Bernie Sanders

Sanders, Clinton Spar over Who Owns the Gay Vote

Top LGBT lobbying group announces a very predictable endorsement.

|

An establishment.
Credit: NCinDC / photo on flickr

To the extent that the LGBT community has an "establishment," the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is it. The lobbying organization has been around since the 1980s in D.C. heavily pushing for gay rights legislation. They managed to transform the gay marriage battle into a branding opportunity, getting folks to insert their equal sign logo into social media avatars, though really up until recent times they were actually focused on antidiscrimination and hate crime laws, not marriage recognition.

For politically aware gay Americans, the news yesterday that the HRC endorsed Hillary Clinton for president was a bit of a "dog bites man" story. Of course they did. Her husband was HRC's first endorsement in 1992 and they've endorsed the Democratic frontrunner for president ever since.

But what's different about this endorsement is that it comes as Clinton's poll numbers are taking a hit, and it appears that Sen. Bernie Sanders is actually starting to present a potential primary challenge. In 2008, when HRC endorsed Barack Obama, they waited until June, when Obama had secured the nomination. The timing of endorsing Clinton now, given that she and Sanders share the exact same position on every current LGBT issue, is particularly interesting. And it's all the more interesting that Sanders has a more pro-gay past, voting against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both of which were signed into law under President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton has been a late-comer to the gay marriage table and has been shamelessly lying about it, trying to convince the gay voters (many of whom know better) that DOMA was an attempt to stave off a constitutional amendment.

Some staff at the HRC are also politically ambitious movers and shakers. One of their recent presidents left in 2012 in order to join Obama's re-election campaign. It is very easy to look at this unanimous support from HRC's board for Clinton and imagine that some of these folks are fantasizing about plum administrative positions or campaign staff roles in their heads.

The Sanders campaign knows this and hit back over HRC's curiously timed endorsement. Via the Washington Blade:

"It's understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it's an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record," said Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs.

Touting Sanders as "somebody who's been for gay rights long, long ago" since he was mayor of Burlington, Vt., Briggs said Sanders as a U.S. senator voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993 and he voted against Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Briggs also cited Sanders' support in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn DOMA.

Recalling Sanders support for civil unions in Vermont when it became the first state to enact them in 2000, Briggs said Sanders was "a pioneer on this early version of gay marriage, and has by far the most exemplary record on gay rights of any candidate ever in American history."

Hillary Clinton supported DOMA through her 2000 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in New York and backed only repealing Section 3 of the law during her first presidential campaign. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton now support marriage equality.

"So who knows what prompted the Human Rights Campaign to do what it does — I have trouble myself figuring why they do some of the things they do over the years — but I think the gay men and lesbians all over the country will know who has been their champion for a long, long time and will consider that as they make up their mind on support for his campaign," Briggs said.

While all three Democratic candidates (don't forget Martin O'Malley!) may share the same current position on every single LGBT issue, recall that Clinton recently put out a lengthy, detailed agenda calling for the passage of all sorts of new laws and regulations; pretty much everything the HRC wants she is willing to push for. That laundry list apparently put her over the edge, though I find it extremely unlikely she wasn't the top choice even without the formal agenda.

It's not just the HRC that the Sanders campaign is dinging as part of the political "establishment." Last night on MSNBC, Sanders called Planned Parenthood, which also endorsed Clinton earlier in the month, part of the "establishment." This didn't set well with Jamil Smith at the New Republic, who calls it an "unforced error" due to his tendency to fall back on an anti-establishment message at the drop of the hat. Clinton's campaign also tweeted its own criticism:

While I don't disagree with the characterization of Sanders' campaign tendencies toward that one-note focus, I'm not sure I'd call this an error or even necessarily bad politicking. I can't speak on behalf of the Democratic voters' attitudes toward Planned Parenthood, but I would point out that obviously they're part of the established political left or else the defense that their services are vital for the health of women across the country would not make any sense.

But I can say with confidence that there's a significant population of LGBT who see the HRC as what Andrew Sullivan once called "a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill" and they do not like or trust the organization. When Briggs says he has trouble "figuring out why they do some of the things they do over the years," that is a dog whistle directed toward those who perceive the HRC leadership as aspiring political operatives securing their own futures rather than actual LGBT activists and compromising so as not to harm their relationship with the Democratic Party elites.

