Steve Ralls

Saying 'I Don't' in Iowa

Filed By Steve Ralls | September 01, 2007 8:27 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Ellen DeGeneres, Hillary Rodham Clinton, iowa, John McCain, marriage, Mitt Romney, rudy giuliani, steve ralls


The 24-hour gay marriage marathon has come to an end in Iowa, thanks to an activist judge's intervention in the matter, but the day-long experiment in equal justice has already turned into a marathon race by Republican presidential contenders, who are falling over themselves to condemn the original ruling and shore up their base of conservative caucus voters.

Republican contenders from Romney to Giuliani (pictured), and everyone in between, lined up to attack the idea of equality for gay Iowans, with only one Democratic candidate speaking up about the ruling . . . and on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, no less. Let's look at the 'who's who' of GOP gay bashers after the jump, and wonder aloud to ourselves: Will Log Cabin ever be able to endorse a presidential candidate again?

The first two statements were, of course, from people who should know better.

Mitt Romney (who else?!) was first to bat with a condemnation of the ruling striking down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage, saying that "The ruling in Iowa ... is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." Banning gay marriage, he later said, "is essential to our future."

Health care, smart national security and a balanced budget, be damned. (And could someone please tell the former governor to spend a few days in his own home state, where same-sex marriage has failed to bring Massachusetts civilization to a halt?)

Not to be outdone by a New England dandy with hair that would make Vidal Sassoon blush with pride, Senator John McCain called the original ruling "a loss for the traditional family." (Forgetting, too, that in his home state, voters rejected a constitutional amendment banning marriage.)

But wait, there's more (bowing to the base).

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was perhaps busy at a tea dance with his two gay roommates, sent out a spokesman to play Chicken Little and herald that "the sky is falling." Jarrdon Agen (who, persumably, is not from New York's Chelsea neighborhood) told the Associated Press that "Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman."

Or was that women?

And so what we have here, essentially, are Republican cadidates ignoring the evidence right before their eyes (Romney); rejecting the will of their constituents (McCain); and, perhaps worst of all, refusing to allow their roommates - who gave them food and shelter between a series of heterosexual marriages - the right to declare their love before the state (Giuliani). It's enough to make you wonder if 'love thy neighbor' ever really existed at all.

Then, into the fray, walks Ellen DeGeneres, who was brave enough to ask Friday's guest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, what she thought about the whole ordeal. Clinton said the question should be left up to the states (and, the last time I checked, Iowa was still one), and that same-sex couples should enjoy "full equality of benefits."

And wouldn't that be nice for a change of pace?

In the meantime, however, the GOP front-runners are saying 'I don't' to the idea of fairness and equality for Iowans. Instead, they are all racing to prove that they're no fan of toe-tapping men in America, even if that means gay men tap-dancing at their own damn wedding.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The logheads are quislings and deserve more than mild criticism – they ran into a political closet and nailed the door shut. They’ve earned contempt for submerging themselves in a party that’s a declared enemy of gay and lesbian equality and joined at the hip with christian totalitarianism.

The big question is: Are the Democrats and their stonehead shills any better? Hillary Clinton is the godmother of Big Daddy Bills federal DOMA, which was rammed into law by a Democratic Congress. No one can honestly claim that Democrats are for full LGBT equality. Right now they’re playing kissykissy and making vague promises, and just coincidentally its election time. They want our votes.

Do you suppose those vague promises are as sincere as those they made to Americans’ before the 2006 election to stop Bushes bloody, illegal oil piracy in Iraq? The dying hasn’t stopped; 650,000 plus Iraqi men women and children have been murdered; as of today (Sunday, September 02, 2007) 3,739 GI’s are dead, 15,233 wounded, patched up and thrown back into the bloodbath, and 12,429 have depilating wounds. (We don’t get to see what’s going on in Iraq but Der Spiegel is running two photo features that you won’t see in any American media.)

