Jeez, is everyone coming out of the closet this month? Add Ken Mehlman to the ever-growing list. For those who aren’t up on politics, this guy was George Bush‘s 2004 campaign manager and a former chair of the Republican National Committee. Also, he’s a total ‘mo.
Rumors have circulated in the past, but it’s no secret anymore. He’s even doing interviews with the gay press! And how about all the anti-gay crap that went down during Bush’s campaign for reelection? He’s kind of sorry about that…
“One thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn’t in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it,” he told the The Advocate.
We don’t mean to ask such a silly question, but do you consider this to be good news or bad news? Some folks aren’t so thrilled to hear that Mehlman’s playing for our team, while others are glad to see that he’s finally being honest and admitting to his mistakes. Where do you stand in this argument?
– Dewitt
I think it just goes to show that Sexuality and Vocation are two completely seperate things. Being Gay doesn’t define you as anything more than having good taste (ha!).
just my two cents
Though I do not come to this site to view or comment on anything political; I come here to get away from the crap, but that said I will comment on this. In the reports that I have read he seems to be genuine in his now new found space(out of the closet that is) and is willing to advocate now for rights we taxpaying Americans have lost or will lose because of our “chosen” lifestyle. I will take him at his work and see what actions he takes, actions speak louder than words. However, he is complicit in the vitriol that he and his ilk were spreading during the Bush Presidency(and now) and to a very large extent is responsible for any violence that was indirectly or directly perpetrated on the LGBT community. So I’m reserving my opinion on whether this is good news or bad news till I see some action from this “supposed” new Mo.
Sexuality should not play into politics at all but somehow if you are gay you have to be democrat, you have to be left-leaning. The GLBT movement has left no room in politics for gays that are not liberals and have defined you must be liberal to be pro-gay. This mess is the doing of the GLBT movement, not the gay people themselves.
If the GLBT got out of politics and requiring everyone to be card carrying, mindless vote democrat only bots, then the other side would be able to get out of the anti-gay movement politics.
Every time you have one group move farther left, the other moves farther right .. duh! Starting with this generation (i.e. baby boomers and forward), they have lost their ability to compromise and seek common and middle ground. This has created a polarizing effect.
Same thing for the religious right movement .. it came as an answer to the anti-religious movement to the left. Previously both parties respected the general common grounds of the religious and non religious.
Really, when someone wants special rights, then you will have the pendulum on the other side. Let us get rid of the special rights that all these polarizing issues brings with them and get back to core politics.
I’m with Mike Rogers (http://blog.blogactive.com/2010/08/if-i-had-to-say-what-one-thing-really.html) on this — Mehlman is still a complete scumbag, despite the fact that he NOW supports marriage equality. Mehlman made himself a millionaire off of his hate-based campaigns for the GOP, and now wants to become some sort of “leader” and “A List Gay” in DC and NYC social circles? Fuck that!
Melhman is STILL giving money (and lots of it) to homophobes (including $5000 each to “Every Republican is Crucial” PAC in March, and the National GOP Senatorial Cmte in June). (enter “Melhman” at opensecrets.org and see http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/ken_mehlman_is_gay_but_he_still_wants_to_elect_plenty_of_anti-gay_politicians#)
Carter and _lit, you both said it well! I agree with you both.
Anokie, HOW in the world is Bush responsible for any violence to the gays?!?!? That is just a brain-washed, liberal mindset! Are you kidding me?! Sheesh!
OH! And btw, I happily and proudly support financially many Republicans! Hehehe
Really, when someone wants special rights, then you will have the pendulum on the other side. Let us get rid of the special rights that all these polarizing issues brings with them and get back to core politics.
is this just a for real complete asshole, or just a troll? “SPECIAL RIGHTS!?!?!?” Since when does equality under the law mean “special rights”?!?! You’re a moron.
He is not a moron. See.. That’s another thing that bugs me about the liberal left. When they have no more facts to argue with, they turn to name calling. EVERY TIME! Sheesh.
OH! And btw, I happily and proudly support financially many Republicans! Hehehe
if the GOP had its way, you’d be “financial supporting” them from a concentration camp right now, given that you are HIV positive (or you’d be dead).
LOL. No. That’s what Obuma wants! Wow, wrestle, you’ve drunk several gallons of their koolaid, haven’t you! It’s ok. That’s what makes our country the best! Diversity and freedom to believe the way we want!
