What a joke. Ace claims to be the champion of "free-thinking gays", yet he bans such free-thinking gays (like me) from commenting on his site.

How depressing that Ace is right on all counts here. (And he will be right until the anti-Hillary campaign starts addressing gay issues.)

Ace and Bill will never be in a position to comment on what a gay person is thinking.

And what is Ace implying? That there are not self-loathing gay people? That's a joke. There are plenty of them. How can there not be, when there are so many people out there (mostly Republicans) who are constantly telling them that they are second-class citizens?

This guy could be self-loathing, although considering the fact that he went out and got married, I would highly doubt it. But other self-loathing Republicans - let's just say every closeted gay person is probably self-loathing to some extent. And from my experience, I would say that at least 50% of gay people are still in the closet.

If by "great" you mean "disjointed, poorly-written, and disingenuous," well then yes...Ace does indeed have a "great post."

Personaly, I thought Clinton was showing true loving Christian kindness towards Arthur Finkelstein, who is a well-known lying sack of shit.

But here's the point you and Ace are tap-dancing furiously around, trying not to notice:

If you met a black man who worked for the KKK, wouldn't you think he might be "self-loathing?" How about a Jewish man who worked for the Aryan Nation? Then what DO you call a gay man working for a party that is actively seeking to deny him civil rights and calls him an "abomination?"

A patriot.

Dear DL (Ninny),

I offered to unban you. You said, "Don't bother, I wear it like a badge of honor."

So, belly up to the bar and have yourself a nice tall cool glass of foaming Shut the Fuck Up Already.

It's on me, DL. It's on me.

Just try and silence me.

Trust me Ace - I don't want to comment on your blog, which doesn't tolerate dissent.

But for Karol's readers, I'll remind them of the "love" for gay people that's coming from your site:

"Fag" - Ace of Spades

Comparing gay marriage to insest - rw, hobgoblin

"Homo" - Ace of Spades

"Lad's problem isn't just about gay marriage as you've pointed out, and nothing short of intense therapy and/or a well-aimed lobotomy is going to help him catch a proverbial clue." - bbeck

"Hate queers much, Garrison?" - hobgoblin

"And if you're looking for a sugar anus, you're not better off than me, bucko." - hobgoblin
"But I don't have any obligation to talk to retards." - Ace of Spades
"Fags smell like man poopies." - Stankleberry

This guy may not be self-loathing, but we can be certain that all Ace of Spaders are gay-loathers.

So what's Ace's authority on anything concerning gay rights? Zero.

What's Ace's authority on anything about gay-bashing? Lots!

I loves me the tough guy talk in the blog comments. So manly, so alluring.

You inspired me to write a post about you Ace:

http://downtownlad.blogspot.com/2005/04/ace-of-spades-is-moron.html

Typical Ace - bashing gays again and trying to tell us how to think.

Shhhh, darling. Let's not play these games any longer.

Christ died for our sins-

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved

Sorry Ace - but writing discrimination into the Constitution is not a "game" for me.

This is ridiculous - Democrats as a party haven't fought for gay marriage and don't show any inclination to start, yet somehow they're the saviors and Republicans are the bigots. It's the stupidest form of identity politics - emotional and based on total ignorance of the facts.

Yaron:

Until 1 to 2 years ago I would have completely agreed with you and I still basically do. However, the Republicans are inviting this kind of stuff solely and completely because of the FMA. There was no need for it. There was already the DOMA (signed into law by a Democratic President), the mini-DOMAs in - what - 38 now (?) - states, and the fact that a lot of judges and lawyers don't think the "full faith and credit clause" of the constitution applies to marriage anyway. Yet still, in a presidential election year, they felt the need to push for the FMA anyway. It was just such a transparently mean-spirited, cynical move and I think Republicans deserve endless flack for it.

Spot on Eric!

In the Republican party, if you don't agree with gay-bashing (John McCain, Giuliani, etc.) than you're called a RINO.

Fuck the gays the Republicans are trying to tear down Fannie Mae.

DL and Eric,

The great majority of the country is against gay marriage. Deal with that. It's something like 70-30, sometimes 80-20. If people see gay marriage becoming a reality despite this enormous opposition, ideas like the FMA get tossed around. Now, you can both spit at people who are against gay marriage and/or support the FMA but I gotta tell you, you're not going to change a lot of minds by calling people who disagree with you bigots. I think that's the biggest problem with the gay marriage movement. They aren't interested in changing minds, just in forcing through the courts what they could never accomplish via their legislatures. I think that's a big problem today and will be a bigger problem in the future when the issue really comes to a head.

McCain isn't a RINO, just an opportunist.

You're confusing issues Karol. I completely realize that the vast majority of the country - and members of both political parties - are against gay marriage. That's why all of these anti gay-marriage measures have been enacted in so many different states. While I would have voted against the bans if I lived in one of those states, I know it's completely within their rights to enact those bans, and I would oppose the federal government forcing them to recognize gay marriages from other states. What I find over-the-top, and not merely from the perspective of its being anti-gay, but from a conservative, constitutionalist/federalist perspective is the FMA itself. You're right that most people are against gay marriage, but only one of the two major political parties drafted and pushed for the FMA. Hence, they're deservedly the one with the greater reputation for being anti-gay.

This is also why I think the push for the FMA was actually a stupid move politically in the long run for Republicans. All the Democrats have to do is nothing (which is what they are doing) and they seem to be the friends of gay people and defenders of civil liberties just by comparison.

Eric, people saw that individual states were allowing gay marriage and demanded action. I was against the FMA, but I can understand the motivation behind it. When the numbers are as skewed as they are on the gay marriage issue, it's reasonable that the federal government will try to act. I disagree with it, but it's not unusual.

It's not 70-30 Karol. It's 70-30 in Flyover Country. In New York, NJ, Massachusetts, CT, RI, the majority are in FAVOR of gay marriage.

I respect your argument, which is that this shouldn't be handled by the courts. That's a completely legitimate subject for debate. Honestly, I don't even know where I stand on that point all the time. It's a very tough call to say that the US Constitution allows for gay marriage. But in states such as California and Massachusetts, which have Equal Right Amendments, it's not a stretch at all.

However, I have no qualms calling those who are against gay marriage bigots, because they are. Does that mean most of the country are bigots? Damn right. And that includes my entire family. I have no problem calling them bigots to their face.

I don't expect to have gay marriage in my lifetime. So I think that gives me the right to at least point fingers and say "bigot" as a consolation prize.

DL, I can't speak for NJ, Mass and the rest, but the only poll I've seen on gay marriage in NY had it at 60-40 against. I mean, think about it. Both NY senators are against gay marriage. If the majority of people were for it, trust me those opportunists would be all over it.

As for calling people 'bigots', I think it's wrong. I know people that hate gay people but are for gay marriage on the 'what the hell do I care?' principle and people who are 'pro-gay' in every sense except changing the definition of marriage. You have to understand that that change is going to be met with resistance and it doesn't have to be because the person is a bigot.

I'm going to search for the NY poll but in the meantime, here is one of just NY City that is 51-40 FOR gay marriage. Again, think about that. The city, one of the most liberal places in America, only favors gay marriage by 9 points. Imagine the rest of the state.

70-30 against in California.

55-37 against in New York State.

53-35 against in Mass. By the way, before court imposed gay marriage, Mass was 48-43 in support of gay marriage.

Connecticut is 49-46 in support of gay marriage.

I can't find poll numbers for RI but I imagine it's similar to CT.

Here's a NJ Poll:

http://politicsnj.com/adubato082803.htm

Here's a NY Poll:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/040605nyPoll.htm

Also, just because you are a bigot, doesn't mean you hate them. It just means that you think they are not as good as straight people, second-class citizens, etc. And anyone who endorses enshrining bigotry into the constitution is a bigot in my book.

Well, you could make the case that the constitution's rules of eligibility for running for office (minimum age, must be a natural-born U.S. citizen in some cases) are bigoted too. So you might be a little late on that one.

So then here's my questions: suppose I know someone who is gay. Does the fact that I am consciously aware of it whenever I'm with that person make me a bigot? Or does it make me a bigot if I don't give it a second thought?

Just rereading my post above. Don't take the use of the word "you" above literaly. I should have said "one". I certainly don't mean to imply that Karol is bigoted!!!!

Love ya Karol!

Yaron - Not sure if those examples are valid. Is this Constitution bigoted against those under 18? Probably. My answer is - so what. Those over 18 are generally more intelligent and more mature, so such bigotry is warrented. And it applies to all people equally. Same thing with foreigners. Want to vote? Then become a U.S. citizen. Can't become a citizen - well tough luck - vote in your own country. Are U.S citizens treated better than foreigners in this country? Yes. Again - so what. Gay people can't become straight, which is a lot different than a 17 year-old who just has to wait one year to be 18, or a foreigner who can one day become a U.S. citizen.

Shawn - No, that doesn't make you a bigot. But it does imply that you have some latent homophobia if you are constantly thinking about the fact that the person is gay. Do you constantly think about the fact that the person might be a brunette, or short, or has a big nose? Probably not. So why the fixation on the fact that they are gay? Not a big deal though, as most of the country probably acts as you do.

Perhaps the best anaolgy is this question.

Should somebody who favors a Constitutional Amendment that would ban inter-racial marriage be considered a racist?

I say yes. So what's the difference here?

"Gay people can't become straight"

So being gay is a disease, much like pedophilia, once you get it, you have a low statistical likely hood of ever recovering?

If it is genetic, where is the X gene? Do not forget we have mapped the entire human genome, and I think that this one would be easily to find.

Cube - If you think being gay is a choice, please do share with us when you decided to choose to become straight? We're all interested in hearing your story.

Sexual orientation is one of the most ingrained components of mankind. Do you honestly believe that most women choose to like men simply as a matter of "choice" and most men choose to like women simply as a matter of "choice" and there's absolutely zero biological component to it?

There's ample evidence for a biological component to being gay. Both genetic as well as hormonal. If you'd do some basic research, you'd find lots of evidence.

I love it when people with no scientific training argue about science anyway, as if it were some kind of apriori knowledge. They're ignorant and opinionated. How efficient.

Hey, if you can't dazzle them with substance or style, then blind them with science.