That was a terribly written article. Who said what, and what's their affiliation with the State Democratic party?

Apparently "someone" suggested the gay Republican would promote the homosexual agenda, and if that's true, then that's idiotic no matter who said it... but the article is so unfocused, either the author sucks and should be fired, or it's done deliberately because it wouldn't be a scandal if it turned out some drunk Democratic voter who holds no position of power in the state party ran his ignorant mouth off.

Serves me right for clicking on a Reason article. More often than not it's barely distinguishable from American Thinker.

The truth has a liberal bias.

Forrest says a number of conservatives have told him, "We heard you're a homosexual." He has told them he is, and has always been openly gay. As Forrest tells the tale, they have said they learned about it from Democratic volunteers, who also told them Forrest "would be promoting the homosexual agenda in our schools." Nice.

It's clearly the fault of Democrats that conservatives are asking a Republican candidate if he'll promote the homosexual agenda.

The message to conservative Republicans, Imarti goes on, is: "He's gay! You guys say you're anti-gay but you have a gay candidate. What you gonna do now?"

Yeah, that's kind of a really fair farking question.

Second, the GOP's homophobia will disappear as more Republicans' family members and friends come out of the closet. Just look at Vice President Dick Cheney. He has a gay daughter, Mary-and he supports gay marriage. Probably not just a coincidence. Perhaps nothing would do more good for the cause of tolerance in Virginia than to have an openly gay member at every meeting of the House Republican caucus.

Yeah, and it's not the Democratic farking party's responsibility to make that happen. The very fact that attitudes against gays in the Republican party are so strong that people are asking about the "homosexual agenda" shows that the party is pretty farking far from actually leaving its homophobia behind.

To paraphrase Imarti: You guys say you're pro-gay, but you're running an anti-gay whisper campaign. What you gonna do about it?

Is it anti-gay if Democrats are just pointing out someone who is openly gay is gay, and leaving the homophobic right-wingers to do their own retarded agenda math?

For fark's sake, the entire thrust of TFA seems to be, "Democrats need to stop being so mean! The Republicans will eventually catch up to them on homophobia, so don't talk about it or point out the hypocrisy in any party or candidate!"

Forrest is openly gay. The Democrats aren't planting anti-gay smears. They're just pointing out that he is gay, and since his potential constituents are, on his side of the political divide, homophobic cockbites, that could be strategically problematic for him. If he was closeted, it might be another story, but he's openly gay and the anti-gay farkwits he wants to vote for him might not know that. That's not a smear campaign, that's political comedy.

Comparing it to the Southern Strategy is kind of ridiculous. It's more like a black guy running for office under 1960s-era Republicans (granted, Democrats weren't particularly good, but let's focus on the political strategy angle of it), and Democrats pointing out that he's black, and under the Republican party platform that kind of means some inconsistencies.

Jesus Shiatting-Through-His-Empty-Eyesockets Christ, if it's so farking bad for your political career for people to actually know who you are, maybe you should reconsider which party you're stumping for.

Did a gay republican soldier get booed by a democrat and his crowd?

Dan the Schman: That was a terribly written article. Who said what, and what's their affiliation with the State Democratic party?

Apparently "someone" suggested the gay Republican would promote the homosexual agenda, and if that's true, then that's idiotic no matter who said it... but the article is so unfocused, either the author sucks and should be fired, or it's done deliberately because it wouldn't be a scandal if it turned out some drunk Democratic voter who holds no position of power in the state party ran his ignorant mouth off.

Serves me right for clicking on a Reason article. More often than not it's barely distinguishable from American Thinker.

Reason has to be the most inappropriately named magazine, as this article clearly shows. Maybe they should rename themselves to Whiner.

What's the hub bub, bub? I thought everyone knew Republicans were gay?

Gwyrddu: Reason has to be the most inappropriately named magazine, as this article clearly shows. Maybe they should rename themselves to Whiner.

They're neck and neck with Pravda

Gwyrddu: Reason has to be the most inappropriately named magazine, as this article clearly shows. Maybe they should rename themselves to Whiner.

It's one of those "repeat it often enough and maybe people'll be convinced that it's true" names. See also:

-The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
-The FairTax

Subby can't read. Reason can't write.
This isn't even an overzealous staffer.

keithgabryelski: where is the slur?

I guess I missed it too. Apparently stating that a gay candidate is gay is now a slur.

So he's pissed that Democratic "operatives" are telling Republicans voters that he's gay?

