Lesbian Democrat outs three Republicans

There’s no ‘gay’ way to fix a pothole,” or at least that’s what one of our many back issues of the now-defunct George magazine told us over a decade ago - a key moment in the evolution of our fairly progressive views on the issue of homosexuality.

Yet while there may be no ‘gay’ way to fix a pothole, there may be a ‘gay’ way to be a RINO - or “Republican in Name Only.”

That’s because all three of the South Carolina “GOP” politicians who were apparently dragged out of the closet last weekend by former (and future?) Democratic Congressional candidate Linda Ketner aren’t really Republicans.

Are U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell gay, though?

Ketner certainly thinks so. In fact, here’s an excerpt from her explosive interview on the left-leaning website Firedoglake:
More....

http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/06/02/lesbian-democrat-outs-three-republicans/

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or she's looking at spending the next decade defending herself in court.

Why would speculating on the sexual persuasion of a public figure land you in court?

There's a big difference between saying "I believe they're gay" and saying "We have an awful lot of people in the closet-- Lindsey Graham, Glenn McConnell who's our Senate president pro tem, our Lt Governor..."

:headbang:
rocktivity

n/t

She was not speculating, she stated it matter of factly.

as gay, some weird person could (in theory) have a 5 point gaydar checklist and Graham could satisfy every point on that checklist and then that weird person truly believes that there is no alternative explanation - Graham is gay. Or perhaps someone could just have reason to believe. Regardless, there is nothing harmful about being gay, Jewish, black, or 'illegitimate'.

American and who is a Christian, it seems equitable to decide who might be gay or not.

See: New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U. S. 254 (1964)

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/

:hi:

As long as the mainstream media is not picking up on this story, they are not likely to do anything (like initiate litigation) which would cause that to happen.

Unless you agree that there is something wrong/evil/perverted about being gay?

The elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;


If she's wrong, she's got no chance.

Unless there is some intention to hurt them in her statement, then they will fall short in a libel cause of action, because they are public figures.

That's to say nothing of the fact that there should be no stigma attached to being gay, although we all know that there is.

I beg to differ!

that deals with the right to free political speech.

the states however... that'd be more details than i know

there would have to be a claim to tie this as slander relating to their profession as lawyers, causing harm to gaining money through this profession after political retirement. but as current politicians, they are not protected from character defamation at a federal level.

character defamation pretty much works for people whose careers are dependent upon their public persona, like actors and musicians and writers. professionals are directly protected by slander/libel (depending on the medium the charge is made). it's really hard to stretch these terms into something broader than that without some creative maneuvering or some really interesting state or local laws.

it's hard for a public figure to prove defamation.

Bauer and McConnell haven't been too careful in recent years, either. Many SC gay groups wanted to out them, but the old school Southern society Dems who still pretty much control the campaigns down here won't allow it. They think it goes against the way things are 'done' by true gentlemen. Really. Have a talk with Alex Sanders some time.

and famous people. I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me to define that standard, but I do seem to recall that celebrities/public figures can not be libeled in the US, with a few exceptions, such as the Carol Burnett one against the National Enquirer, and I don't even know if that would still hold up in court, but whatever.

Second, one would have to prove that charges of homosexual orientation are defamatory. I don't know how one could possibly do that, since in my opinion, it is not a defamatory claim, it is simply a fact or not a fact. A defamatory charge is, in my opinion, claiming that someone is a pedophile or a thief.

The poster's point is that saying someone is gay shouldn't be considered defamatory, like, for instance, saying they're cocaine addicts.

For purposes of this discussion re: a US Senator or public officials.

in the United States and most of the Commonwealth of Nations are treated as non binding precedent in US Courts. Celebratory libel cases arising from articles listed on the Internet are very often tried in the UK because of the potential damages and the relative ease of a win.

I'm fairly disgusted by this whole thing. A person's sexuality should never be used as a weapon, by anyone.

This is many shades of wrong, imho.

is this hate speech? :evilgrin:

Charleston, that doesn't necessarily mean he's gay.
Mercy!

:loveya: Puppy love. :loveya:

Chris Matthews is such a fickle slut.

:bounce:

what the Hell does this article mean that he (and the other two) are NOT Repukes? :wtf:

"...We have an awful lot of people in the closet-- Lindsey Graham, Glenn McConnell who's our Senate president pro tem, our Lt Governor..."

That's a LOT more than just speculating!

rocktivity
:wow:

“We have more gay people serving in South Carolina than probably in anyplace in the United States; they’re just not out of the closet.

South Carolina has two sides to it. In the north, there is the deep red, gay hating, bible thumping Bob Jones types. Along the coast, esepecially in Charleston, a lot of people quietly live their lives and pretty much keep to themselves, even though they vote Republican, too. A closeted Charleston Republican would not surprise me at all.

to the coastal area then moved to Massachusetts. I still like to visit SC but no plans to ever move back.

