Californian Republican state senator Roy Ashburn, who has consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, has come out as gay.
He was arrested on Mar 3 on suspicion of drink driving.
The 55-year-old divorced father of four came out in an interview with KERN-AM radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.
"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told radio host Inga Barks. He was responding to her question: “Do you want me to ask you . . . the question, or do you want to just tell people?"
His statement follows days of intense scrutiny of Ashburn's personal life after a Sacramento television station reported that Ashburn was at a popular gay dance club that night and several people have said they have seen the senator at gay bars in the city. He did not confirm that he was at a gay club the night of his arrest, but said, "through my own actions I made my personal life public."
Media reports have focused on his sexual orientation because Ashburn has one of the staunchest records of voting against bills that would expand rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Californians.
He however defended his voting record, saying he cast votes that his constituents wanted.
Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, said in a statement that the senator has consistently received a zero percent on the organisation’s Legislative Scorecards since 2004, with the exception of 2007, when he scored 10 percent.
According to media reports, he had notably voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognise out-of-state gay marriages. In 2005, Ashburn, like all but one other Republicans in the Senate, voted against a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage in California. The bill was later vetoed by the governor. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk.
The group's executive director, Geoff Kors, said Monday that he hopes the senator's revelation will lead him to change his voting patterns.
"He's still the same person, only living more honestly," Kors said. "I hope his own self-awareness will result in him no longer voting to deny people the most basic rights."
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
Hopefully his expression of his own truth can make a difference and move us all forward.
but times are changing...this i can sense...
Law should be applied equally to all people. That is a basic fundamental belief I strongly hold. That being said, it would be better to aspire for an equal application of the state constitution in California, rather than to create special classes of rights for minority groups. I support men like him who vote against any such legislation. Our national motto is "Out of many, one" Not, "Not out of One, many" We seek to unite, not fragment society.
There are two guiding forces in any locality in the US - the Federal Constitution which delinaeates the powers the American people grant to the Federal Govt and the balance of the powers not delineated in THE Constution are granted to the individual states,which also have their own state constitution.
These constitutions define relationships between governing bodies and citizens. In my reading of several constitutions, I see no article that discriminates against homosexuals, nor anyone else ( admittedly there were examples or racial definitions in some states that were removed many years ago).
Since, clearly there are examples of unequal application of the law in some case, I would suggest it more proper to work towards equal application of a law, not making new laws and granting special rights to special groups. That IS discrimination.
I will not rehash the marriage debate again, as it is pointless. I am a gay man and I know many gay men that, like me, do not support redefining social instutions to benefit my nature. By redefining marriage by what it is NOT ( it must not be a relationship between one man and one woman) we strip it of any meaning, for next it might be a relationship between three people - why can we deny them the same "right" we expect.
I empathize with this gentleman ad his difficulty in accepting his sexual identity. I think all too many of us can relate to self-imposed struggles to accept our different nature. I could never take pleasure in the struggles others face and now the hatred and intolerance he bears from some in our "inclusive" gay "community".
well the whole world is always weird!
He is gay and yet he votes against his own interests and the interests of others who share his sexual orientation who are discriminated against by the system.
And then he defends his hypocritical stance. Because it's what he thinks his supporters want.
Sorry. But it sounds like this Roy Ashburn has no mind and no spine of his own.
Gay or otherwise, his actions make him merely a yes man to the conservative Republican machine that seeks to undermine the right of his fellow Americans to their right to pursue happiness.
Yet another sad example of that despicable vomit-inducing subspecies known as "gay republicans".
Anti-discrimination law protects straight people, too, from discrimintation on the basis of their actual or assumed sexual orientation or sexual identity. That means it's not a "special right," it's everyone's right to be protected from discrimination.
While I do not excuse or commend his votes against the crucial rights that gay people need, I am, at the same time, sympathetic of how he must have agonized to vote against a bill which would help him to gain acceptance in society...