And they're telling him they won't vote for him because he's gay?

And the GOP has anti-gay rights planks as part of its platform?

I think I see the problem here, and its no one's fault but his own.

/don't see how any self-respecting gay man could be a member of the Repiblican Party at this point

SamFlagg: "It's ok, winning this election important to the democrats, and we're hoping that you'll choose your homophobia over defeating us, we'll call it political strategy so its morally acceptable."

Letting hypocrites suffer for their hipocrisy is, to my mind, morally acceptable.

What I got out of that article is that Kavita Imarti isn't helping and should stop saying stupid things (that people will interpret as being official Democratic positions), especially when she's drunk.

SamFlagg: Look, not voting for a guy because he's gay is stupid, but let's not feign ignorance that any type of "Did you know he was gay?" talk is being done as some sort of public service with ideals beyond repute.

While it may not have been the intention, I believe revealing people who are gay are actually gay is a public service for homophobes. The more gay people homophobes know about, especially ones who don't conform to their stereotypes, the less they can justify their homophobia. There are still plenty of people who think (openly) gay means you are fabulous and liberal, which isn't necessarily the case as it isn't with this Republican.

SamFlagg: But wouldn't there be more progress to be gained on the issue by having gay republicans get elected instead of attempting to try as hard as possible to encourage 'he's gay' to be equatable with unelectable?

And there would be even more progress if a gay republican gets elected even after his opponent makes it well known that he is gay, as that would go to show other Republicans that they have little to fear from coming out of the closet, and upset the anti-gay platform that Republicans still usually stick to.

Obenshain tells the Blade that Howell referred to Forrest as a RINO, a Republican in Name Only. "She ticked off three of four things that would, I guess, indicate he was not conservative. . . . including that he had a partner."


Awe look at the cute State Senator who can't tell the difference between a Republican and a Conservative and uses the words interchangeably. Surely claiming that being gay is against current Republican ideas is the racial slur you are all looking for.

The rest of the article goes on to basically read: "Word of advice Democrats, the GOP is evil. Don't be like the GOP, so vote Republican."

keithgabryelski: where is the slur?

pointing out someone is gay is not a slur. "batting for the other team" is not a slur.

and -- i'm ok with the democratic opposition pointing out that republicans think gays are less than
human and how could they support someone for office they believe is less human.

As a gay republican, I find this to be a HIGHLY offensive slur. Like I would be caught dead accessorizing with a BASEBALL BAT.... the thought!

/not that theres anything WRONG with that.... wait, yes, yes there is. its past labor day for God sake...

Will someone kindly point me to the one conservative website that isn't full of articles that read as though they were written by a jealous high school chick? There's grasping at straws, and then there's that commercial box of 10,000 delivered to your local Burger King.

Look man, contrary opinions are something I really enjoy. But you gotta do better than this, subtard. Some of Fark's RoboShills have hundreds (and in at least one case, thousands) of greenlights, and all of them can quickly be logically dismantled or otherwise discredited by my dog..We're talking about a dog who licks the couch and scares herself by farting in her sleep. If you guys have so many greenlights, why can't you find ONE column that merits serious, persuasive discussion? I used to hear Pat Buchanan barking on CNN's Crossfire and he even he made far more sense than 99% of the right's internet presence.

To be entirely fair, DailyKOS sucks too.

SamFlagg: So if I've got the gist of the article right....and the gist of the comments right.

Since there are some republicans that will not vote for this person because he is gay, it is perfectly acceptable for the democrats to actively use that prejudice to make sure the gay republican doesn't get elected.

"I'm going to vote for that guy"
"He's gay!"
"Oh well I'm a homophobe so I won't vote for him."
"It's ok, winning this election important to the democrats, and we're hoping that you'll choose your homophobia over defeating us, we'll call it political strategy so its morally acceptable."

I don't see how you see this as some sort of a moral issue on the part of teh Democrats, unless you're trolling. It's no different than pointing out that a Republican candidate is (say) pro-choice; the fact that the Republican base won't vote for him is the fault of the Republican base, not the people pointing this out.

SamFlagg: But wouldn't there be more progress to be gained on the issue by having gay republicans get elected instead of attempting to try as hard as possible to encourage 'he's gay' to be equatable with unelectable?

What exactly is to be gained by running as part of a party which wants to limit your civil rights? It's like saying the best thing African Americans could do to fight racism is to join the KKK.

