Another bigoted republican outed

damien

Ken Mehlman come on out !

Who be he ?

Mehlman, 37, who is single, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban bibles. Many analysts believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory.

So ? Well Kenny is gay too. He's just been outed. Another member of the gay community doing things that interferes with the way of life of another. His pride is not like ours at all.

Beruthiel

don't you think that's just scary!? :eek:

RuggieBear

not to open up an old argument or anything but is it really fair to out people this way....he was just doing his job and probably didn't agree with alot of Bush's policies but maybe prefered the overall stance to Kerry's....I dunno, but if i was gay, i'd be ****ing mortified to be outed against my will.....

Gordon

Are all (open) homosexuals pro-gay marriage? Like, 100%, or is there a small handful of people that are against it?

ixoy

RuggieBear wrote:

not to open up an old argument or anything but is it really fair to out people this way....he was just doing his job and probably didn't agree with alot of Bush's policies but maybe prefered the overall stance to Kerry's

Nah, I disagree. I see what you're saying RuggieBear but the stink of the hypocrite off of this one makes me lose all sympathy. If he was making openly homophobic comments whilst being gay himself then he deserves to be castigated for it. He's making aggresively homophobic charges and yet can't clearly believe in them if he's gay himself. This, of course, not only shows bigotry but also questions how you can believe any policy this man comes up with either. If he doesn't truly believe in this, if he can't stand up for himself and his own sexuality, how can the electorate believe anything he says? He's the lowest form of bigot.

Gordon wrote:

Are all (open) homosexuals pro-gay marriage? Like, 100%, or is there a small handful of people that are against it?

Good question. Anyone I know of is but I'm sure there's probably a handful who would favor civil unions over gay marriages. For the large part though I can't see why many openly gay people would not favour it because, by being openly gay, they're obviously reconsidering some of the teachings of the Church who are the principal body responsible for saying it's wrong to have gay marriage.

magpie

Erm, so how do they know he's gay?

RE*AC*TOR

magpie wrote:

Erm, so how do they know he's gay?

he likes the cock...

Gordon

ixoy wrote:

Good question. Anyone I know of is but I'm sure there's probably a handful who would favor civil unions over gay marriages. For the large part though I can't see why many openly gay people would not favour it because, by being openly gay, they're obviously reconsidering some of the teachings of the Church who are the principal body responsible for saying it's wrong to have gay marriage.

Isn't marriage a religious creation? So if some people are reconsidering the teachings of the Church then would they also reconsider the fact that marriage is less/more important than it has been?

(personally I think that anyone should be able to marry, no matter what gender/genders but that is beside the point)

ixoy

Gordon wrote:

Isn't marriage a religious creation? So if some people are reconsidering the teachings of the Church then would they also reconsider the fact that marriage is less/more important than it has been?

I think it is but we'd need a sociology expert or somesuch to clarify. Certainly, currently, it's tied in often with the church. However, given that say in Irish law married couples receive state benefits for being married (inheritence rights primarily), it looks like it should be decoupled from the Church. Recently that happened somewhat with the laws enabling people to marry in any location and not just a Church or registry office.

I guess it all depends on your perspective on religion. Let's not forget that marriage was very often an act of convenience, marrying for monetary, fiscal, or political gain. At least now, in a lot of countries anyway, marriage is more synonmous with a coming together of two peope in love. I'm hoping we're able to push it away from the Church but it's still deeply entrenched for a lot of people with religion. If you're reconsidering the Church teachings, you don't have to reject the main notion of marriage - a union of love. So I don't think it requires that much effort to reconcile it once you get around the notion of marriage being about populating the world with little sproglets...

magpie

he likes the cock...

That would be the answer if I asked "How do you know if someone is gay".

I want to know on what grounds this individual was outed?

Reese

Gordon wrote:

Isn't marriage a religious creation? So if some people are reconsidering the teachings of the Church then would they also reconsider the fact that marriage is less/more important than it has been?