Hillary now talks about the ‘new war’ and seems all set to repeat Nixon’s mistakes in Vietnam when he succeeded the Democrat mass murderer LBJ. The Democrat Congress whines that their hands are tied, but the dying goes on and on. Their promises and pledges are what they always were, treacherous lies to get elected. Their popularity is an all time low - even Bush has better numbers. The other Democrat presidentail candidates are just as bad.

Neither of the twin parties of the uberbillionaires is worth our time, money or support. The alternatives are joining the tens of millions of voters who boycott the elections (calling it ‘voter apathy’ is bullshit and wishful thinking – it’s an active boycott), voting for socialist or communist groups or joining and building the union sponsored US Labor Party. Take your pick, but remember; it’s suicidal to vote for either our open enemies or backstabbing liars.

Leland Frances | September 2, 2007 7:25 PM

Would that we could all live in such a simple, simplistic world.

Or is there something more devious behind Bill's echoing here of his repeated demands on Towleroad that no one vote for any Democrat? Of course, he says don't vote for the Repugs either but, in both forums, the feasibility of any regulars doing that is next to nonexistent.

Could "Bill" be a stealth Repug? The creativity and ruthlessness of such people go at least back to the Nixon Dirty Tricks Team days when Repugs, as revealed during the Watergate investigation, would show up at Nixon for President rallies pretending to be anti-Nixon Dems, waving anti-Nixon signs and yelling obscene epithets that were actually meant to make Dems look bad.

“Several nefarious groups joined together under the eventually jailed Nixon aide, now ‘Rev.’ and very antigay, Charles Colson whose plans included, “Disrupt the GOP convention. Blame the left and the center…Later Colson would arrange ‘anti-Nixon’ incidents at the AFLCIO convention in Miami and hard-hat attacks against antiwar demonstrators in New York…. According to Congressman Paul McCloskey and the local police chief, the ultraconservative Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) sent its members to pose as anti-Nixon demonstrators.”

And, as long as "Bill's" talking about Nixon, before he attempts any comparisons between his actions in Vietnam and what Hillary might do, he should know a little more about history. The US first became involved in Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration. His Vice President NIXON even endorsed the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons there. So, if anything, LBJ, however horribly, was simply escalating Republican policies not the other way around. To claim that Hillary, or any other Dem, would do the same in Iraq in direct conflict with what present day Americans clearly want [versus the Cold War/Domino Theory-duped public in the 60s] is, at best, hallucinatory.

Yes, even today's Dems are far from perfect re “full gay equality,” but anyone who genuinely cares about the issues that "Bill" claims to would never tell anyone not to vote anymore than anyone would tell someone starving not to eat the hamburger and fries before them simply because they aren't being given the seven-course meal they would prefer.

Actually, we're closer than we’ve ever been to having all but the last course before us, at least in terms of what all of the Dem candidates have expressed support for. "Bill" might prefer a dictatorship, communist or some other kind, but the reality is that a President, even an imagined "Labor Party" President, can do little more than lobby for such changes in law and sign or veto bills that come before them.

Whatever the Dems promised to TRY to do; whatever they want to do; the fact is that they still don't have enough of a majority in either house to stop Bush without being joined by some Repugs. Evenly split in the Senate and almost evenly split in the House, they are far from controlling the 2/3rds votes required in BOTH houses to override any potential King George vetoes. The responsibility for our still being where we are in Iraq falls entirely on Bush and those Repugs who still vote with him.

And “Bill,” even if sincere and not actually a member of the Repug “Noise Machine,” would have us empower them even more by sitting out the election or voting for fringe candidates.

Only an old fraud, Leland, would contest the proposition that Republicans are Neanderthals in people suits, and Democrats are Republicans in drag. It is that simple. Your clueless denial of political reality is pointless – don’t ask us to excuse or ignore the reactionary politics of the Democratic version of the twin parties of the superrich. They and their Republican cousins promote war, antigay bigotry, racism, union busting, misogyny etc. Neither is capable of providing what working people, gays and lesbians, and our allies need to live decent lives.