One by one these hypocritical loser gets exposed and incinerated and they still expect a Jim Bakker revival. Fat hope. There are no excuses, hidden or public for anyone to fan the movement of hate and discrimination, especially when one has the power to influence at the very least, the basic tenet of tolerance. He only came out because he was caught. It's a clear copout.
Even if you were way out loud and scream gay through your nostrils, it does not give you the right to hone your pretense to patronize and twirl attacks on your own kind as an expression to free speech, cos such expressions are never welcomed. You own your own baggage.
Hypocrites in any color, race or gender are always dangerous and serves only to invite justification for hate crimes by the least expected predators. Your kind makes me sick and I'm talking major healthcare bill sick! Get a new mirror already. Zzzz.
Here in Ireland, I think we only have one openly gay politician - Senator David Norris, who is HUGELY popular with everyone, and all the political parties. I mean, people often think he's a big-headed oaf with a huge ego - then again, he'd be the first person to say the same thing - and everyone knows that he has a long-term BF about 20 years younger than him, and Senator Norris is always banging on about gay rights and equality. His job is to represent the people who vote him in, and he does, but he also follows his personal belief and conscience, and has always been a driving force for the gay Irish community.
So (even though he was pretty rude to my sister when she interviewed him) I really respect him for being Visibly, Honestly and Unapologetically gay, and I think that Ashburn could learn a Lot about being an honest - and incidentally gay - politician from the likes of Senator Norris. Even if he is a big-headed guy who gets standing ovations at dinner functions... ;-)
It's easy to be queer and radical, not so easy to be talented, Rotary material, have a conservative electorate love and support you, and find within yourself through a lot of pain and to your horror, that you are actually... gay! Every day you have to represent people who are not following a San Francisco agenda. I am sure there are a number of Singaporean MPs in this same legislators' closet and they will never come out as Ashburn did.
And there are many of us gay men who have non-radical views. I hope that Ashburn has a future after you have all finished your self-righteous stoning of him. I wish him well and I am sure he will have true friends who will rally to him.
but shows how dangerous we can be.
When people stop say things like "you know that senator, you know the gay on"
Homophobia is covert and very nasty. His or our sexuality should not be the defining attribute as much as your race or religion should not be used to define you. Freedom will be when the strength of your character, the love in your heart, the good you do for others, the care you show... blah will be what the community and individuals will judge you not your sexuality..... blah
on = one
that is so badly written
sorry i will proof read next time
I have little respect for those who hide in the shadows... who selfishly are married with children while hiding another life– who troll online without pictures in their profiles–who happily and willingly would deny others equal status– who if called upon by malevolent authorities would have others arrested carried away and denied their right to live a life.
Cowards all.
To the Editor...the article title should read.."drunk driving."
You have issues with your being gay, Fine with me. My problem is when you make it a problem for others who are gay.
Someone tell me please, are we better than him when we condemn him or do we do more justice for our people when we begin to forgive and accept?
If anything angers me is that he's educated, and should know better. With that.. lets kick him in the balls! LOL!!!
I'm really torn here. The instinct is to praise and nurture such a guy for finally coming out and starting a life based on truth and reality, but there's an equally strong instinct to condemn and despise him for being such a filthy hypocrite and voting again and again against any sort of gay-rights legislation. For 14 years!! He did a fair bit of real damage in that timeframe, so I certainly don't feel compelled to "welcome him to the community," so to speak.
I can't stand conservatives.
I am nasty? Really, what are you then? I am gym-toned, yes, because I eat well and find time to go to the gym, what is your excuse?
When I end up lonelier than Ahsburn, I will let you know, if you are still around by then. Good luck!
The fact that he was supported and loved by his electorate and only did what they allegedly told him to do does not vindicate his behavior in the least. The crowds loved Hitler and were totally on board with the Aryan race crap--that doesn't make the extermination of 6 million people acceptable.
If Roy Ashburn is allowed to continue in his persecution of gay people while attending go-go boy nights on Thursdays on the taxpayer dollar, then California is in even deeper sh*t than I thought.
It's sad when "anti-discrimination laws" discriminates. Shouldn't it be all encompassing? What exactly are "gay rights"?
At least he came out in the end though. Too bad he got arrested and might not get the chance to reverse any of the gay rights he voted against.
Before people put him down for his choices though, we should ask ourselves if we've come clean and told the world we are gay too. Because before we all do that, we will all at times find ourselves in his same situation, just with far less eyes on us. It's easy for us to say he's bad!
I know plenty of people who are not openly gay, but they don't go around crusading against gay people in their spare time, nor are they actual lawmakers actively passing laws that hurt gay people.
It's Ted Haggard all over again. No one really cared that he was getting sexed up by a gay escort, it's that he was doing it while standing in a pulpit railing against fags.
It's not the gayness people are pissed about it, it's the blinding, jaw-dropping hypocrisy.
I guess we will never know.
And yes, 'drink driving' is a term often used for driving under the influence of alcohol. Probably used in countries with British influences like here in Australia.
God, it just sucks to be American. Thanks for pointing out how crappy we all are. I can only hope to live long enough to evolve to the state of personal perfection that every citizen of your country enjoys.
Butt... umm but, given his voting record, how did he stay in office when the gay community knew he was in tha bars? He could have "gaypparatzied" and in a room or dinner been strongarmed into lightening his stance...
No. Hypocrites are every where, in every country and in every community. I agreed. #51 comments about it being America is out of line.
that's it
How should the gay community respond to a person like this??
the politically correct way of accepting him, or the way many of us would love to.......tie him up on a pole and spit on him if he dares to vote against human rights again?
or perhaps refuse his rights to have gay sex?
Big turd, hypocrite, disgusting, despicable...whatever adjectives are used above to describe him as he WAS; at least now, by luck, by fate, by accident/cooincidence or by act of the gods, being bustetd for drunk driving has released him from his fears, his hypocricy, and the darkness in which he'd lived his life.
He doesn't have to be afraid or lonely anymore in that dark closet he spent the 55 years of his life.
It's not easy for gay people to come out. It shouldn't even be something we have to do. There shouldn't be a "gay community" or a "straight community"..we just just live as a COMMUNITY of humans on this big spinning rock.
Cynics: give this guy a break. He's one of US. And now he's not hiding anymore from the truth. Let's see what he can now do with the rest of his life, having broken from those chains that bound him, ok?
Can we learn to show just a little more love and compassion? It's easy to love beautiful, young, intelligent and loving people, no? Anyone can do that!
This certainly is not an American thing. This happens everywhere. For people to say that it is a result of living here just points to their ignorance.
There were those 4 "ex-gay" movement leaders in Australia, a while back, who all eventually reversed their position and admitted it didn't work at all, and they were actually still gay.
As for Kuman@9; I think he's just an agent provocateur who likes to go against the grain, and goads people so that he can claim to be victimised when people respond. This is the guy who boasted in these columns about deliberately having unsafe sex. And automatically impeaches the integrity of anyone he deems to be a gay "activist". I took him seriously for a while, but it's such predictable, disingenuous and misleading nonsense I don't bother reading him any more.
I am not sure if I go against the grain - depends which grain you speak of. I try to do what is right, simply because it is right. I am not concerned with popular opinion, as popular opinion is not necessarily right. I suppose the early Republicans who went against the grain by fighting to end slavery were reviled for taking an unpopular stand, but thank God they did what was right and not what was popular.
Thank you for being aware that my responses are predictable. That is because I have a clear set of values and ideals that I constantly strive to uphold. It is an honor to have someone recognize me as being consistent. Hopefully that means someone might recognize my basic integrity.
That being said, regrettably,you apparently have no true idea of who I am or what I value. I make no claims that are not true regarding my thoughts or actions.
As to your statement that I "automatically impeach the integrity of gay activists", that is patentely absurd. In one instance I questioned why I could find no other citation for a claim that some individual made. Once you were so kind to point out my error, I believe I acknowledged my error. Regardless, it did not substantively change the argument.