The timing of the endorsement is itself evidence for the argument. There are two possible reasons for putting out the endorsement now rather than waiting until after the primaries: To assist Clinton in defeating Sanders or to express a lack of confidence in Sanders' ability to defeat the eventual Republican nominee. Given the extremely nebulous, unpredictable state of the Republican race it's hard to accept the latter. A look at poll averages right now showing Clinton vs. various Republican candidates and Sanders vs. various Republican candidates suggests it's all extremely up in the air. Sanders does come out on top in some match-ups.

So that leaves the explanation that the HRC's endorsement is an attempt to boost Clinton against Sanders, and of course that leaves HRC open to criticism that it's supporting the establishment. For not a small number of people in the LGBT left, Sanders' criticism of HRC will not hurt him at all and might actually help him get some primary votes, particularly among older, disaffected gay voters who remember both Clinton's and the HRC's histories.

Advertisement

NEXT: How novel is the Supreme Court's decision to review the president's immigration guidance for consistency with the Take Care Clause?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Democrats really are going to implode over this identity politics shit. What percentage of the population are gays?

    I was reading an article somewhere the other day that more than 50% of hispanics or latinos now identify as white when asked the question on a survey or census. This might be bad news for Democrats who actually believe that they own minorities for some ridiculous reason. This combined with the PC non-sense is why I see Democrats losing even more elected positions around the country. Only the Berninaters can save them. They have to drop all this non-sense and just go full on commie already.

    1. Most of my gay friends hate Hillary. The ones that love Sanders do so mostly because they are like all the other dumb millennials. Most are pretty conservative/libertarian when it comes to government and anything other than gay rights.

      1. Why is there still a gay rights movement? They have all the same rights as everyone else, even marriage. It’s like the women’s movement, it once had a purpose, but now it’s pretty much a moot point.

        1. Pushing for the first openly gay president?

          1. Have you not heard that Obama the communist is gay?

            1. I, in fact, have heard that, but failed to care. For some reason I was a little more concerned over his shredding of constitutional law.

              1. And this is why Obama is gay:

                Mr Winky

            2. One supposes it’s tough to be an openly gay Muslim.

        2. Well, it’s only been a few months since the movement “won,” so I’d give it a bit more time before complaining.

          1. Movements aren’t about winning, they’re about moving goalposts.

            1. So, the black civil rights movement? Fuck the hell off.

            2. Eventually they all become self-licking ice-cream cones.

        3. Nuh uh! They can be fired for just being gay! No straight person has ever been fired for a BS reason /sarc

          1. If you would have said they can be ‘hired’ just for being gay, then yeah, I could agree with you.

    2. The Democrats really are going to implode over this identity politics shit. What percentage of the population are gays?

      It punches above its weight. There are people who aren’t gay but support the issues enough to judge a candidate on their gay bona fides.

    3. The mistake is not realizing that Republicans are even more into identity politics. Just the one.

  2. I would think the closeted lesbian has more support from the LGBT crowd.

  3. For politically aware gay Americans, the news yesterday that the HRC endorsed Hillary Clinton for president was a bit of a “dog bites man” story. Of course they did.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton, DUH!

  4. Sanders, Clinton Spar over Who Owns the Gay Vote

    *and* over owning the BDSM vote!

    1. What about the trannies, you cis-privileged macroagressing oppressor?

  5. I saw jesse yesterday wearing his Time for Hillary! mesh tank top. I wept.

    1. Where did you go wrong, I wonder?

    2. I thought it was bottoming for Hillary.

  6. Since we talking identity politics, why don’t we ask who owns the anarchist vote?

    1. Why would you vote? its simply validating the state.

      1. Says who?

        That a roadz! argument.

        1. YOU ARE SIMPLY POLISHING YOUR SLAVE CHAINS, SLAVE

          1. Perhaps I want to get my fingers dirty with actual policy work!

            Also, do you take me to have the temerity to speak for all of the anarchists?

            1. “Perhaps I want to get my fingers dirty with actual policy work!”

              You think voting does that?

              1. Almost all of the time, no, of course.

                If you stretched the conception / meaning of voting to
                include closely studying the policy proposals and voting records of the candidates, attended / watched debates, read the comments section at HuffPo and H&R, etc., then yes, perhaps.