Only old frauds offer shrill justifications for what are simply two sides of the same political coin, and it’s a plug nickel at that. Only a desperate old fraud would create conspiratorial fantasies to prevent their exposure as a scam artist and shill. (Lithium is said to calm the jitters of conspiracy buffs abd and noted conspiracy groupie J. Edgar Hoovers is reputed to have preferred the Number 19 Lithium Suppository. In stores everyehere.)

Leland, only a ridiculous old fraud could conjure up such a pathetically warped ‘historical analysis’ of the Vietnamese and Iraqi wars. (Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that Bush’s WMD’s were an excuse to invade Iraq? Then your politics would all begin to make sense.)
The twisted idea that the murder and mayhem inflicted on the Vietnamese by the hundred or so precursor ‘advisors’ sent in by Eisenhower and Kennedy equals the quantitative to qualitative leap that the hundreds of thousand of American military personnel sent in by Democrat LBJ is, in a word, fraudulent. Democrat LBJ earned the title ‘war criminal’ digging the graves of upwards of a million Vietnamese and about 60,000 GI’s. What LBJ did was no aberration – he prosecuted the war/foreign policy that the Democrat/Republican parties still adhere to. Incontestable. A Democratic congress funded and supported the anti-Vietnamese war and the draft. Undeniable. Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress pressed the federal DOMA in law, giving their Republican cousins a tool to use against us. Unquestionable. Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress are responsible for DADT. Indisputable. Etc., Etc., Etc.
The other Democrat candidates are just as bad as Hillary Clinton. John Edwards, an fraudulent “friend of the working man”, invests most of his fortune in a company that’s foreclosing on mortgage holders right and left.
It’s too early to tell which party will win the 2008 election but working people along with gays and lesbians and our allies will surely be the losers. Most people, witless old frauds excepted, know that and cheerfully boycott the elections. Gay and lesbian activists however, need to go a step beyond and use the elections as an organizing tool to educate and mobilize. Being in the US Labor Party is a big step in that direction. So is voting for leftist, socialist, communist or anti-capitalist ‘green’ parties. Take your pick. But don’t vote for you enemies just because some old donkey, in a self-induced panic, brays that ‘it’s a crucial election’. They always say that.

Toothless camp followers always blindly tag along behind the Hillary Clintons and other Democrat/Republican phonies. They’re in danger of becoming so deeply rooted in the political closet that they’ll never want to come out. They can have it.

Clinton, long a firm supporter of the war worries that the US might suffer strategic losses if the troops are withdrawn, is trying to formulate plans for a ‘new war’. If she wins and her ‘new war’ is a rehash of Nixon’s ‘make peace or I’ll kill you’ strategy after needlessly prolonging the war, then one old fraud will be eating more than crow.
Leland, you’re an expert on fraud, but do you really think it’s hallucinatory to point out that the Democrat Congress, elected to end the war last year hasn’t impeached Bush and Cheney, convened an International War Crimes Tribunal, or ended the war? Will you join them saying ‘give us time’ while Bushes war, with Democrat collusion, goes on killing and killing? Or are you going to whine like Reed and Pelosi that ‘our hands are tied.’? We know your answer is a unambiguous ‘yes’ so kindly stop pretending to support gays and lesbians and other groups under the gun, you old fraud.

BTW, you do realize that dragging out that photo of Giuliani in make-up and dress to belittle him is saying to folks that it's OK to make the transgender communities the butt of a joke? (Just like all those bloggers who'd never belittle someone based on their race but have no problem making "Mann Coulter" jokes.)

I really expected better from you.... Last I remember, us trans folks are part of the LGBTQ, not a source of amusement.

No, Lena, it was actually to point out the hypocrisy of someone who has such close ties to the gay community taking (now) the positions that he has. As I pointed out in my entry, Giuliani has lived with gay men, and as mayor of New York did not trend as far to the right as he now is in the 2008 race.

But, regardless, it's also a shame to go through life without having a sense of humor, too. I'm a professional gay activist, but I still know how to take a ribbing once in a while about my own community. Sometimes, we all need to lighten up.