Sen. Lindsey Graham - SC
Fmr. Speaker Dennis Hastert - IL
Rep. David Dreier - CA
Rep. Aaron Schock - IL
Rep. Patrick McHenry - NC
Gov. Rick Perry - TX
Gov. Charlie Crist - FL
Fmr. RNC Chair Ken Mehlman
Fmr. White House Comm. Dir. Joe Bartlett

Allegedly his wife caught him in bed with the Secretary of State (male).

say it isn't so!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

Astoundingly true.

I'm sorry. That's the truth. He has that pained look very common among closeted gay men.

:rofl:

prior to this, so I have no dog in this fight.

PS, if you are gay, you certainly do have a dog in this fight. :)

but I don't follow politics so closely that I know who is Senator of, say, Oklahoma off the top of my head. I've probably heard the name, but even if I have, I couldn't tell you what their record is, most likely.

Anyway, sorry if I stepped on some toes here.

:thumbsup:

Is there something wrong with that?

The bigger questions to me are:

Does he/she align him/herself with a political party who demonizes the GLBT community? (And I would include closeted Dem TN politicians in that group).

Does he/she vote to suppress the rights of GLBT persons?

Does he/she spew rhetoric damaging to the GLBT community? As a politician with national prominence, I'm gonna say no if any of the above are true.

My Mileage May Vary because it's these types who make it so much harder for equal rights to happen in the south.

Plenty of men look straight when they are actually gay, and nobody seems to take offense at that misperception. And I guess I reject this unspoken pecking order, even among gay people, that says that being called or perceived straight is fine, but being called or perceived as gay is offensive, even actionably libelous, as others on this thread imply.

I was damned honored to have the privilege of voting for Jared Polis, the first openly gay freshman Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives.

She's terrific.

he sounded very knowledgeable and like an all around great guy. :bounce:

Unfortunately, I have Zach Wamp as a rep. and he wants to be Gov. :puke:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/30/blue-america-meet-linda-ketner/

Adding because the site linked in the OP is run by some guy that was once the spokesman for Mark Sanford.

Ketner has been around SC and its gay community for a long time. If anybody is in a position to know, she is. I would love for them to have a trial and drag not only Graham, McConnell, and Bauer into it but everybody else. That would be a trial worth watching. Discovery alone would fill up gossip pages for months.

1) Even if, say, Lindsey Graham is a gay man, doesn't he have the right to keep that private? If someone wants to keep things like political beliefs, religion, or even sexual orientation private, don't they have the right to do so?

2) Fuck "gaydar." First, it's a little off-putting when gay people (like at least one upthread) want to allege that their gaydar finds Graham to be gay. This implies that gay people are really NOT "just like everyone else" (which idea is conveniently denied when it comes to promoting gay marriage.) It re-inforces every homophobic stereotype out there. It comes across a little like communists (or witches) going around accusing others of being commies or witches.

3) One reason guys, ESPECIALLY young men or teenage boys, feel such fear and loathing about homosexuality, and even a lot of resentment towards men who are openly gay, is that they are enveloped in an atmosphere of accusation -- you don't fit in? you're not dating? (usually just because girls don't find them hot enough) you're not athletic enough? you study too much? your taste in music isn't exactly what it's supposed to be? -- well then, you're GAY!

And it is such a damning accusation the way things stand today: America likes to pretend nowadays that women are regularly bisexual (even though the evidence of cultures across time overwhelmingly says the otherwise) and America also likes to apply the "one drop rule" to male sexuality -- if you've ever found another man attractive, or ever had a same-sex experience, YOU'RE "GAY!" One strike and you're out!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angry-straight-male

"Both groups—non-homophobic and homophobic men—showed significant engorgement to the straight and lesbian porn and their subjective ratings of arousal matched their penile plethsymograph measure for these two types of video. However, as predicted, only the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference in response to the gay male porn: specifically, 26 percent of these homophobic men showed “moderate tumescence” (6-12 mm) to this video and 54 percent showed “definite tumescence” (more than 12 mm). (In contrast, for the non-homophobic men, these percentages were 10 and 24, respectively.) Furthermore, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of sexual arousal to the gay male porn."

So, one person "upthread" is reinforcing all your stereotypes about gay people. That's disturbing.

I can't even respond to the rest of your whacked post.

but to out them is a rotten thing to do and just because it was done by a Democrat is no excuse at all.

x(

that "that's gay" "you're gay" "he she it is gay" stops being used as a way to insult someone.

I will be so incredibly grateful when no one gives a damn about anyone's sexual orientation, whatever that may be. Though I highly doubt we will be anywhere near that in my lifetime.

That includes anything other than heterosexuality, such as asexual, monosexual, bisexual, etc.

Remember, it's a rainbow.

But then again I grew up with it as an insult, and can't "reclaim" it.

And its reclaiming is a smoother transition than rap's reclaiming of the "n" word.

Queer Studies is a growing field. I find it much more relevant and less intrusive because it doesn't try to pigeonhole people like Willa Cather or Oscar Wilde.

Bohemian Grove?

Finding out sounds like a good project for an ambitious Poli-Sci major....that is, of course, a democrat. }(