                BTW, would you include eagerly accepting jury duty in case in order to nullify the application of a law, such as prosecution of parents who homeschooled their children without securing the state’s permission, as getting one’s fingers dirty with actual policy work?

                1. You’re less tiresome when you’re just accusing everyone of living as slaves.

      2. Worse, it’s attempting to oppress your neighbors.

    2. Nice. Who owns the decendant-of-slaves vote?

    3. Your mom.

    4. Almanian has put forth some intriguing ideas…

      1. I am intrigued. Does he publish those ideas in a newsletter?

    5. Does the anarchist vote make the gay vote look like the black vote?

  7. Not Gary Johnson?

    1. Gays won’t vote for Gay Jay? Who refuses to wear the ribbon!?

      1. If you don’t wear the ribbon, you’re endorsing war.

    2. If length of time supporting LGBT equal freedom were the criterion, the organizations would be as fervently libertarian as they actually are fervently Democratic. Whenever I point this out in LGBT fora, the goodthinkers don’t take a stab at arguing in good faith, but immediately go to name-calling. Something something stated versus revealed preferences.

      1. “If length of time supporting LGBT equal freedom were the criterion […]”
        Sure.

        But if we measure by “things actually accomplished”…

  8. Once again I’ll bring up the subject of Terry Gross on NPR pressuring Hillary to say that she was secretly pro-gay all along but knew that being open about it would cost politically and she was just doing as much as she could to advance the agenda without risking that the backlash would wind up hurting the cause. And Hillary was too stupid to see Gross was offering her an easy way to repudiate her anti-gay statements and instead got thoroughly pissed at the thought that Gross was simply trying to score Rush Limbaugh points by accusing her of being a flip-flopper. It took her 4 goddamn years to get what Gross was hinting at? How stupid is this cow?

    1. I don’t think the hildebeast is gay. I think she munches some rug because guys are sort of grossed out by her and won’t go near her. Plus her husband cheated on her and publicly embarrassed her like a thousand times. So now she’s a man hater. Huma would probably do anything to be near political power, she’s just that type. She was married to Anthony Weiner, a guy who most people probably couldn’t stand to be around for 5 minutes. Hillary might be an upgrade over the Weiner as gross as that is.

      1. Huma’s many family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood makes me think she’s an agent.

      2. Munches rug herself or just gets her own rug munched?

        I vote for the latter.

  9. “”the Gay Vote””

    Heres the thing; the idea presumes that there are monolithic political interests associated with ‘being gay’.

    Which i think is a little odd. Is there a “Redhead” vote, a “Left-Handed vote”, a “Star Trek: Into Darkness”-fan-vote?

    It may be true that gays vote as a bloc, i just havent’ seen any data showing it yet. I’d guess they “lean left’ but only because of other more-pertinent demographic criteria, not necessarily by virtue of who they like to fuck.

    1. A major difference is that the right has opposed gay marriage and other issues important to gay people so unlike redheads, gay people do have a reason to dislike one political party more than the other.

      If Democrats supported anti-redhead laws tomorrow, I suspect redheads would start voting overwhelmingly Republican.

      1. fair point.

        re: this “opposition”, though… given that gay marriage is the law of the land, how long is that dynamic supposed to actually persist?

        PeopleWe Slaves pay taxes every year. they only get married once* (or… you know what i mean)

        1. how long is that dynamic supposed to actually persist?

          At least 50 years & counting for African-Americans; 80+ if you figure the New Deal moved them to the D column.

          1. “200 years.”
            ~Lyndon B. Johnson

          2. African-Americans beget more African-Americans (even when they become physically indistinguishable from whites). Gays supposedly don’t statistically beget more gays. Same reason it’s so hard to hold onto the woman vote. Each woman has equal heritage to men, so its harder to isolate them into a one party ghetto.

        2. given that gay marriage is the law of the land, how long is that dynamic supposed to actually persist?

          I guess that all depends on how long it takes for Republican presidential candidates to stop saying they want to go back to “traditional marriage.”

          1. “that all depends on how long it takes for Republican presidential candidates to stop saying they want to go back to “traditional marriage.””

            “Go back”?

            Who actually proposed this? i assume they explained how they planned to undo the USSC ruling as well?

            1. Ted Cruz has been saying this throughout the campaign. Here’s a relatively recent report:

              The recording does little to damage Cruz’ credibility. As Allen notes in his report, the senator’s national press secretary, Catherine Frazier, said the comments sound like something “he says all the time.”

              But it does serve as a reminder to evangelical voters that Cruz is seeking a 10th Amendment “states’ rights” solution to the battle between traditional and same-sex marriage. In Iowa, the first state to have a say in the GOP presidential nomination process?a state in which Cruz just recently earned the front-runner title?evangelical Christians make up a large bloc of traditional Iowa Republican Caucus voters.

              1. “Ted Cruz has been saying this throughout the campaign’

                No actual quote? I really don’t feel like reading some kooky-christian website for ‘analysis’ of his ulterior motives.

                1. There are quotes at the link and the original Politico story (I linked the kooky Christians because I figured people would trust them more than a hit piece):

                  During the question period, one of the donors told Cruz that gay marriage was one of the few issues on which the two disagreed. Then the donor asked: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you ? fighting gay marriage?”
                  “No,” Cruz replied. “I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum ? whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty.”
                  Soothing the attendee without contradicting what he has said elsewhere, Cruz added: “People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states ? to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”

                  1. “That’s why we have 50 states ? to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”‘

                    how exactly did you interpret that to mean, “Go back to traditional marriage”?

                2. “how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?”

                  Cruz: “My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states.”

                  wow, fire and brimstone.

                  1. I didn’t say it was fire and brimstone. I said Republicans aren’t letting it go, so why would we thinks gays would be lining up at their door?

                    1. I don’t know, maybe some gays weigh the issues and use reason and logic to decide that maybe the Democrats destructive economic policies are more important than marriage? I mean, I know I’m going way out there allowing that gay people might be able to actually think outside the box, just throwing that out there.

                    2. Well some gays do. Tonio and jesse and a few others around here, for example.

                      The thing is that very few people of any orientation or class use a whole lot of reason and logic to decide who to vote for. The majority of gays, like the majority of everyone, doesn’t get too far past the slogans and bullshit (War on women! War on gays! War on Christmas! War on poverty! War on drugs!). Republicans hate gays and black people. Everyone knows that, even if it’s not true.

                    3. I don’t know, maybe some gays weigh the issues and use reason and logic to decide that maybe the Democrats destructive economic policies are more important than marriage?

                      Call me when we have a Republican running for president who isn’t a fiscal liberal and social conservative and we’ll have this conversation. Until then I’ll chill out with the libertarians and laugh any time someone suggests that I should be voting for Republicans for my own economic interest.

                    4. “I said Republicans aren’t letting it go,’

                      No, you said they want to “go back to traditional marriage”. Which there’s still no evidence of.

                      As for “letting it go”, the example you gave was of *one* candidate trying to duck someone pushing him on the subject.

                    5. Gilmore, the Republicans are going to have to do a lot before most gays would consider voting for them. Sorry if that reality is inconvenient for you and others, but there it is. Also, I didn’t create that reality; I’m just the messenger.

                    6. “Republicans are going to have to do a lot before most gays would consider voting for them.”

                      That may be so. No one really said, “Why” other than they were on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue in the recent past, which is something that – as far as i can tell – is a done deal.

                      “Sorry if that reality is inconvenient for you and others”

                      Why would that be at all inconvenient?

                    7. Um, do you think Cruz is talking about something other than one man, one woman, when he talks about the states getting to make their own rules?

                      Also, that’s the way he acted in December in private, after several months of publicly talking about ways to reverse Obergefell. None of this is a secret and if you were following the R primary you would know this about Cruz. It’s obviously still an issue in Iowa.

                    8. “Um, do you think Cruz is talking about something other than one man, one woman, when he talks about the states getting to make their own rules?”

                      Well, i suppose he could be proposing to re-introduce slavery?

                    9. Something that abounds does not need to be re-introduced.

        3. “[…] how long is that dynamic supposed to actually persist?”
          According to exit polls, in 2004 gay folk voted for Kerry 77 to 23%. In 2008 they voted for Obama 70% to 27%. In 2012 they voted for Obama 77% to 23%.