It isn't the incumbent's fault that Republican voters are such hateful bigots that they wont vote for someone who's gay. And quite frankly, why wouldn't she use that to her advantage even though, like many other farkers here have pointed out, there's no real evidence presented in the article that she has made a move to do so? Her Republican opponent will be making thinks up about her; calling her a baby killer, a wastrel, a friend to rapists and murders who wants to pervert the minds of children with the porn-loving "liberal agenda", and a terrible woman for being successful instead of a kitchen wench. Politics isn't polite and it never has been. If Mr. Forrest's homosexuality is a political liability, that's only because the Republican party has gone to great lengths to make it so.

Dan the Schman:
Serves me right for clicking on a Reason article. More often than not it's barely distinguishable from American Thinker.

But if this had been a Daily Kos article covering the "non-scandal scandal", everyone here would believe it because "Kossacks" are a bunch of damn biased liars.

/At least they don't make false promises of reason or thought.

Every time I hear about gay republicans, I think of Uncle Ruckus. It's kind of hilarious to see someone support a group that will never, ever allow them to have the same rights.

Bloody William: Forrest says a number of conservatives have told him, "We heard you're a homosexual." He has told them he is, and has always been openly gay. As Forrest tells the tale, they have said they learned about it from Democratic volunteers, who also told them Forrest "would be promoting the homosexual agenda in our schools." Nice.

It's clearly the fault of Democrats that conservatives are asking a Republican candidate if he'll promote the homosexual agenda.

The message to conservative Republicans, Imarti goes on, is: "He's gay! You guys say you're anti-gay but you have a gay candidate. What you gonna do now?"

Yeah, that's kind of a really fair farking question.

Second, the GOP's homophobia will disappear as more Republicans' family members and friends come out of the closet. Just look at Vice President Dick Cheney. He has a gay daughter, Mary-and he supports gay marriage. Probably not just a coincidence. Perhaps nothing would do more good for the cause of tolerance in Virginia than to have an openly gay member at every meeting of the House Republican caucus.

Yeah, and it's not the Democratic farking party's responsibility to make that happen. The very fact that attitudes against gays in the Republican party are so strong that people are asking about the "homosexual agenda" shows that the party is pretty farking far from actually leaving its homophobia behind.

To paraphrase Imarti: You guys say you're pro-gay, but you're running an anti-gay whisper campaign. What you gonna do about it?

Is it anti-gay if Democrats are just pointing out someone who is openly gay is gay, and leaving the homophobic right-wingers to do their own retarded agenda math?

For fark's sake, the entire thrust of TFA seems to be, "Democrats need to stop being so mean! The Republicans will eventually catch up to them on homophobia, so don't talk about it or point out the hypocrisy in any party or candidate!"

Forrest is openly gay. The Democrats aren't planting anti-gay smears. They're just pointing out that he is gay, and since his potential constituents are, on his side of the political divide, homophobic cockbites, that could be strategically problematic for him. If he was closeted, it might be another story, but he's openly gay and the anti-gay farkwits he wants to vote for him might not know that. That's not a smear campaign, that's political comedy.

Comparing it to the Southern Strategy is kind of ridiculous. It's more like a black guy running for office under 1960s-era Republicans (granted, Democrats weren't particularly good, but let's focus on the political strategy angle of it), and Democrats pointing out that he's black, and under the Republican party platform that kind of means some inconsistencies.

It's the same shiat as always. Democrats are expected by rightists to constantly be their moral superiors, subconsciously knowing what will offend them and not doing it, while also never being so gauche as to point out "hey, I'm a much better human being that those guys." Typical projection, typical double-standards, typical ethical incoherence, typical bs. Oh, and when was the last time Reason published an article about the Republican party's official homophobia?

kevinatilusa: Gwyrddu: Reason has to be the most inappropriately named magazine, as this article clearly shows. Maybe they should rename themselves to Whiner.

It's one of those "repeat it often enough and maybe people'll be convinced that it's true" names. See also:

-The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
-The FairTax

Yeah. Cons seem to have an unquenchable love and facility for the Newspeak.

SamFlagg: So if I've got the gist of the article right....and the gist of the comments right.

Since there are some republicans that will not vote for this person because he is gay, it is perfectly acceptable for the democrats to actively use that prejudice to make sure the gay republican doesn't get elected.