I consistently support respect, tolerance, forgiveness and charity. I always strive to recognize my place as an individual and as part of a society larger than myself and realize that purely living for self-interest is simply selfish.
Additionally, I believe it better to win peoples hearts and minds by earning their respect rather than legislating and controlling every action. I believe in personal freedom, not authoritarian control, which is what i so often read complaints of in Singapore and other areas.
It is possible that I am simply fortunate that in the almost 18 years since I accepted my homosexuality I have almost never felt victimized, belittled or hated for who and what I am, instead, most of my experiences have been very positive and people in the "non-gay world" accept me as I am.
The only anger and hatred I experience as a general rule comes from those in the "gay community" that cannot find it in their heart and minds to accept anyone or anything that does not conform to their agenda and beliefs.
Practically every note you post contains digs at gays you disapprove of, and your animosity is plain, despite your polite but insincere attempts to disguise it and portray yourself as a martyr. Your references and language referring to the imaginary "gay agenda" perhaps reveal where your loyalties lie.
This might also explain why you spend the time to regularly visit, but comment adversely and insult (politely of course) other gays, on a site dedicated to helping publicise, and in some cases helping remedy, injustices against gay people. Or you're simply what we call in England, a wind-up merchant.
Just because we have the same encoding that determines our sexuality does not mean we have some sort of unified community. ( I do wonder fi there are bald activists, tall activisits or diabetic activists - or communities - as those features are no different than our being gay - they are inborn genetic traits generally beyond our direct control). I truly am not certain what an activist is. If it is someone that advocates for an issue, then I might be called a gay activist of sorts, in that I am always encouraging each person to live a life honest to their values and conviction and to not let others determine an individual's self worth or role in society. The only real issue in that is I do not seek to build just gay people up. I endeavor to see the value in each individual as a unique creation and child of God. My career would be purposeless if I did not believe in the value of each person and each life, as each day in my business I help people honor and celebrate lives lived.
To your remark that I see myself as a victim, that could not be further from the truth. I happily point out the inconsistancies of those that claim to be tolerant and open minded - those that ridicule and berate individuals of a different mindset, but I never heed a word that is uttered to tear others down.
I try to be careful to avoid any direct criticism of another. I have of course made comments that I am embarassed by actions of some people; and that is true. but my words are directed at an action or an idea, not a person. I am strongly of the belief that the direction of "gay activism" is going in the wrong direction and as a member of the fabled "gay community", I express my thoughts but I think you would be hard pressed to find me ever insulting a person or expressing hate or anger- they are just feelings that are counterproductive to a healthy and happy life. I have no time for hate, jealousy or anger in my life. I left that behind a long time ago. My life is much better for it.
We are all part of the world community. We need to live in that community. It is my belief that we shoul not isolate ourselves by narrowing our identity and segregating ourselves into small groups.
Oh yea - your remarks on the slave states - well - you do know that was the Democrat party that so many gay men and women are slavishly loyal to.
Check your history.
The letters by Mr. Kuman are usually dripping with condensation toward those who dare believe that gay marriage is not a special right or dare to think Sarah Palin lacks the qualifications to be a commentator on the world's problems let alone be qualified for the most powerful office on the planet. In this way he is consistent. You are right.
He finds consistency as a hallmark of having an evolved mind. But I find others in history who've been consistent in their views. I don't find that attribute at all. More than being consistent, he is simply a contrarian. And he uses it to push ideas that find their nest in some of the most insidious minds.
He practices unsafe sex without thought to the damage it may cause. He opposes the rights of us who may wish to marry someone of our own sex. It is tedious to follow his logic. But it is important to know the whereabouts of those like the good state senator and Mr. Kuman. For when dark forces may come calling... you will know the ones who gave them the directions to your door.
