agree that the only reasons for the existence of homosexuality lie in genetic and in utero factors. Sound science virtually never involves such absolute assertions. I have stated that the scientific consensus is that there is strong evidence favoring a considerable genetic and in utero contribution to sexual orientation. This is not wishy-washy; it's a concession to the fact the we do not, contrary to what your love of the Bible drives you to believe, live in a world of strict absolutes. You are the one making absolute claims -- in this case claims grossly unsupported by the consensus.
That said, as David points out, this is still a red herring. You fail to explain what difference it makes, in terms of applying civil rights, whether people become gay as a result of genetics, environmental factors, losing a bet, Satan's influence, global warming, too many trips to the opera, or some combination of the above. If they aren't taking anything from you -- and two adults engaged in consensual relationships are plainly not -- then you have no justification for meddling with their lives and livelihood. This is not, or at least should not be, a difficult concept to grasp.
"I see you didn't address alot of my other points now did you?" What exactly are those points?
"Don't confuse Christian Science with "Christian" scientists." Please show me where I've conflated the two and explain the relevance of the distinction. "'Gay' scientists are no more objective than 'Christian' scientists."
The objectivity of any scientist is determined by his or her work. I have not once relied on "gay" sources, or on scientists or others whose sexual orientation is intertwined with their findings.
"That would make it a 'civil rights' issue, but if every scientist in the world disagrees as they currently do, then it's not a 'civil rights' issue is it?"
So, in your view, deciding what civil rights people are entitled to rests on answering the question of inborn vs. choice factors to your satisfaction? That's beyond crass, and it also ignores history. There was plenty of "science" being churned out by the tobacco industry for several decades regarding the effect of smoking on health, bunkum by hired guns with PhD's that created the false impression of scientific controversy. Should regulatory measures aimed at protecting non-smokers' health been tabled until every scientist on the planet united in perfect agreement?
"Try disputing that someone's born a female or hispanic, you're gonna have a difficult time proving that there's no consensus."
Actually, this is untrue in some cases, but it's a silly comparison regardless. Not only does this again raise the question of what difference it makes whether homoism is a choice or not, but you're in effect asserting that it would be acceptable to discriminate against women if they had the choice of becoming men (and I bet you're no fan of gender-reassignment surgery) and against Latinos if they could properly disguise their heritage. But no -- you're no bigot, uh uh.
"I, too, have gay friends, but they know I completely disagree with civil unions and they're still my friends. So what?"
Exactly.
"They know me and you don't. I love them regardless of their sexual leaning and that's why they're still my friends. They love me too and we agree to disagree. Again, so what?"
You should ask them to chime in here. Something tells me they don't read this blog or, if they do, reveal their true feelings about your rants and ravings to you.
"What are you afraid of...truth? God? Finding out you're wrong and I'm right? Finding out you're not your 'true self' but you're afraid so you where a mask of a 'false self' seeking a fullfilment that will never come?"
You've wound this comment up in the same incoherent style in which you started it. I'm not afraid of anything. You are, and this is why I answer questions that you ask (when they actually lend themselves to answers) while you run and hide and throw out volleys of fresh nonsense with every contribution. If you were right, you would answer questions directly rather than shielding your ignorance with religious texts.
Posted by: kemibe | August 30, 2007 8:10 AM