I think use of the wordage– special rights– is what is causing the rift between a few of these bloggers. However, I think Carter’s real point was the relationship between cause and effect of the left and right wings–which clearly can be seen and documented–don’t get hung up on the semantics of the passage.
I see Carter’s point and times certainly seem more peaceful when politics are centered in the middle, however growth occurs after a tug-a-war between the major parties.
So if you disagree with any of the gay agenda, you are a hater. What a crock. Then by the same perspective, if you disagree with any of the religious agenda, you are a hater as well. It IS no different.
However, it is simpler, if you disagree with the liberal agenda of the day, you are shouted down as a hater and called intolerant. You totally lose all credibility and just reinforced my initial novel above.
@wrestlesex — while I’m trying to make an intelligent, articulate explanation of the state of politics today, you show your intolerance and ignorance by trying to shout me down and call me names. wow! typical liberal … “concentration camp” … give me one shred of any proof of that statement, there is none. Typical emotionally charged statement to attempt to shout down anyone you don’t agree with.
One word 100% accurately described every response on this particular thread from you wrestlesex … INTOLERANT!
By the way, I’d still fuck your brains out … don’t care about politics when it comes to sex. But I’d kick you out as soon as you swallowed as I know you are unable to hold an intelligent conversation now.
Fuck her.
He’s a cowardly douchebag. ’nuff said.
That’s something that should live, breath, and die in the farthest, darkest corner of the closet. And on top of it, he’s A FUCKING HORROR. Get back in there asshole (visualizing Kathy Bates in Misery)
ToddM…don’t assume..I am not a liberal! nor am I conservative, I think for myself.
I didn’t call you a liberal. I said that is a typical, brainwashed, liberal mindset. And it is! Whether you identify as a liberal or not, that is liberal thinking you posted.
And I agree with Carter again. EVERYONE of these posts have been intolerant! Yet these men would tell you that the GOP is intolerant. Hypocritical, don’t you think?
@Carter: I will point out that you are nearly as insulting and intolerant as wrestle in that you rail against the “liberal agenda” and hurl the term “liberal” about like an invective. You also have yet to answer the basic question of what makes equality under the law a “special right” when, by its very definition, equal is not “special.”
You say liberal as if it is a bad thing, and yet you have offered no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. More to the point, truly being liberal means that I have to accept your right to your beliefs but that is where the line is drawn; I no more have/claim the right to tell you what you have to believe/do than you have the right to tell me what I have to believe/do. In the simplest of terms that is exactly what the “conservative” movement (and the law itself) is about…telling people what they can and cannot do.
Keeping that fact in mind, your argument that politics would be better if homosexuals took their issues out of the political equation is completely fallacious because until very recently the law of the land was simply don’t and that violates the precepts on which this country is founded.
I issue to you the challenge of defending your claim that I am seeking “special” rights when I try to claim the same rights that are offered to “most” Americans and yet are specifically denied to me simply because my “partner” also has a penis.
You are adroit at rabble rousing and then claiming insult as if you have been unfairly attacked, I wonder if you are actually capable of holding a true debate.
So… Random47.. All of these guys on here wanting another law banning circumcision… Do you think they are Republicans? Back up your claim that it’s the conservatives that are trying to pass all of the laws. Seriously!
@ ToddM: Ok, this is one that I have never heard of. As this is the first I have even heard of an anti-circumcision law, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are referring to a law that does away with circumcision rather than a removal of the policy that makes circumcision automatic for all boy children. Is this correct?
It rather surprised me years ago when my mom told me that I was automatically circumcised when I was born in Hawaii rather than her being offered the choice (which I still would have been circumcised for which I am glad of…lol). Personally, I prefer cut, but that is just a preference.
They are saying that they want the ability for the parents to choose at birth to be taken away. Sorry I wasn’t clear.
reading all of these comments really highlights the effectiveness of partisan politics as a distraction. both sides exerted their energy spouting things off to a stand still leaving not one mind impacted, not one item resolved, and basically being nothing but a waste of time. take this to the national level and it is easier to understand the current state of things. while we squabble about government issues (which by the way the republicans never stick to what they say they are going to do and neither do the democrats. yet they both get away with it by their supporters. has no one noticed that yet?) the real powers of the world (corporations) are moving and shaking virtually unchecked. i am not necessarily complaining by any means but people are arguing over the wrong body here if they are seeking change.
I need to research this a bit, since I find the very precept inconceivable, especially given that the main proponents of circumcision are the Jewish and Christian religions. Can you provide me a link to more information on this proposed law and/or the name/number?
Re: circumcision — it has very little to do with ideology, especially when the issue of religious freedom enter into it.
The entire issue is confused because of the question of female circumcision, which is generally viewed as an aspect of female genital mutilation. Male circumcision is just as much a form of genital mutilation, but one that is sanctioned by some “mainstream” religions (just as female genital mutilation is sanctioned by religions that are “mainstream” in other cultures).
To try and cast the question of circumcision into a “liberal vs conservative” framework is just one more demonstration of how intellectually bankrupt Todd is. There is no strong consensus within the “left” regarding restricting male circumcism — its merely a fringe issue that DeWitt posted about. But the right uses the existence of female genital mutilation in other cultures (especially Islamic cultures) to create fear and loathing of those cultures.
@ ToddM: If you are referring to the “Children’s Comprehensive Circumcision Protection Act” filed by Charles A. Antonelli as a private citizen I would first require you to offer some evidence that this bill is in any way supported by any true political entity be they liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. This bill did not even receive the support of the Massachsettes sentator who filed it.
I wasn’t referring to any act! I was referring to the discussion held here on this website! Sheesh! Can’t you guys read?!?
I am NOT intellectually bankrupt either! Just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make me any less intelligent than you are! Just makes you a bigger jerk by making that statement!
I’m done posting on this subject. When you want to argue FACTS, THEN I will come back and discuss! Until then, I refuse to enter in to mindless blather any further.
@ToddM: Since you want to argue facts, then yes, I could completely support the bill simply because it does not forbid circumcision, it forbids circumcision of minors and makes that a choice they make when adult. Children are not property of their parents, they are human beings who will grow to have their own opinions on matters so that decision should be reserved for them to make when they are of age.
However, it really does not seem like you actually wanted a true debate, it seems as if you simply want to rabble rouse.
Rabble rouse? Absolutely not! Don’t assume things. Remember? I stood up for someone because he was called a name. That’s why I initially posted. Seems the name callers are the ones who want to rabble rouse.
You did however make my point. You said it was the conservatives that wanted laws. My post about the circumcision was to prove that THAT is not the case! Liberals keep calling for more laws all of the time. Thank you for proving my point.
@Todd: Did I ever claim that liberals do not attempt to pass laws? No, I did not. I also will point out that as a law that forbids someone imposing their will upon someone else my support for this bill in no way detracts from my point that no one has the right to tell me what I must do with my life. The law already states that children are not the property of their parents, so why should a parent be allowed to make a permanent change to their child based on their beliefs?
You stated that there was a great deal of “liberal” support for doing away with circumcision and this has proven not to be the case since neither wrestle nor I have supported that position. Limiting, yes but not doing away with.
@Todd: Your point remains as unproven as it was when you made it.
Wow – so much drivel. Everyone needs to go back and read @BE’s post at 3:05 … seems to be the only one that doesn’t read in order to attack but to understand. Thank you for your correct interpretation of my initial post. I’ll fuck you anytime, and maybe even let you fuck me … probably not though. 🙂
First, I am fiscal and social conservative all for small government. So neither democrat nor republican fits my ideology. I initially presented a compare and contrast (college level writing model) to illustrate the action and reactions of both sides moving away from the center.
I was then called a HATER and labeled, incorrectly I might say. I then bandied about the term liberal because, 95% of the time, it’s the liberals that shout down those they oppose, those they do not understand which causes them to fear those not like them. The use of the terms liberal or gay agenda is a general term and descriptive of a group or movement. Compare that to being called intellectually bankrupt, a moron, using the phrase you’d be in a concentration camp cuz your poz,
I never said that it would be better if the mo’s took their politics off the table. I said both sides would be better if their polarizing politics were taken off the tale. But neither side really wants that, with these polarizing issues, then the real work of governing would be addressed and most of them would be turned out on their ears because most of those in DC are totally useless, but that wont’ be exposed when covered by the side issues.