          So how long will that last? Well, it seems the first step would be for Republicans to stop using so much anti-gay rhetoric (I wonder… will the GOP Plank call my family a threat to America this time around?) and pushing so many anti-gay laws?. Once they do that (and I think it’ll be a few cycles before that happens), I’d estimate between ten and twenty years. Part of the change-over will be older gays forgiving Republicans for their long history, part of it will older Republicans being replaced by younger Republicans who don’t have an anti-gay record to defend or apologize for, and part of it will be younger gays that weren’t politically aware/active during the height of the GOP’s anti-gay behavior.

          So it’ll be a while. And frankly… Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.
          ________
          ?”Religious Liberty” laws that allow people to kick me to the curb because “my God hates gay people”, but does nothing about the status quo that I’m not allowed to kick them to the curb because “you God hates gay people”, will always be seen as anti-gay. So yeah, the current crop of “Religious Liberty” being pushed by the GOP? Anti-gay.

      2. “Thank you, Ms. Garrison. My speech is entitled ‘Ginger Kids’. Children with red hair, light skin, and freckles. We’ve all seen them. On the playground, at the store, walking on the streets. They creep us out, and make us sick to our stomachs. I’m talking, of course, about Ginger kids.”

      3. They’re called Gingers, and there is a populist candidate ag… oh, of course, Epi beat me to that reference.

        1. Daywalker!

      4. If Democrats supported anti-redhead laws tomorrow, I suspect redheads would start voting overwhelmingly Republican.

        No they wouldn’t. Red heads would still vote Democrat. Because TEAM!

    2. “Redhead” vote, a “Left-Handed vote”, a “Star Trek: Into Darkness”-fan-vote?

      There will be after the Democrats have run out of other ways to divide people up by.

    3. Is there a “Redhead” vote?

      Sure, I’ll vote for some Redheads.

        1. Bastard

        2. Carrot Top?! Fuck you!

          1. Here you go, guys. Now settle down.

            1. Um. yeah.

            2. So I found this hilarious movie on her IMDB page.

              Is that a gun in your pocket:

              If there’s one thing that the men of Rockford Texas love as much as their women, it’s their guns. But when a gun incident at a neighborhood school spurs one stay at home mom, Jenna (Andrea Anders), to rethink Rockford’s obsessive gun culture, life in this idyllic town is turned upside-down. Much to the chagrin of her husband, (Matt Passmore), Jenna ignites a movement by recruiting the women to withhold sex from the men until every gun in Rockford is vanquished. A wild and hilarious showdown ensues between the sexes. As tensions and libidos rise, the men and women of Rockford must decide what’s really important: keeping the peace or getting a piece.

              1. lol. It’s proggie porn.

              2. Then the men of the town hired some dark-skinned young men to wander through their neighborhoods in a vaguely lower class sort of way, and the soccer moms gave up their strike in roughly five minutes.

                1. By having sex with the young Black men.

        3. Can’t unsee!

          Can’t unsee!

        4. If you dare look at that photo again?

          Why does he have framed Cosmo Magazine covers on the walls of his work out room?

        5. The best part of that photo is that in spite of all the other grotequeries going on, your eye is still unavoidably drawn to the happy trail.

        6. It’s going to take at least a 24 hour porn marathon to erase that disturbing image.

  10. WHO IS ON TOP OF THESE GAYS?!?

    1. Can it be Tom Hardy? I would very much like that.

  11. Sanders lacks the right genitalia gender self-identification.

  12. It will be interesting to see what gay voters actually get from Hillary, if she becomes president. I suspect what they’ll get is disappointment, rather like what blacks got from Obama.

    1. What the hell else is there to get, though? “Equal protection” and “anti-discrimination” laws? There is zero evidence of any sort of widespread discrimination against gays in the workplace or education, and only lawyers want more of these laws. Do they want the government to force 6th graders to learn about gay sex in sex ed? What else could she give them?

      1. Oh, the activists desperately want a new stick to beat their enemies with.

        That stick is the expansion of public accommodation laws to both (a) include gays and (b) cover a lot more of the economy.

        Opposing this will be “bigotry”. Voting for it will be “enlightened”. And thus, a new round of division, money-raising, and punishment of enemies will begin.

        For great liberty!

        1. Yep, must suck to have to live with the fallout from decades of actual, documented anti-gay party platforms. Let me know how that works out for you, RC. Hint: petulant butt-hurt only makes you look worse.

          1. I’m pretty sure swearing off a political party indefinitely because they fought on the losing side of a battle now over is the fucking definition of “butt-hurt”.

