Sexual McCarthyism comes to DC

Authoritarianism on the march: it’s here and it’s queer (closeted perhaps, but still)!

Hyperbigot Christianist freakshow voted (by me) “Most Likely To Be Caught Holidaying With A Hunky Personal ‘Bag Handler‘” Peter LaBarbera of — stand back! — “Americans For Truth About Homosexuality”, wants to know if SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan is now, or ever has been, a member of Teh Ghey Conspiracy. Because according to LaBarbera, “the public has a right to knowthe most private personal details of Kagan’s life:

In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

All I can say to that is:   At long last sir, have you no sense of decency?

Good night and good luck (and get fucked).  (EDIT:  As Bina would say.)

UPDATE: Oh, fun… the homobigot hate site has a search engine.  Let’s see if they’re up to date on the relevant news of the day:

Oh come on.  Surely they must have something more than a 4-year-old bullshit story about a different George Rekers (the one that hadn’t been caught yet).  This was a Big Scandal among the Christofascist Elite, after all, and AFTAH links to some of the very “ministries” Rekers helped head up (so to speak)…

Ah-ha!  Ding ding ding!How many of these deranged creeps do you think went straight to the rentboy site after reading that article?  Bwahaa!

(Post edited to use cache link to what appears to be a raging hate site.  Apologies.)

19 Responses to “Sexual McCarthyism comes to DC”


  1. 1 Shade Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 3:11 am

    I really, really don’t see what the problem is. I mean the idea of the court (as I understand it, I’m sure Republicans would disagree.) is to have differing points of view so that cases are looked over and handled with a variety of oppinions and different sides on matters to make sure the issue is addressed and looked at from every angle.

    But of course I’m sure they’d rather it was just stacked with conservatives so everything went their way.

  2. 2 smelter rat Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Just when you think the christo-fascists can’t sink any lower…they pull through again!

  3. 3 psa Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Has Peter LaBarbera ever experienced oral/genital contact with his wife or any other partner before or subsequent to marriage? Has Peter LaBarbera ever engaged in sexual congress for purposes other than procreation? Has Peter LaBarbera ever taken part in sexual activities outside the marital bedroom or with the door unlocked that a child or other person in the home might accidentally happen upon his shame? Has Peter LaBarbera ever made intimate contact or conversely been touched about the rectum and anus in a sexual manner? Has Peter LaBarbera ever engaged in sexual acts while employing birth control of any sort? All these questions and so many more that a person of Peter LaBarbera’s standing in the community should be asked and required to answer in graphic detail. How can we possibly trust this person’s moral leadership until we have complete and forthright accounts of his sexual predilections and habits. It would be irresponsible not to ask.

  4. 4 Rob F Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I think Fannie put it well:

    “So the fuck what if she was.”

  5. 5 J. A. Baker Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 8:42 am

    According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian

    Yeah, like that “report” at CBS’s website by serial-plagiarist Ben Domenech, amirite?

  6. 6 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Shade

    I really, really don’t see what the problem is.

    Maybe I’m just Dumb, but I can’t understand how sexual orientation affects someone’s ability to interpret the Constitution, which as far as I know is the primary function of SCOTUS.

    Also, good point about the differing points of view… the justices, conservative liberal and in between, serve to check and balance each other.

    But you’re right, the GOP absolutely would rather stack the court with conservatives. To be fair, the dems would probably prefer to stack it with liberals — although even their most liberal picks tend to be more evenhanded. I don’t think there’s any liberal equivalent to Alito and Scalia.

  7. 7 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:04 am

    smelter rat – It’s a bottomless barrel when it comes to these freaks!

  8. 8 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:07 am

    psa – Spot on. The public also needs to know if he’s ever been treated for erectile dysfunction, and whether gay porn was part of the therapy.

  9. 9 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Rob F – Thanks for the link. Well said, Fannie, and my sentiments exactly: W H O C A R E S ???

  10. 10 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:14 am

    JAB – Good grief, does the sleaze never end with these people??? I can’t believe CBS would actually publish such a thing — guess they’re swirling in the journalistic bowl.

  11. 11 Scotian Monday, May 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    JJ:

    My guess is that they are worried about how a gay person would rule on issues like gay marriage (or in the case of the US the bans on them) that are already working their way through the US justice system. That they think that someone who is gay would automatically have to have an agenda on the issue so therefore it needs exploring before confirmation. Me, I think that reasoning is idiotic, especially when it comes from the same voices that claim orientation is a choice and not fundamental nature. Either a person will put their personal preferences ahead of the law and precedents (as did every conservative member of that court in Bush V Gore, which was shown clearly by their own claims it was not precedent setting and reversed their in some cases decades long standing precedents in rulings on State’s rights) or they won’t, and that is what you need to examine in confirmation hearings. That is what you examine their history for in their writings and their actions, not their gender preference in sexual partners.