First it was, get out of our bedroom. What we do behind closed doors is nobody’s business. Check. Then it was, hey, get out of my office, my sexuality has no effect on my work and should not play a part. Check. Series of others, now it’s gay marriage. And once that’s granted, then it will be something else. The liberal bubble knows no bounds, it will never be satiated and satisfied. This is why I am so against it. It is polarizing. So often, when one continues to seek out more rights, it comes at the expense of others rights (not talking gay marriage right now, just talking in general). My rights should never trample your rights and vice versa. If they do, then those are not truly inalienable rights but rather special rights and privileges.
I try to put away any of my polarizing views in order to meet in the middle so we can accomplish something. And hopefully my dick ends up inside someone as a result.
Random, I WAS REFERRING TO THE POSTS ON THAT TOPIC!!! NOT ON THESE!!! YOU just want to argue. HAVE AT IT! I’m done!
Thanks, Carter. I tried standing up for you.
@Random74 … Limiting but not doing away with
The only way to limit but not do away with is through education. Educating parents that sliced is not required and the benefits of both. By passing a law, you will not simply limit it but will do away with it.
In the other thread about circumcision on MHD, men spoke of how scarring and barbaric it was, but you don’t find it impacting men later in life and causing major character defects.
rape, incest, child porn – those are the issues that should have such vivid language and passionate intolerance … for those, intolerance is good. And you know it doesn’t matter if those victims are cut or uncut.
In this thread and the other, i have not see one single piece of fact why elective infant circumcision is bad. Again, come to the table with facts — why is it harmful. Simply no one person should be able to decide for another … that’s pure bunk, that’s not a rational reason. And again, those on the more liberal side of this issue simply throw insults and shouts down anyone that does not agree with them. I.e. Intolerant.
@ToddM … thanks for standing up for me … but I’m fine. However, I would mind you bending over for me or laying down for me … but I digress 😉
Random — you hit the nail on the head by citing the use of the phrase “special rights” — whenever you see someone use that phrase in conjuction with GLB rights, you know that the person has swallowed the rights hate agenda hook like and sinker.
Having LIVED THROUGH the sixties and seventies as a (closeted) gay teen and a gay young man, I’m familiar with the history of the gay rights movement — and the hyperagressive backlash of the haters and homophobes. Its a history that Carter gets dead wrong. For example, the religious right was around long before the gay rights movement — it became “powerful” thanks to the GOP southern strategy (the religious right was pro-segregationist) and the increasing reach and influence of conservative “megachurches” thanks to television (especially commercial television.)
@ Carter: First of all, unless there is a post before 2:17P.M., you started off railing that unless you are a liberal and a democrat you are anti-gay. That and your claim of seeking “special” rights are the reasons for my initial challenge. “Sexuality should not play into politics at all but somehow if you are gay you have to be democrat, you have to be left-leaning. The GLBT movement has left no room in politics for gays that are not liberals and have defined you must be liberal to be pro-gay. This mess is the doing of the GLBT movement, not the gay people themselves.”
Second, as I pointed out in my initial reply, the push for gay rights is not a “polarizing force” simply because there was already a pole in place…namely no. If we did nothing to try to change the laws it would have remained no. What is driving the difference is many want to keep the polarity setting that has existed for the past 200+ years…no. It’s a sad fact that “gay rights” have to be won one at a time.
“First it was, get out of our bedroom. What we do behind closed doors is nobody’s business. Check. Then it was, hey, get out of my office, my sexuality has no effect on my work and should not play a part. Check. Series of others, now it’s gay marriage. And once that’s granted, then it will be something else. The liberal bubble knows no bounds, it will never be satiated and satisfied.” First I would ask what the series of others are since we still can’t serve in the military, adopt children, prevent losing custody of our biological children, marry, visit our partners in the hospitals and other such things across all the states while heterosexuals can.
Even when homosexuals are granted blanket equality with heterosexuals it would not cease to be a polarizing issue, it would merely be a switch to the opposite pole (yes), which was my initial point.
Until such a time as someone tries to pass a law that everyone must have sex with someone of the same gender (which I guess someone could do in Massachusetts…lol)I cannot see how we are trying to achieve “special” rights.
@ Carter: Actually, there have been cases of adult children suing their parents and/or the hospital for being circumcised against their will…usually in cases where where the procedure was botched.