            1. Yeah, why aren’t there more Jewish Nazis?

              1. You could have at least phrased it in the form of “you know who else …?”

            2. Do you actually listen to Republicans? According to them it’s not over.

      2. Do they want the government to force 6th graders to learn about gay sex in sex ed?

        To the extent that there is sex ed, why the hell not? Why, it’s almost like you think they aren’t normal, aren’t equal citizens…

        1. It’s GAY SEX Tonio. Do you, like, not know how gross that is?

        2. Statistics say the entire LGBT population (Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender) are at maximum 2-4% of the population. For comparison 11% of children have a disability and about 4% of the entire population requires wheelchairs.

          They aren’t normal. Just like I’m not normal. Normal has nothing to do with equality. Pretending it does ties fundamental rights to a fiction that can be disproved by a six year old.

            1. “usual or ordinary : not strange”

              An orange apple may be a perfectly fine apple that tastes the same and has no side effects (if it’s in the store this is practically guaranteed). That doesn’t mean it isn’t unusual an not normal. Consider a kid with parents in the top 2-4% wealth distribution. They are most likely healthy both physically and mentally (most likely more healthy than normal). There is nothing wrong with them, but they aren’t normal. The wealth available to them is not similar to the average child.

              1. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? People who deviate from the norm should still be treated equally in the eyes of the law, right?

                1. That would be my whole point Heroic. Rights should never ever be tied to being normal. That would make them useless (where you are in line with the norm is not where you need protection).

              2. So you actually clicked through and selectively chose one of the senses that support your point, while ignoring those that don’t, like “mentally and physically healthy” and “occurring naturally.”

                1. “(most likely more healthy than normal)”

                  That sentence makes sense to you I assume?

                  1. You argued against homosexuality as normal on the basis of normal meaning “usual or ordinary: not strange.” I don’t need to read your little analogy about it when you ignored literally the entire point of the dictionary link: “normal” has more senses than the one you are using, and which undermine your initial response to Tonio.

                  2. It seems Nicole was indicating that “normal” isn’t a useful term to use in this discussion because it’s next to meaningless on this topic. Being gay is both unusual (not “normal”) and occurs in nature (“normal”). I’d go so far as to point out using “normal” is counterproductive because we’ll sit here rehashing an argument by definition of normal, which in no way furthers liberty.

    2. They might get to fill more “boots on the ground”.

  13. Who’s more gay?

  14. So glad I don’t have to give a shit about any of this. Being politically irrelevant has its perks.

    /libertarianmoment

  15. Give it another cycle and there won’t be a gay vote.

    Is there a gay foreign policy?

    A gay environmental policy?

    A gay plan to save social security?

    There aren’t any anti-gay positions on those topics either.

    Why is there a gay vote?

    It’s an anachronism.

    1. The left are totally obsessed with divisions. I mean fucking obsessed. They can hardly get a sentence out without mentioning race, gender, sexual preference, or some other form of identity bullshit. It gets sickening really fast to normal people, but they seem totally oblivious to this. They actually believe that most American sit around all day obsessing about bullshit that is totally irrelevant to their own lives.

      The Democrats have went totally insane, they’ve jumped the proverbial shark. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And you know that that reaction is, unfortunately? Donald fucking Trump. Thanks, Democrats, fuck all of you straight to hell.

    2. (someone at Salon taking notes of Ken’s great ideas)

    3. There are lots of articles on the internet talking about the environmental influences on homosexuality.

      So if you think climate change isn’t affecting how gay you are, you’re in denial.

      1. Climate change creates terrorism in the Middle East.
        Terrorists in the Middle East kill gays.
        Therefore, climate change kills gays.

        Pretty easy.

    4. Give it another cycle and there won’t be a gay vote.

      Sure there will be. For the same reason there is a “black vote”, even though there isn’t a black foreign policy, etc.

      1. I think there probably are legitimate black issues still hanging out there.

        Police brutality is still an issue for them. The Drug War. Sentencing. Affirmative action. Etc.

        I don’t see any outstanding gay issues like that.

        Give it another cycle (or so), and I bet white middle class gays start voting like white people in the middle class. Latino gays start voting more like Latinos of the same socioeconomic class, etc., etc.

        The gay vote wasn’t a single issue constituency, but they’ve run out of issues that resonate.