You misrepresent me. I have never initiated a discussion of Mrs. Palin here ( or anywhere for that matter). I have never watched her in her new job as a TV commentator, so I would not have the ability to speak to her qualifications, but I seem to recall she has a degree in journalism, so that might be a proper job for her. Since she has never run for the "most powerful office on the planet", that point is irrelevant. If you are soliciting my thoughts on Mrs. Palin, I would say I think she is seems to have a likeable, energetic and bright personality and I would enjoy an opportunity to meet her, but I have no special adulation for her.
You also misrepresent my thoughts on recognizing gay relationships, while I do not support redefining the heterosexual institution of marriage to include same sex relationships, I have no objection to establishing legal recognition of relationships entered into by two people of the same sex ( or three or four etc, if that be there pleasure). To borrow a too oft used phrase of the current President of the US - Mr. B.H. Obama - LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR - I support the right of all individuals to love who they choose and to establish their own relationship. Please accept that.
You know nothing of my thoughts when it comes to my sexual practices. I am hardly the only person on this web site that has willingly engaged in sex without a condom. To assume that I do not consider the consequences to myself or another is pure folly - appropriate discussions always ensue before sexual activity and a decision on how to proceed is reached mutually.
You may actually be surprised that we probably wish to accomplish the same ends, we just choose to pursue different paths to arrive there.
I do not consider consistancy a quality of an evolved mind, I consider it a state of a disciplined mind. I assume my words that drop from condensation are also condescedning, if that be the case, that be the case. I do prefer to take the higher ground and invite people to step up to a rational and logical discussion - sans emotion. By no means do I think I am better than another, as again, I believe in the inherent dignity of each man and I seek to lift up, not tear down.
You are the first to ever tell me my logic is tedious. I know I am a bit formal and stuffy, but in general in my business and community leadership activities, I have often been considered a reasonably succesful communicator.
And what would "legal recognition of relationships entered into by two people of the same sex" be?
So meaning you r ok with gay quest for same sex marriage if they use word other than marriage? Geez, it just like the muslim in M'sia claiming a exclusive right to use the word "allah".
BTW, dear Steve and Max,
I love your comments on Kuman:
"he is simply a contrarian. And he uses it to push ideas that find their nest in some of the most insidious minds".........."every note you post contains digs at gays you disapprove of, and your animosity is plain, despite your polite but insincere attempts to disguise it and portray yourself as a martyr."
Couldnt be more agree with you guys.
Furthermore I do not make "digs" at gays that I "disapprove" of. I do not disapprove of these people. It is the actions of same gay people that I disapprove of. A whale of a difference.
If you think my ideas of respect and tolerance for diversity of opinion and accountability for one's own actions are fodder for insidious and dark minds, I really would be wasting time expressing my thoughts.
I do always appeciate a well argued issue. At times I might be labeled a contrarian, but again, that is a word that means little in the context of this discussion, because the content that words was used simply implies - apparentlyany gay man that does not share their view is contrarian. I personally think it is better to stand and speak openly and honestly, rather than play follow the leader.
If I am labeled a contrarian though, I will accept the title with pride, as that would certainly put me in good company, as all too often, doing what is popular is frequently not doing what is truly right.
I am reminded of another politician, Sunil Pant, Member of Parliament in the Nepalese government. Not only was he openly gay, but he got into politics on the strength of the social work he did protecting the rights of gay minorities in Nepal. And, he has actually legalised gay marriage in Nepal, and is now busy promoting gay tourism in Nepal.
Sunil Pant understands the tremendous opportunities that his position of leadership has given him to change and influence people's wrong attitudes and beliefs and correct the ills of his society.
What a contrast to this pathetic little Roy Ashburn. He clearly has no understanding of his job as a senator. He says he "cast votes that his constituents wanted." What was he: a mindless voting machine? Does he even understand words like leader and leadership? Did he ever attempt to change or influence any of the wrong perceptions held by the homophobic majority against the gay community?
Even if he was too craven to come out and support gay people openly, because of his wife and kids or whatever, at least he could have abstained from harmful voting against the community.
The fellow actually had the gall to father four children before deciding women were not for him. With friends like this weirdo, gays don't need enemies.
