What started as a good thing went bad—thanks to HRC and Barney Frank.
The New York Health Department reported a 62% spike among MSM. Those numbers have a lot to teach us.
Hold a mirror up to gay generalizations and you’ll see the humor in it all.
A New York Times story on young gay married men presented dry stereotypes.
advertisement
advertisement
|
By Michael Lucas
Friday, March 14, 2008
GAYS SHOULD BE hoping that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in the general election. Hillary isn’t stronger than Barack Obama on just gay rights; she’s also stronger than her opponent on national security issues. Obama, in my opinion, is feeding off a stupid and dangerous tendency among American voters to go for a fresh face over a seasoned mind.
It’s worth mentioning that firstly, I can’t imagine Obama beating McCain in November. Many current polls reinforce that idea for me. Parenthetically, I’ll state that McCain is not the worst person the Republicans could nominate.
In most other places in the world, political experience is valued as a prerequisite for holding high office. Unfortunately in America, we’ve seen relatively inexperienced people such as Jimmy Carter and the two Bushes leapfrogging over better candidates by virtue of, quite frankly, idiocy among the voters and the media.
When Al Gore ran against W. in 2000, the media for some reason never got tired of asking voters with whom they would rather have a beer—Bush or Gore. Bush won the beer drinkers’ opinion poll and the election. Why do so many Americans, when it comes to such serious matters as choosing a president, value supposed likeability over political chops?
Then too, I can’t understand why anybody would base his or her choice for president on the candidate’s gender, skin color, or religion. Political matters are too important to be decided on that basis. I know Americans understand very little about politics, so it is appropriate for me to remind readers that the word “politics” comes from a Greek noun which translated to English means “the science of the state, the art of governing and the art of administrating the destiny of the nation.” So no matter how tempting it might be to have a “first” this or that minority member as president, the decision regarding for whom to vote should be based exclusively on the candidate’s platform, experience, knowledge and ability to lead the nation. And I would not shy away from voting for the right person even if he happens to belong to the Republican Party.
I HOPE I DON’T have to go through all the details of everything good we know about Hillary: her education at Wellesley and Yale, her stands on issues, her support for gay rights, and her status as First Lady of Arkansas, a very involved First Lady of eight years, and then as a two term U.S. Senator. Among her many accomplishments as Senator are her taking a leading role in investigating health problems experienced by 9/11 emergency workers and her voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment twice. We should not forget that Hillary has been very candid and open about her long friendship with her lesbian college roommate Eldie Acheson. And it was also nice to see Sen. Clinton march more than once in gay pride parades.
Then you look at Obama, a typical example of an American presidential candidate rising from almost nowhere. He’s a first-term senator, and his greatest plus appears to be his perceived articulateness. Don’t get me wrong. Being articulate is great. We definitely have been stuck with a loser in that department for the length of the Bush presidency (his ability to speak could only be compared to one Yasser Arafat), and having a president who can speak English better than W. will be a humongous relief. But it isn’t as if Hillary weren’t articulate.
And we don’t know very much about Obama vis-à-vis gay issues beyond his flowery speeches. Here, by the way, is something Mr. Articulate said to the Chicago Tribune: “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Every time that Obama’s campaign hits a snag with an anti-gay Obama supporter, Obama emerges to make one of his enchanting monologues. It happened with Donnie McClurkin; it happened with Louis Farrakhan. McClurkin is a bogus jerk suffering from internalized homophobia; he advocates for ex-gay ministries. Farrakhan on the other hand has as his occupation leading the Nation of Islam. He has said that the white man is “the skunk of the earth.” So much for rapprochement. As recently as February 2006, Farrakhan said “"These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality.”
Yet Obama had to be prodded, by Hillary Clinton, towards a full rejection of Farrakhan’s support. As Sen. Clinton said: “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting.” Speaking of her 2000 campaign to become senator, she said “I made it very clear that I did not want their support, I rejected it. I would not be associated with people that make such comments.” Hillary said that to Obama’s face, whereupon Obama did say that he “would” reject Farrakhan. But where is the official communication from Obama rejecting Farrakhan and his support?
Do we really need a president who can’t be bothered to reject a supporter who says that it’s the wicked Jews that are promoting lesbianism and homosexuality? Isn’t it strange that Obama didn’t find the right words of complete rejection? Something like this would do: “You, sir, should never mention my name in any of your ‘speeches,’ because you and those who support you disgust me and I would rather lose my candidacy than have your support.” Instead, he carefully minced his words.
Then there’s the question of who is supporting Obama. I would like to rest my case by having you go to the website www.muslimsforobama08.com. It has an English audio translation of the Koran for you to enjoy. I’m not interested in voting for a candidate supported by terrorists and candidates for the terrorists.
It’s important to remember that progress in gay rights in the United States has a connection to what is happening in our international relations. Hillary offers sound experience and wisdom in dealing with friend and foe alike. Obama wants to talk directly with Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He’s the monster who has gays hung in public squares, and then denies that gays are hung in his country on the basis that there are no gays in his country. What is Obama going to talk to that eternal terrorist about?
If there were another terrorist attack on American soil, the electorate would vote for politicians even more conservative that Bush, and as a result, expanding gay rights would have a very low priority in the country. In the past seven years, terrorists have carried out attacks in Spain, Great Britain and many other places—but not in the U.S. We are doing something right, and I don’t want Obama to change that.
Hillary’s campaign was criticized for releasing a dramatic television advertisement in Texas intimating that she is stronger than Obama on national security. But if you look at these two candidates’ records, it’s clear that Hillary truly is stronger on security. And homeland security, when all is said and done, is favorable to progress in gay rights. Were a combination of Obama’s naïveté and greenness to result in a terrorist attack on the U.S., a certain casualty of that attack would afterward be gay rights. So I close as I opened: We should all be hoping that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in the general election.
Michael Lucas is the president and CEO of LucasEntertainment.com. You can read more about his thoughts and his XXX movies at LucasBlog.com.
|