When I was autocircumcised (lol) hey told my mother that it was done to prevent infection since it is easier to clean (cheesehead anyone?). The fact remains that it is essentially cosmetic surgery performed on a minor who cannot consent that they will be stuck with for the rest of their life.
Proving my point once again … taken out of context and villified.
First, I said “The GLBT movement has left no room in politics for gays that are not liberals and have defined you must be liberal to be pro-gay.”
That is a true statement. As one who identifies more conservatively, I’ve been told here and elsewhere that I cannot be pro-gay unless I’m a democrat, which I’m not.
I used the term special rights specifically, not to channel the current use of the word in relation to gay marriage but rather much broader context of both sides. But you see those words and fire flies from your eyes, you are then unable to rationally read the words inside the context. Being unable to think for yourselves, you then fly into a name calling rage all triggered from seeing the words special rights. You guys have flunked that test.
I am not contesting the list of issues you raise of military, adoption, custody. However, seldom do we make social progress when one side or both take such extreme positions. I understand some of this is from frustration on the amount of time it is taking, however, that is how social changes work. And change will take longer when approached in such a hostile manner as it seems to be today.
However, we can make gains but understand it will be another generation away before real mainstream change occurs. It takes about 20 years of slow and steady work. The polarizing hostile model so frequently gives 1 step forward, 2 steps back. You cannot affect change nearly as effectively as enemies as you can as friends. That was what my original post was trying to illustrate.
BTW — I grew up in 70’s (long live disco), I grew up closeted, I spent a lifetime in the closet in the military, saw the enacting of DADT which was a vast improvement over the hunting down of gays and lesbians.
It amazes me how many in LTR’s do not have powers of attorney and wills … not that expensive. You can give each other the same rights as being married using a living well and POA. And in fact, you can give nearly all benefits of marriage through legal documents. Treat it like a pre-nup. Give it a 1 year expiration, take stock of the current state and extend it … 2 yrs, 5 yrs. And predetermine how to cancel it should it not work out. Much much cheaper than divorce too.
@random74 … you always have adult children suing their parents for one thing or another. and there are cases of suing for being circumcised just for not having the choice, nothing to do with botching. people want to blame other people for their problems, no one wants to take responsibility. no one wants to say my life sucks because I’ve screwed up and made bad choices.
just general comment now … Just read back through all the comments … many of them were reactions of anger, outbursts of emotion … why do so many people let other people’s words, actions, etc., dictate their emotions? as a person, someone doesn’t make you mad, you choose to be mad … several comments have shown that the author chose to get mad and responded … life’s too short. we will get farther ahead, both of us as friends than as enemies. let’s join hands … and forgive me if I try to fuck you … it just comes naturally 🙂
That is a true statement. As one who identifies more conservatively, I’ve been told here and elsewhere that I cannot be pro-gay unless I’m a democrat, which I’m not.
The only people who tell you that are professional democrats. The rest of us will tell you that you can’t be pro-gay and be a Republican — but “not being a republican” does not mean you have to be a Democrat.
And the question isn’t about the rate of social change, its about the methods used by those opposed to change, and your willingness to associate with those who spread lies, hate, and violence toward gays in the name of “fiscal conservativism”. (BTW, when was the last time you advocated that taxes be raised to pay for the TWO WARS we are running right now? That is what a fiscal conservative would be demanding….)
I hated the sonofabitch then, and I hate him even more now. Just shows you what a bunch of total hypocrites and liars surrounded idiot Bush, as if we didn’t know. And I still think Karl Rove probably likes little boys and is a total perv.
g/ m nmbv ,/.
The above is my new dog (Pumpkin–she’s mostly orange, and as a rescue dog she was underweight and her ribs showed, so she looks like a puupkin) saying “Hello” after jumping in my lap! 🙂
just had a “D’oh” moment — couldn’t figure out why my Manhunt “track list” suddenly showed so many people from out of my area (like mississippi, new york, and indiana). Its YOU guys!
and you’re all kinda hot — even you republican types!
@Carter: I have yet to either take anything you have said out of context or to vilify you. The closest I have come is state that you intentionally use terms like liberal and special rights to inflame people then claim they attack you, and while wrestle has insulted you I have not. I also have not only not said that you can not be conservative and pro-gay I have, in fact baldly stated the opposite.
I have however asked you multiple times to explain what you mean by “special rights” and the closest you have come is to say “now it’s gay marriage. And once that’s granted, then it will be something else.”