Think about it. You could have an equal rights civil union. Along with it:
You could arrange your own wedding ceremony (a gay priest could officiate) and a wedding reception and party. Nobody would stop you from calling it a wedding.
You could invite family and friends to your wedding party. Nobody would stop you from calling it a wedding party.
You could print and send out as many wedding invitations as you choose to. Nobody would stop you.
You could print out your own wedding certificate and display it prominently anywhere you wished to. Nobody would stop you -- unless of course you tried to use it to con someone and take advantage of them in some way.
You could place ads in the papers saying you're married (unless of course those papers had policies against such ads, which is a separate issue and could be tackled separately).
You could ride through town, displaying "just married" on your car. Nobody would stop you -- except of course perhaps some homophobes, but that's not what we're talking about here. Legally you should be free to ride around town saying you're married.
Really, what's the difference between this famous marriage thing and a civil union? Just about the only difference would be on one legal document that would say you have entered into a civil union rather than calling it a marriage. And in your tax forms you would fill in "civil union" about once a year, perhaps. The same with some insurance papers.
Who cares? Who even looks at that civil union document, other than occasionally in relation to some tax or insurance matters? Or, are you the type who loves to show your legal documents to visitors and friends at home, the way others show their travel photos and videos? Wow.
"Hey, Xxx's has invited us over this evening to flip through his legal documents over drinks."
"Oh, goody. About time."
Yeah. Right.
Please read the wonderful story "The Sneetches" by Dr Seuss: also available as a great cartoon video. Hopefully it would make you realize that the only reason some of you want this marriage is that it seems to be so hard to get.
Otherwise, can you explain why so much of the married community is rushing for divorce?
Needless to say, we do not live in a perfect society ( in the US or elsewhere) and some, by ignorance, other by malice, would seek to deny the equal protection our laws are supposed to afford to us. In such cases, I would encourage support of existing law, not making new laws.
There is a legitmate debate about the role of government in our lives. Again, speaking of the US, as that is my experience, the relationship defined in the US Constitution is from WE THE PEOPLE - granting certain powers to the government. The document further defines the role it will play in our country. It defines the relationship between the government and those governed, not between individuals. There are people that have sought to expand that and in some cases done so successfully, for example now there have been laws written that define relationships between citizens, for example: Such rights as freedom of association have been deeply abridged - If I as a gay man decided I wished to hire only gay employees for my business, or rent apartments only to gay tenants, that has been deemed an illegal act by our government, claiming discrimination. In an effort to "right wrongs" good intentioned legislation has been put in place that weakens our freedoms and actions. It is not possible to legislate away ills of society. It is only possible by positive action to change the hearts and minds of those that seek to repress or harm others.
Without civil rights legislation actively being passed throughout the past numerous decades, there could never have been legal recourse in such a situation, because if a judge granted such recourse it would be seen as unprecedented interpretation from the law aka "activism from the bench." This is why we write new laws, is it not? (I've never studied law, I'm just writing this from my understanding)
It would be easy for one to say "In a free society he has the freedom to choose which company to work for and he shouldn't have chosen that one!" but we both know the reality of life is not so black and white.
Should you, as a gay man, also have the power to evict a tenant should you discover he/she is straight? Is that really a free society? You have the freedom to choose, but the victim does not. The victim did not choose to be straight. But you did choose to evict him/her. That is not a society that grants freedom to all, but freedom to the one on top. In my opinion, that is why the majority of people agree with civil rights (read: not special rights) legislation and why the public opinion has continued to tip in favor of such protective laws over the decades.
I recall one of the most salient quotes relating to the passage of the 1960s civil rights legislation came from Senator Barry Goldwater who was called and extremist for opposing this bill - Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. To reduce or limit the freedoms of some to secure them for others is always wrong. Instead we should work for equal application of those rights for all people within the existing framework of law that is blind to each of the wrongs that were to be corrected.
If I am the owner of a property, it is my right to decide who I wish to live there. Likewise, as a business owner, I should be able to freely choose who I hire at my sole discretion.
That being said, living in a capitalist free market system, MOST people in these circumstances could care less about private sexual practice, race or other issues, as long as your money is green.
My grandfather owned 8 apartment buildings and vacant apartments do not pay the bills. If a tenant had the ability to pay the rent and maintained the apartment in a clean manner and was respectul to neighboring tenants, he never had an issue to who he rented.
As an employer, if an employee is an asset to a business, an employer would have to be a fool to fire someone that makes him money. If he did, I think that would be a great impetus to go work for his competitor and make him regret his shortsighted decision.
Furthermore, I would have no desire to live or work in a place where I was not welcomed. If my living or employment circumstances were always in an adversarial relationship with the owner, I think it would be a highly stressful environment that I would prefer to avoid.
I would rather take my money and my talents to another that welcomes me freely, rather than under threat of government action.
This is loosely referred to as freedom of association. We should be allowed to freely associate with who we choose.
I think each time we cede a bit of freedom to a governing authority we are one stop closer to authoritarian rule.
To be turned down solely on the basis of sexual orientation, race, etc. violates one's right to live freely (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The right to deny someone housing or employment on something that has no relevance to their merit as an employee/renter/etc. is not one that is protected by the Constitution.
I really can't tell whether you think people should have the right to deny housing or employment... because you say that you should have that right because it's your "freedom of association" but in the same breath you keep commenting that you would like to see people's freedom from discrimination enforced by "equal application of existing laws." It sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.
I could never support any law that creates special protections that are not in the Constitution of the United States. The powers of the government derives from the consent of those governed and the very foundation of it is that we consent to give certain powers to the government. Those powers do not include defining the nature of personal association. There is not article that defines relationships between citizens, only between citizens and the government. The thought that any government can force an assocation involuntary upon one citizen to "protect" another is a ceding of freedom I can never accept. Good intentions do not always yield good results. Once we start losing our rights nibble by nibble it is only a matter of time before we are devoured in the jaws of a lion.
No one spoke about special rights. You live in the states, you should be better aware than others who live elsewhere that the right to marry and live free from discrimination is not special rights. Gay rights are not special rights. Right to love, marry and live with the person we love is not special rights: it is human rights. You obviously have not realised that, and gay or not, does not believe in it.
In the original posting, no one used the words 'special rights'. You started it. The article quoted a representative from EQUALITY California" but I guess you missed that too.
In every comment you have posted, you have gone against what is common sense where issues of discrimination and equal rights have been discussed.
Either you are a straight person masquerading as a gay man or you are blind to the level of your closetedness and homophobia.
I must compliment you though. You can certainly fill space with words, and you can drown with words everyone who has written to you. Does that make you right?
We here, are the gay community, and we are telling you what we think of you and your responses. But it's clear you are not listening cos you are too busy telling the rest of the world they are wrong and admiring yourself in the mirror for being that balanced, rational and straight aligning persona (not) you have built up for yourself.
This from gug (gayuganda blog) article today "Is this love?":
"No. They are not Kenyans. Ugandans? No, they are not Ugandans. Then where the hell are these guys coming from who are nakedly threatening a poor Kenyan with death? Here is the answer.
ProjectSee.com, which is based in Kansas City, is raising funds to 'equip our Kenyan Brothers with Cameras, Banners, Fliers, Posters, Bus Fare; the Tools they Need to STOP Exporting Evil'.
Yes, they are Americans. At least that is what I surmise."
http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/
I live in the US not because of the Republican party but my intellect. Before you open your mouth and make these moronic speculations, you need to question yourself how idiotic you will sound to others. That wisdom comes with age, but I guess it has escaped you. And while I am doing my squats, I think of how great I will feel afterward. A healthy mind in a healthy body, remember that?
that why gay men can't get anything done, cause too much in fighting and those activisits that supposedly are trying to unite the community are too busy making money off porn and running gay saunas and making money off us normal gay men
Please log in to use this feature.