        Financial support for people with HIV / AIDS was already over the top.

        https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/ hiv-aids-programs/treatment-and-care-programs/

        Gay marriage is all over but the shouting.

        What’s left, really?

        1. I actually think the decision the past summer plays into team reds favor

          1. I agree.

            Team Red should declare victory and more on–if they can.

        2. Yeah, there’s a “black vote”, but that’s pretty much it for race and ethnicity. It’s a lot harder to tease out a distinct Latino or Asian or whatever vote from people in similar circumstances, try as the Dems might.

      2. even though there isn’t a black foreign policy

        “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong; no Viet Cong ever called me ‘nigger’.”

        — Muhammad Ali, 1966

        1. One of his finest moments.

    5. Is there a gay foreign policy?

      Stopping executions of gays for being gay in places where that happens. Which is no different than, say, Jewish groups trying to co-opt US foreign policy to achieve their ends, or Christian groups seeking to end persecution of Christians abroad.

      1. I’m not sure how much that is going to coalesce gay voters into a gay vote.

        To have a gay vote, you need gays to vote together because of an issue they care about more than other issues.

        Do they care so much about how Putin is treating gays, that 75% or more of them will all vote for one party rather than the other?

        Or do they care more about taxes, spending, whether we put troops on the ground in Syria, etc.?

    6. You know, I would *love* if you were right.

      But the truth is, as long as the GOP insists on anti-gay rhetoric and laws, that’s not gonna happen.

  16. If HRC’s historical focus was on the passage of antidiscrimination and hate crime legislation then they have stood against human rights. If “gay rights” are what HRC’s primary agenda has been then gay rights are anti-liberty.

  17. TOP. MEN.

    “DAVOS, Switzerland – Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio received an award “for his leadership in tackling the climate crisis” at the Annual Crystal Awards held at the World Economic Forum .

    At the ceremony in Davos, Switzerland, the actor, whose Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation supports conservation projects, criticized what he called “the corporate greed” of the energy industry.”

    My green-grass breathes easier knowing Leonardo is protecting them from the Profit-takers.

    1. Did DiCaprio arrive in a caravan of SUVs again?

      1. First, Sean I am Sam and now Leonardo Arnie Grape.

      2. It’s mandatory, after they pick him up from his private jet.

    2. Is there anything celebrities don’t know?

      1. Yes, they don’t know why non-celebrities call them morons over their magnificent ideas.

        1. God invented Twitter so we could know what’s really going on in a celebrity’s mind during random points of the day.

          1. I thought that God invented twatter because Derpbook hadn’t yet identified all the stupid people.

          2. What’s worse, that celebrities use Twitter to regularly spout their idiocy or that non-celebrities spend so much time caring about the idiocy?

            1. If you don’t care about Celebrity Twidiocy, what can you care about?

      2. This is why we need to merge the Davos World Economic Forum with the Oscars. Just let the winners decide how the world should work and stuff.

        1. Absolutely, because people who spend their lives acting in a pretend world are the ones who should decide about things in reality. Sounds right to me.

          1. +1 cave

    3. Are they really that oblivious? Do they not understand why oil companies and energy exist and are successful in the first place?

      1. Yes. No.

      2. You realize that Leonardo DiCaprio flew a private jet to Switzerland to pick up an award for environmental activism?

  18. “It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record”

    It’s *because* of the facts and the record that HRC is endorsing HRC.

    Sanders was on the side of the gay-libbers for years. I think it’s a matter of conviction for him. He’ll continue to support their agenda no matter what.

    Hillary, on the other hand, made clear that she supports “gay rights” because she expects to benefit politically from doing so.

    What if the political benefits she expected fail to materialize? What if the gay-stablishment doesn’t back her?

    She will think they’re a bunch of ingrates. She’ll be mad.

    And they wouldn’t like Hillary when she’s mad.

    Hillary expects something from the gaystablishment in exchange for endorsing their program.

    Sanders just gives it away.

    1. And they wouldn’t like Hillary when she’s mad.

      I would be dearly afraid of that, too, thinking about her with green skin, a purple pants suit and sagging chest…

      1. “Has she had some work done? She looks really fetching…compared to before.”

    2. HTC and Planned zparenthood are government cronies rent seeking. Do you rent seem with a True Believer or someone who is proven corrupt as the day is long?