"I'm going to vote for that guy"
"He's gay!"
"Oh well I'm a homophobe so I won't vote for him."
"It's ok, winning this election important to the democrats, and we're hoping that you'll choose your homophobia over defeating us, we'll call it political strategy so its morally acceptable."

Look, not voting for a guy because he's gay is stupid, but let's not feign ignorance that any type of "Did you know he was gay?" talk is being done as some sort of public service with ideals beyond repute.

Politics ain't nice. Having said that, I don't see much equivalence between "hey, you know that guy is gay" said by some low-level staffer, and "That woman is an uppity whore who loves criminals and wants to kill your children" which is what Mr. Forrest's tv ads will be implying if they are anything like normal republican ads. If the party he's running for is so twisted that something as simple as the truth of who he loves will keep them from voting for him, then he deserves not to win.

SamFlagg: Gwyrddu: SamFlagg: But wouldn't there be more progress to be gained on the issue by having gay republicans get elected instead of attempting to try as hard as possible to encourage 'he's gay' to be equatable with unelectable?

And there would be even more progress if a gay republican gets elected even after his opponent makes it well known that he is gay, as that would go to show other Republicans that they have little to fear from coming out of the closet, and upset the anti-gay platform that Republicans still usually stick to.

Can't run until you can walk.

dickfreckle: Will someone kindly point me to the one conservative website that isn't full of articles that read as though they were written by a jealous high school chick? There's grasping at straws, and then there's that commercial box of 10,000 delivered to your local Burger King.

Look man, contrary opinions are something I really enjoy. But you gotta do better than this, subtard. Some of Fark's RoboShills have hundreds (and in at least one case, thousands) of greenlights, and all of them can quickly be logically dismantled or otherwise discredited by my dog..We're talking about a dog who licks the couch and scares herself by farting in her sleep. If you guys have so many greenlights, why can't you find ONE column that merits serious, persuasive discussion? I used to hear Pat Buchanan barking on CNN's Crossfire and he even he made far more sense than 99% of the right's internet presence.

To be entirely fair, DailyKOS sucks too.

The internet is a place for flame wars with no regard to being reasonable my good man! Actual discussion of the issue is not warranted! Flame! Flame!

You also pointed out that Daily KOS sucks. I must now ignore any point you were trying to make and presume you mean 'Both sides are bad, vote republican' I realize this isn't what you said, but ignoring what you said helps raise the odds that further posts in this thread will be based in rage and only rage.

*eyeroll* Jesus, you people are tiresome.

SamFlagg: TalenLee: SamFlagg: "It's ok, winning this election important to the democrats, and we're hoping that you'll choose your homophobia over defeating us, we'll call it political strategy so its morally acceptable."

Letting hypocrites suffer for their hipocrisy is, to my mind, morally acceptable.

But wouldn't there be more progress to be gained on the issue by having gay republicans get elected instead of attempting to try as hard as possible to encourage 'he's gay' to be equatable with unelectable?

Oh, so it's the Democratic party's responsibility to encourage open social values in the Republican party, is it? Good to know Republicans aren't expected to be responsible for their own damn selves; quite the position for cons to take that the "Party of Personal Responsibility" needs to be morally mothered by us benighted homo-loving hippie baby-killers.

But, hey, I'll grant you your point; let's say it IS a Dems responsibility to keep the RNC's backyard clean. A Dem can do that a hell of allot better from the State House than not. Therefore, by the Transitive Property of Social Utility, it is morally right for the Dem to politely use the bigotries of an opponent's voters against him or her if doing so might win them a political office from which they can work to banish those bigotries from public life. Lord knows that, given the example set by a long litany of previous gay Republicans, Mr. Forrest is far more likely to openly work against acceptance of homosexuals than for it.

SamFlagg: This right here is what I'm trying to point out seems inherently wrong. The idea that all things at all times should be on the table for political advantage

Well, notionally, they are.

SamFlagg: Is playing off of people's prejudice in an election only wrong when republicans do it?

No, but I can offer an interesting counter example: in a couple of elections since Barney Frank came out, the Republicans running against him have used the same tact, as he represents a conservative, working-class district in Mass. Each time, the response from his constituents has been: we don't care who he sleeps with as he does a good job representing us.

In that case, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that Rep Frank's gay, and it has no effect on the election, as Democrats (even conservative ones) are willing to put aside their prejudices for him. It's clear that Republicans are not.

I always wonder something.

Howcome conservatives know what the gay agenda is and we LGBT'ers don't?