I disagree with your assessment that if we stopped pushing for equality that it would simply come to be. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest and that is a basic principle.
You are correct, it is possible to legally bestow upon your partner MANY (though nowhere near all) of the benefits of marriage, however the process is not nearly as quick, easy, or ironclad as that granted by a marriage certificate AND while it “may not cost much” it is exponentially more expensive than a marriage license to boot.
Also, divorce is only as expensive as the couples want it to be.
@Carter: “there are cases of suing for being circumcised just for not having the choice, nothing to do with botching. people want to blame other people for their problems, no one wants to take responsibility. no one wants to say my life sucks because I’ve screwed up and made bad choices.” This statement is illogical simply because you said yourself that they are upset that they did not have the choice (which they clearly did not) and then you write their anger off to not wanting to take responsibility for their choices??? Does not compute! LOL
@Wrestle:
@Wrestle: Raising hand representing MS, don’t hold it against me…lol
(hmmm…nice to know html commands work in here…how can I use THAT knowledge…hehehe)
being 2 faced is not just confined to big politics and gay issues – how many gay people are just as dishonest by saying what you think people want to hear NOT WHAT YOU REALLY THINK??
having him admit to being a ‘mo doesn’t bother me a bit… however, admitting to being a republican is absolutely disgusting and shameful !!! hahaha
Eh. Call me when he’s atoned for the damage he’s done to our community. He hasn’t really made a dent yet.
It’s nice that he came out an all. BUT he is just now finally exploiting his last frontier. He is an adaptive exploiter. He exploited his closeted life by supporting and being supported by a hateful group, the Republican social conservatives. They fueled their hatred off the Religious Right and visa-versa. In private, he exploited the Gay community to sate his closeted sex desires. Only when the likely impending outing arrived, this man decided to leave the “dark side”. When he could no longer hide, he now reveals his “true” self. When he could no longer tap the conservative hateful, he decided to make his “confession”. How many Gays and Lesbians’ lives has he damaged by his closeted existence and his out hateful Republican career? He has a lot of “atoning” to make up for. As far as conservative Republicans. I would like to see you all refuse your Social Security when it comes time for you to retire, stop taking weekends and working only 8 hours a day, not wear all that regulation required safety equipment provided by your employers, not drive on the Interstates or even use Medicare in the future. Oh, and get rid of your new car, as it’s designed for protection in crashes from LAWS requiring crash safety. Those are all from “Liberal” and “Socialist” programs and laws Republicans oh-so despise. And is it a “special right” for LGBT to have the SAME protections in all aspects of their lives, including MARRIAGE as hets have? After all, we pay the same TAXES as the straights do.
Oh and nice mouth. I’d like to stick something in it.
Fugly man
:S
Puhleeze. This is the man who sat mute while gays were vilified during the 2004 election, was in on the planning to get the Anti Gay Marriage referendums on the ballot in 11 states, including Ohio. Had it not been for this sorry excuse for a gay man, Bush would have been a one-term president. And he STILL thinks that you should vote republican because they are the only ones who can stop Muslim Jihad — yeah, he’s swapped his own self loathing for another form of bigotry.
Well gay marriage is not the ONE issue for many gay men. Have you never done something you personally disagree with or dislike but you do it because it’s your job? It was his job. His job was to get the President reelected.
To me this is akin to criminal defense attorneys – those who, like Shapiro and team, defended a murderer and everyone knew it. But it was their job to stuff their pockets, ummm, I mean to sell out their soul, oopsie, I mean to defend their client to the best of their abilities.
It was the guys job … just like many others, get off his ass … speaking of, I wouldn’t mind jumping on his ass and giving it a workout … I’ve been with more meh men than him! lol.
it’s always the self-hating gays who are the most destructive to equal rights for all gays and lesbians. he says he has regrets…? is he aware how much damage he has brought upon gay men and women, especially those kids trying to come out in their rural communities. shame on you. you are not forgiven. go back to the closet where you belong.
his pennance to the gay community sorry my spelling, shpould ber goin up in front of every republican group and tea party say were alkl equal and then watch as he gets stoned and booed off stage its only fair what hes done to the gay community.
Sheesh… Bitter party of…. a few…. You all are no better than he is. Actually, he is better.
Give the guy a break. He’s out now. Just let him alone and live and let live.