  19. “It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record,” said Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs.

    “Our gay votes are better than their gay votes.”

  20. What is it gay libertarians want from government? (And answer with a single voice, please.)

    1. The libertarian dog in the fight died with Lawrence v. Texas. Everything since then has been about “equal” not “free”.

      1. Military service, hospital visitations, spousal visas, death rights, adoption rights, etc. and so-on ad nauseum.

        Libertarians/libertarians had no interest in any of that? Gee, no wonder libertarians/Libertarians have been about as successful as Republicans in persuading gay people to “see the light”.

    2. That seems too hard to orchestrate, maybe some noble-minded self-sacrificing individual should represent them.

    3. I believe it’s national funding for a cable channel that would show “House Hunters” 24/7.

      1. No “Say Yes to the Dress”?

        1. Listen, “the Gays” can only get behind one show, and that show is House Hunters. Do you want Hillary to be President?

      2. I love to hate that show

        1. I haven’t seen an episode of International House Hunters where I didn’t want to strangle the person(s) to death.

          1. How about the ‘designer’ chick with the Brit accent who has yet to learn that there are bearing walls and that walls contain electrical and plumbing stuff that costs money to move?
            She’s SHOCKED to hear the span needs a beam! Every damn time!

            1. Oh that’s “Love it or Leave it”… not that I’ve ever seen it.

          2. “OMG where is the walk in closet!? Its so small LOL”

      3. I knew someone on it. It was filmed AFTER she bought her new house. The part were she goes to look at the house she has already moved into was fun.

        After finding this out, it makes watching the show a game: figure out by bad acting which home they already own.

        1. This is the case on Property Brothers and probably all similar shows as well. I was bummed after I learned that, but now it is fun to watch for the reason you gave. I wonder how many takes they have to do to get realistic emotions.

  21. outing Sanders as “somebody who’s been for gay rights long, long ago”

    in a galaxy far, far away…

    Maybe the HRC is just supporting Clinton because her initials are the same as theirs?

  22. Assfuckers for Hillary!

    1. If we use “ass-fuckers” to mean both the fucker and the fucked, then that demographic includes at least? 35.9% of all women aged 18-44, and 42.3% of all men aged 18-44.

      Now, in 2010 there were about 112.8 million Americans in that 18-44 category. It’s probably grown a bit, but I don’t feel like digging up 2015 numbers. For the total population we had 49.2% male and 50.8% female, so roughly even. So based on some quick back-of-napkin calculations, the “heterosexual ass-fucker”? demographic includes about 23.5 million men and 20.5 million women, for a combined heterosexual ass-fucker demographic of 44 million Americans. Not counting any heterosexual ass-fuckers over the age of 44.

      Now, in 2012 Obama received about 58.7 million votes to Romney’s 56.1 million votes.

      Conclusion: Hillary receiving the “ass-fucker” demographic would be a swell feather in her cap. And that’s all before you even count the gay people.
      ________
      ?”At least” because the data has a breakdown for type of sexual act for opposite-sex partners, but not same-sex partners. So while we have data on how many men are ass-fucking women out there, we don’t have data on how many women are ass-fucking women, or how many men are ass-fucking men.
      ?In this context “heterosexual ass-fucker” doesn’t necessarily mean that the people identify as heterosexual, but that they have, heterosexually, either fucked ass or had their ass fucked.

      Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr088.pdf

  23. Maybe they endorsed her this early because Bernie Sanders is a fucking joke.

    1. He’s a joke that seems to be presenting a serious challenge to Hillary. She’s a *bad* joke. He’s just an un-funny joke.

      1. No he isn’t. A media bored with the Dem primary just wants us to think that.

  24. Gays like a strong woman leader. We don’t quite know what to do with old grouchy Jewish guys. They’re the opposite of everything we know. They are aggressively anti-fashion and anti-frivolity, and that is scary. Dude literally can’t even run a comb through his hair.

    1. Do gays also like to speak on behalf of all gays?

      1. Why don’t you straightsplain to me some more about stereotypes bro.

    2. What about grouchy old Jewish gay guys?

    3. But can he wear an onion on his belt?

  25. I’m gay and I’m not voting for any Democrat. There’s more important issues at stake in our country than just gay issues.

    1. Is it the Mexicans?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.