(personally I think that anyone should be able to marry, no matter what gender/genders but that is beside the point)

Actually (as far as I can remember, I might go find some quotes later) marriage predates Christianity, and is something that Christians 'adopted' as their own (like some other parts of their religion)

But anyway, yes today marriage is pretty much directly related to religion. And I, for one anyway, amn't too bothered about the name attached to it, once its legal, recognised and gives us equal rights on par with hetero couples.

fozzle

Reese wrote:

But anyway, yes today marriage is pretty much directly related to religion. And I, for one anyway, amn't too bothered about the name attached to it, once its legal, recognised and gives us equal rights on par with hetero couples.

And there's the problem, because as long as the government keeps assuming that marriage = catholic/christian marriage they aren't going to change anything, or give us equal rights.

falteringstar

Marriage does indeed predate christianity, and even then christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage.

And i think it very important to note that a church wedding is only legal because of the state's recognition of it, otherwise people would be married but not legally! In fact the state provides two kinds of marriage, a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony, so its not exactly a religious institution.

Further, in my opinion, all the rights of marriage without the name is not equal, while obviously better than things are now, it is still discriminating.

shotamoose

ixoy wrote:

If he was making openly homophobic comments whilst being gay himself then he deserves to be castigated for it.

Agreed. Was he making openly homophobic comments?

OfflerCrocGod

Gordon wrote:

Isn't marriage a religious creation?

No. It was a property transaction, a woman would be owned by the man - usually a couple of goats would be the price. IIRC it originated in ancient Babylon. So when you marry a woman you should really give her dad some goats to pay for her

Reese

falteringstar wrote:

Marriage does indeed predate christianity, and even then christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage.

And i think it very important to note that a church wedding is only legal because of the state's recognition of it, otherwise people would be married but not legally! In fact the state provides two kinds of marriage, a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony, so its not exactly a religious institution.

Further, in my opinion, all the rights of marriage without the name is not equal, while obviously better than things are now, it is still discriminating.

I was more thinking of marriage as a religious ceremony rather than the civil one, which is why I said I didn't care about the name. I have no wish to be married in a Chruch (or to force a religious institute that thinks I'm committing a sin to preform the ceremony)

boomdogman

Marriage is can be either or both a civil and religious contract. Catholics may divorce according to civil law in Ireland, but remain married in the eyes of religious law.

What do contributors see as the difference between civil unions and marriages? This should have a thread of its own.

Outing is a dangerous game. Who gets to decide to reveal our private lives? Yes we might all agree that where public pronouncements from public figures such as politicians differs so radically from their private actions that there is a public interest at stake. Was this man a public figure or a private individual working inside the campaign? Bush's tactics were despicable, his support for the viler nonsense of the religious right shocking but does this entitle someone to make decisions about this mans life?

Surely if we make sexuality an issue in this way there will be no gay Republicans? This would be a futile, self-defeating move even if we ignore the moral implications of outing altogether.
Paddy

damien

boomdogman wrote:

Surely if we make sexuality an issue in this way there will be no gay Republicans? This would be a futile, self-defeating move even if we ignore the moral implications of outing altogether.
Paddy

1 million gays voted for Bush last time round apparently. There is a significant group in the Republican Party called the Log Cabin Republicans. They went against Bush this election and said for all his anti-gay remarks they would not endorse him. Fair play to them.

This guy that was just outed is a very public figure, just one we would not recognize. If you make policies that interfere with the personal life of somene expect people to examine your personal life too. The republicans love their old testament so an eye for an eye seems appropriate.

Yoda

Gordon wrote:

Isn't marriage a religious creation?

"Pairing" is something that mammals do. "Marriage" in our country currently means two things: (1) a contract between two people and the State which obliges the two to some responsibilities and which grants to them some rights. (Those rights and responsiblities are not trivial, and are what ALL of these threads are on about.) (2) a "sacrament" held in a certain esteem by the community or by a religious organization.

The distinction here is VERY VERY VERY important. (1) is important and necessary. (2) is "nice to have".

Some other people try to squeeze "wedding" into the two above, but that is wrong. The "wedding" is just the Party at which either the contract, or the sacrament, or both, are entered into.

(1) is really civil union.