    Not that any of this surprises me given the source and the fact that the American right wing in particular seems to see gays as even more of a threat to their society and way of life than terrorists, which might be true in a way. If gays are legally seen as the same as all others and must be treated accordingly then this could prevent all the gay bashing and prejudice of so many of these folks from being overt and public any more, and for them that would be a massive change to their way of life (a healthy one IMHO but still a major one) just as equal rights for black people was for the white supremacists and those that favoured that pov.

    It never ceases to astound, sadden, and disgust me how so many that claim to value Christ’s message of love tolerance and acceptance seem to have such a hard time actually applying it the way he clearly intended. I really liked Christ’s message but man so many of his followers just really sicken me in their clear inability to practice what Christ preached. Personally, I think most if not nearly all of the anti-gay prejudice in NA can be directly attributed to the religious elements within the cultures, primarily of course the Christians but most of the other major faiths aren’t any better on this score overall (although there are sects within many of them that are, even within Christianity). Which might be why gay rights moved farther and faster here in Canada given we are a far less overtly religious society especially where our legal and governing mechanisms are concerned than our American neighbours.

  12. 12 JJ Monday, May 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    scotian

    It never ceases to astound, sadden, and disgust me how so many that claim to value Christ’s message of love tolerance and acceptance seem to have such a hard time actually applying it the way he clearly intended.

    Yes, but they finally figured out how bad their hypocrisy looks, so they figured out a solution: it isn’t homosexuals that they hate, it’s homosexual behaviour. 🙄

    I once tried to get SUZANNE to explain what she meant by that expression — was she referring to specific sex acts? And I explained (because her experience is obviously so limited that she would need this explained to her) that most sex acts are pretty universal to both homo- and hetero-sexuals. (Slightly different use of the hardware, maybe, but still compatible.)

    She didn’t have an explanation, of course. These people aren’t only vicious, they’re brainwashed.

  13. 13 Cornelius T. Zen Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Good morrow, all!
    I caught the opening for the most recent show of Bill Maher’s Real Time:
    “So, Elena Kagan is 50, never been married, has no children, and there’s some question about her sexuality.
    “Wait…I’m in my 50’s, never been married, got no kids…FUCK, I’M A LESBIAN!”
    Interesting how those who breed envy those who don’t, as though those who don’t have dodged a bullet, or gotten away with something. Also interesting to note that those who don’t breed (straight or gay) also don’t abuse children, or damage them psychologically, or attempt to live their lives vicariously through their kids, or lay guilt trips on other people.
    Good parents also don’t do any of that, because they know that their responsibility lies in raising kids that might become good parents themselves.
    I know some gay parents that are smarter, kinder and much more understanding than some of he straight parents I know.
    Teh Ghey is not the threat. Teh Stoopid is – CTZen

  14. 14 Scotian Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 10:10 am

    JJ:

    Love the sinner, hate the sin, it is a great way to eat your cake and have it, isn’t it.

  15. 15 deBeauxOs Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Why JJ, any sexual activity that’s not intended for breeding and procreative purposes is STERILE sex, according to Paycheck aka John ‘Sperm Holocaust!!!’ Pacheco.

    Blob Blogging Wingnut had probably not received his speaking points on ‘free’ sex then and was thus unable to provide the ideological justification for her hatred of ‘homosexual behaviour’.

  16. 16 JJ Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    deBeauxOs – What would HE know about it? He’s probably only ever had sex with one person and his beleaguered left hand. Mrs. Thumb and her four daughters don’t count as 5 people.

    Unless there are a few rentboys in the closet 😉 Come to think of it, he may well be an Expert in the Field.

  17. 17 JJ Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    CTZen

    I know some gay parents that are smarter, kinder and much more understanding than some of he straight parents I know.

    As do I. And lo and behold, all the kids have grown up (or are in the process of growing up) to be great people without any issues beyond those of the average person. Which is more than I can say for a lot of kids who grow up in the “care” of the catholic church.

  18. 18 JJ Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Scotian

    Love the sinner, hate the sin, it is a great way to eat your cake and have it, isn’t it.

    Yeah, except it’s a bullshit cop out.

    If they love the sinner and hate the sin, they should have no problem with gay marriage as long as the partners claim to be celibate, right?

    It’s the same kind of hypocrisy indulged by people who say abortion is only okay in cases of rape — the difference of course is consent. So obviously anti-abortion beliefs are more about punishing women than saving feti.

    As long as gay people are celibate and women are raped rather than having consensual sex, it’s all good. (Can anyone even doubt that these little nazis want to run everyone’s personal life?)

  19. 19 Scotian Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 7:28 am

    JJ:

    Oh I meant what I said with sarcasm dripping from every word, so yes I am in agreement with you entirely, both about how and why it is hypocrisy and your other point about controlling sexual contact for all. It is indeed one of the core reasons I oppose such people so vigourously. I have a real problem with the idea that it is proper for the State to use it’s powers to regulate personal behaviour in areas of sexuality and sexual behaviour beyond the basic level of consent issues and to a limited extent health issues (as in when there are real concerns about sexually spread diseases and therefore providing scientifically researched medical information, research spending into curing and prevention, that sort of thing). Aside from that as Trudeau so famously and well said the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,330
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: