• Facebook
  • Twitter
Marion On June - 29 - 2011

Dan Choi‘s at it again, twittering and wittering his vitriolic hatred of the President. Dan’s the posteboy of the gay rights’ movement, but he’s rapidly turning into a Cindy Sheehan figure.  Unlike Sheehan, he’s still being given a visible platform by the media, and he’s being guided and manipulated by the likes of Jane Hamsher, who is still foisted on the unsuspecting public as a voice for Progressives. (Remember that other high-profile Progressive voice, Arianna Huffington? How well did that work out?)

To say Choi’s unadulterated hatred of the President is palpable is an understatement. Never mind that the President has enacted more legislation in favour of gay people than any previous President. Never mind he enacted the Matthew Shepherd Act, that he’s given partners of gay people beneficiary rights. Never mind that he’s repealed DADT or that he invited Choi the signing of that repeal and commended him publically on his activism. Never mind that Choi was filmed swinging from a lampost and waving an American flag outside the White House the night Osama bin Laden was killed, or that he was filmed in the company of Rachel Maddow and Paul Reickhoff.  Never mind that the President has instructed the DOJ not to defend DOMA in court, and never mind that the President has said he’s in favour of civil unions, which – as I’ve said – is a euphemism for marriage.

Never mind all of that, because in the one-track mind of Dan Choi, the President is a malignant homophobe, who is no friend of gay people. So convinced of that is Choi and so convincing is he that 30% of all LGBT ciitizens who voted in the midterm elections voted Republican as a protest. Choi even showed up at CPAC earlier in the year, praising the Log Cabin Republicans for their efforts in proving the unconstitutionality of DOMA. (Although rumours are abounding that Choi, himself, is a Republican, and that wouldn’t surprise me in the least).

All because the President won’t say the “m” word.

Never mind that the President is thinking like the constitutional lawyer that he is. He knows DOMA is an Act of Congress, signed into law by the last Democrat to occupy the Oval Office, Bill Clinton. Therefore, only another Act of Congress can repeal it; however the President is well aware that with a Republican majority in the House, a majority which includes several Tea Party Congressman, a repeal is never going to be on the horizon. So he’s using the other recourse: the judicial branch. As more and more federal judges pronounce the act unconstitutional and as more and more states enact it into law (and, yes, marriage has always been a contractual agreement managed on state level), the twains will eventually meet.

It takes time, but any sort of lasting change is always incremental, but grows and builds steam and strength. Just ask anyone who’s still alive from the Civil Rights movement.

But never mind all that, because now Lieutenant Dan has a new hero whom he’s promoting, and in this regard he beautifully illustrates the singular inability of the spoiled brat Progressive faction to think critically.

Lieutenant Dan burst onto Twitter Friday evening extolling the greatness of Governor Andrew Cuomo in signing the gay marriage bill into law in New York, and at the same time praising the charm and warmth of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who was a proponent of this. So great, so good, so wonderfully pure was the team of Cuomo and Gillibrand, that Choi, who’s now become a political strategist as well, was imploring Cuomo and Gillibrand to primary Obama and Biden for the 2012 Democratic nomination.

One signature on a bill, one senatorial endorsement, is enough to change the stripes of politicians forever.

Never mind that Andrew Cuomo is the most anti-union Democratic governor in the nation at the moment. In addition to signing the gay marriage act into state law, he’s also enacted some of the most reactionary anti-union legislation in the country, enough to equate himself with the likes of Scott Walker and Cuomo’s gubernatorial neighbour, Chris Christie.

Never mind that the Blue Dog Gillibrand is a Second Amendment Democrat from the most conservative section of her state.

Never mind all of that, because the strangest phenomena magically transform centrist or centre-Right Democrats into fully paid-up Damscene Progressives. With Hillary Clinton, whose foreign policy theories mirrored John McCain’s and who convinced the President to sign onto the UN humanitarian effort in Libya, buyer’s remorse turned her into a latent Progressive. For the unfortunate Gabrielle Giffords, another Blue Dog Second Amendment politician who sometimes voted with the opposition, the moment the bullet hit the bone of her skull, the idealogical Progressive Left turned her into a martyr for their cause.

Hindsight is not only twenty-twenty vision, it’s also a means by which history and the past can be rewritten and revised to suit the needs of the present – something of which the Left, quite often and quite rightly, accuses the Fundamentalist Right (also manipulated by idealogues equally as short-sighted).

In the 21st Century, intellect has debased itself to such a point that every action needs simplification to the nth degree, with people being willfully and patently unable to see more than one way of achieving an end. Thus, when a Rand Paul casts his vote with the Democrats of the Senate against Paul Ryan’s draconian budget, which would end Medicare as we know it, the Left cheer him as a convert, never realising that the only reason Paul wouldn’t surport Ryan’s initiative was that, rather than cutting too many entitlements, it didn’t cut enough for the Senator’s liking.

Yet these are the same people who would willingly support a Ron Paul candidacy, solely because of his belief in legalisation of all drugs and of prostitution, never thinking of the fact that both father and son oppose the Civil Rights Act, proclaiming Title VII unconstitutional and hiding their hankering for a return to segregation behind that old chestnut called “property rights.”

Dan Choi was a military officer, who took a courageous stand in outing his own sexuality to prove a point and enhance a movement, but I question his efficacy as an officer in his inability to think critically, a trait which is essential in military leadership.

So let him and his followers support the Republicans in this round and or let them elect to stay at home during the next election cycle, and see how they fare if the homophobic Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann attain the White House. Perry might pray for their conversion, but Michele’s First Dude’s modus operandi is the establishment of Cure Camps for people whom he labels as “barbarians.”

If the future of our country lies in the hands of a populace who depends on media people and personalities who willfully refuse to see anything but their side of an argument or are unwilling to look behind the public facade for a deeper meaning to an action, then we really are going to hell, fast, in a handcart.

Still … never mind.

52 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Dbos says:

    Is his objective to help defeat the president or change his mind? If his objective is to defeat the president he should be careful what he wishes for,he might end up in Bachmans clinic.

  2. funksands says:

    If I’m not mistaken, during the first interview I ever saw with Choi, (Maddow?) she or he stated that he was a Republican. I even posted on HP that night how much I admired the guy and what a great Republican candidate for office he would be.

    Not an explanation, just an observation.

  3. SueInCa says:

    I am sorry that Dan Choi lost his commission in the military and I certainly do not agree with the decision, but I am going to say something here and it will probably get me in trouble. I am sick and tired of the LGBT and progressive community’s whining. What has either group done except to whine for all they did not get rather than understand that with opposition to their ideas(most republicans and blue dogs), it takes baby steps. The LGBT community switched to the Republican side in the mid terms because they were mad. How did that help them? Progressives stayed home because they were mad. How did that work out for them? To me that says they are in it to win it for themselves and to hell with anyone else.

    To me that is the epitome of selfishness. I have always supported gay rights and tried to support progressives as well. While I might not agree with all of their stances, I agree that the LGBT community, especially, deserves the same rights as everyone else. I campaigned door to door for Prop 8, I voted for it of course and I am sorry that it lost. When it came to support we needed to keep a Dem majority, they let us down, they took their toys and went in in the corner. I was never asking for anything back for my support but I certainly did not expect to get a slap in the face and that is what their mid term protests felt like.

    Obama has always said he believes in marriage between a man and a woman, I don’t agree with him, but to ask him to change his stance just might go against his princilples, do his principles mean nothing? If so, then that is not a leader I would support.

    • “What has either group done except to whine for all they did not get rather than understand that with opposition to their ideas(most republicans and blue dogs), it takes baby steps.”

      Well, for one thing, gay Dems have been donating to campaigns since before Harvey Milk, amid promises that we would finally get the same rights as “normal” people. When it came time for Dems to follow through on that, though, they patted us on the head and said “Maybe next time.” For decades.

      As far as the LGBT flocking to the Rethugs in droves, wrong. I don’t know anyone who did that. Not one. Yes, there were those who stayed home. I don’t blame them. Hell, I know plenty of straight Dems who stayed home.

      As I’ve said before, I see no reason to vote for anyone that I wouldn’t let sleep on my couch. I definitely won’t vote for anyone who denies me the right to own a couch, either.

    • Sue, not all gay people took their toys and went home. I don’t know what percentage did, but I do remember the debate for several weeks on that other {spit} site and some agreed that to stay home because their feelings were hurt was not a very wise thing to do.

      • SueInCa says:

        Kilgore, I know and I tried to word this to that effect. I have alot of friends who voted. My problem is with the ones who did not and let it be known they were essentially pouting. I did not mean to make it sound like the majority.

        • Oh, I know. I also remember the pouty ones. They thought they were going to teach Obama a lesson. What they couldn’t understand was that the midterm elections were not about Obama. Pure childishness.

          • SueInCa says:

            My sentiments exactly. The problem is they opened the door for more exclusion of rights on a broader scale rather than furthering their cause.

    • choicelady says:

      And, Sue, he has said he is changing! He congratulated couples in CA when marriage was briefly legal for getting married. It is the plight of many people who are entirely OK with the issue of same sex legal unions EXACTLY like marriage -- it’s hard to get past the word and its expectations of man/woman/2.2 kids/dog (and maybe a cat). He KNOWS that -- and he’s been great about it because it’s where MOST Americans exist -- concept and law are fine. The word? The concept of marriage? Dunno. Yet.

      But he’s done more for the LGBT community than ANY other president, so where IS this coming from? My fairly extensive circle of LGBT activists are really pissed off at the criticisms of Obama so it’s NOT universal. Choi is getting pretty stupid about this -- you are SO correct, Sue -- what good does it do him to support Bachmann etc.?

      Self-delusion and magical thinking. Now it’s REALLY clear how useless those are.

    • kesmarn says:

      Sue, I recall at one point at a public event, when LGBT demonstrators were heckling him and interrupting his speech, President Obama said something like: “Why don’t you direct your anger at the people who are really in opposition to your goals? I’m in your corner!”

      • SueInCa says:

        i believe it. What has happened is that people want to believe what they think they heard instead of what was really said and he always said he believes in man/woman marriage. I think it is out of date but it does not matter what I think, he is his own man. Same with Afghanistan and Iraq. he was always against Iraq for good reason, but never Afghanistan. I disagree with both but it is not my place to tell him what to think. A free society is gone when that happens.

  4. KQuark says:

    Marion your recent personal attacks have really gotten OTT. You simply can’t attack people for making personal attacks with a personal attack and keep on being credible.

    This is a much more credible article citing Choi’s counterproductive behavior.


    I’ve said it before and will say it again. I think the president and Dems on the federal level have made big strides for LGBT but I still disagree with him on gay marriage. While I don’t think Dems could pass a federal law allowing gay marriage he should make a policy decision to support marriage equality. Because face it if Obama was in the NY Senate he would vote to pass the legislation.

    • Sabreen60 says:

      I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of Marion. I watched Choi on a couple of TV shows and I’m not so sure he’s ok, mentally. Now maybe what I have just written is a personal attack in your eyes. But if I said the same thing about Palin or Bachmann, would it be seen as a personal attack? Or would my comment be seen as a critique about persons who say things not based in reality. I think Choi is being used by Hamsher, too. They are trying to tear this President down and simply refuse to give him any credit.

      • KQuark says:

        I’m the first one to call out progressives. I’m not saying you can’t call them out.

        I also mentioned that this president with the Dems on the Federal level have done more for LGBT rights than anyone before them. So obviously they should get credit for this progress.

        I also very rarely hear progressive I disagree with say anything close to as idiotic as a Bachmann or Palin has said. See my post on Bachmann saying God told her she should run to be POTUS.

    • lynettema says:

      The all or nothing attitude of some of the progressives gets really old. I understand Marion’s frustration. It IS difficult to understand why Choi would find Cuomo so heroic and the President not so much when the President has done so much more for LGBT issues.

      • KQuark says:

        I understand I’m frustrated with the same exact attitude with many progressives. But I don’t think it’s worth an all or nothing response either.

        I mean really why does Marion need to add Cuomo and Gillibrand to her hit piece when they did just accomplish something I think is so good? I think if you want people to be fair with the president you need to be fair with them.

        • Marion says:

          Because a lot of people believe that when a politician does something, it’s because he or she genuinely believes in what they’ve done from the heatt.

          Not so.

          There is such a thing as political expediency.

          Even though he disapproved of slavery, Lincoln’s aim in 1861 was not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union. He even told Horace Greeley that if he could have kept the Union intact without freeing the slaves he would have done so; if he could have done this by freeing all the slaves, he would have done so. And he didn’t move on emancipation until he was totally sure he could win the war.

          FDR didn’t particularly want to intern the Nisei, but he did so. And -- big surprise -- if he could have done so, Johnson could have lived without the Civil Rights Act, and went to his grave referrig to African Americans by the “n” word. And don’t get me started on why Nixon started the EPA, but it wasn’t out of love for the environment.

          Cuomo did what he had to do, and he did so, by buying votes off the Republicans -- pinpointing the Wall Street types who financed the VERY MEN in the Assembly who didn’t hesitate to vote for Carl Palladino and made sure these guys told them no big cash donations were forthcoming unless they played ball.

          Marriage has always been a legal contract determined by STATE, rather than FEDERAL law. And Presidents past and present have been sticky about imposing their views on a state’s laws. If Obama had gone to NYC last week and did EVERYTHING the gay community wanted him to do, those Republicans in the assembly would have shut down completely and then everyone would be pointing a finger at him.

          And, you may not remember, but I remember Andrew Cuomo, when his father was running for the Democratic nomination for NYC governor against Ed Koch, coming up with the campaign slogan: “Vote for Cuomo, not the homo.”

          Apart from this piece of legislation, without a DOUBT, Cuomo’s rivalled Chris Christie in imposing anti-union legislation, pink-slipping teachers and cutting back on social justice programs for the poor.

          Gillibrand is a known Blue Dog, but people are so incapable of critical thinking, all it takes is one incident to forever brand that politician a Progressive. People reviled Mary Landrieu when she held out on supporting HCR, but when she joined Bernie Saunders in filibustering the President’s tax cut compromise, people cheered her. That action was done out of spite, because the President had banned off-shore drilling in her state. She represents a poor state; Bernie Sanders represents an affluent one. I’d expect Sanders not to have given a thought to the poor, the working poor and the unemployed who benefitted from that compromise; but not Landrieu, since the legislation most directly affected people she represented.

          Hell, Progressives were even warming to Rand Paul when he voted with the Democrats against Paul Ryan’s budget -- without thinking that he allied with them because the budget didn’t cut enough. The same people think Rand’s daddy is all warm and cuddly because he wants to legalise drugs, when he also wants segregation reinstated, which is what all this gumph about “states’ rights” means.

    • My daughter is gay. And from what she tells me is that most gay people don’t really care about the word marriage. They just want the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples have. The word marriage is simply used as a device to downplay the rights of gay people, and to continue to keep them being seen as “second class citizens.”

      • KQuark says:

        This issue is personal to me because not too long ago in many states my marriage would be illegal. So I fully understand why gay people want to be married and not just have civil unions. I would not accept it for me and my wife for sure. I also think it’s gonna be handled mostly by the states for now just like interracial marriage was at first because nothing can happen on the federal level until DOMA is repealed.

      • Khirad says:

        Why not just get rid of marriage and have everyone get civil unions.

        No snark. I’m serious. Why not just do it this way?

        Same rights and everything.

        • KQuark says:

          My big problem with that is how it sounds politically. By offering a term most people believe is inferior the right and some in the center will scream that liberals are trying to diminish what marriage is and they would have a case IMO. Even if it’s a prima facie case.

        • I couldn’t agree more Khirad.

        • Marion says:

          This is actually what is done in France and Italy.

          ALL marriages are civil unions, performed by the mayor of a town/city or a licenced celebrant at the Town Hall. These countries do not recognise any marriage performed in a church, synagogue or mosque. You’re perfectly at liberty to have a religious ceremony, but ONLY after the civil ceremony -- the legal one -- has been performed.

          • choicelady says:

            That is how it is done everywhere but here. We seem to be the only nation that endows clergy with statutory legal power. Lots of our Protestant clergy are considering insisting that opposite sex couples go to their County Hall first then come to them for weddings so they can get OUT of the state marriage business. Good idea, IMHO.

        • Kalima says:

          I didn’t marry my husband because of any rights. I married him because I loved him, because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him, I’m old fashioned, and because he asked me. So far in the last 30 years, the biggest benefit was being able to join his national health care plan. We both work here for our own business, but pay tax as individuals based on income. If something happens to him, the government will steal 50% of any savings, plus the house is not in my name.

          I suppose it depends which country you live in, but for me personally living here it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. If it’s all about rights, then what is wrong with calling it civil unions when even people married in Church have to register the marriage anyway. Asking to do away with traditional marriage would only anger more people and have a negative effect on new laws already passed in my opinion.

          • Kalima says:

            I’m not sure if your comment below was for me Khirad, but if it was, then fyi I was married in a civil ceremony in a registry office in Brixton, London, and feel no less married than if I had been married in white inside a Catholic Church.

            Oh and I said somewhere here that I got married because my husband asked me to, we had been living together for 3 years already. If we hadn’t been married, maybe we would still be living together as we do now, made no difference to me either way.

            If your “holier than thou” was addressing what I wrote, then you are way off base. I’m married, it makes me no better or worse than you or anyone else who isn’t. You posted a hypothetical question, I tried to answer it honestly, as honestly as I could to explain what I think might happen if as you suggested, marriage should be abolished. I wasn’t speaking to my own personal reaction, no need to bite my head off.

          • Khirad says:

            I mean, you still get the ceremony and romantic/spiritual part, but who needs the state to recognize that?

            I get your point though. That would really anger them. But here’s my gambit:

            Threaten actually taking away traditional marriage from them, and then say, how about we let these other folks marry, and you can keep your marriages too? Then no one loses anything?!!

            Unlike the Democratic Party, I know a little something of the principles of haggling.

            • escribacat says:

              Khirad — I also get that silent “what’s wrong with you that you’re not married” look. Ugh. My own brother went off on some ignorant rant about how single women without kids have such skewed views on everything…I forgot how he put it. He almost made it sound as though such creatures were mentally challenged.

            • Khirad says:

              Wow, okay, I’m not talking about abolishing marriage, just posing the question of why the state needs to be involved recognizing religion. You’re still married by your religion and/or personal vows--spiritually.

              I’m saying legally the government hypothetically recognizes the term civil union. You’re still married. Is the term really that important, that the state recognize only that term for straight people? A rose by any other name and all that. Even my sister, who isn’t married, is by all other accounts living the married life without the legal documentation. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t love her partner or that they love their children less just because they don’t have that piece of paper. Times and norms are a-changing.

              If people riot over a legalistic technicality, then I say they should open their eyes to how gays feel about separate but equal. How insulting that is to them.

              I’m merely trying to express the absurdity of the traditionalist debate over gay marriage and turn it on its head for a rhetorical point.

              And I could do a tad less with married people getting holier-than-thou with me. It’s like when people have children and think they’re better than non-parents. Experience counts for a lot, but it doesn’t mean the opinion is de facto more valid and the rest of ours void.

            • Kalima says:

              “Threaten them” threaten who, people who have been married for 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 years would be included I suppose, and as I said, you now have quite a large percentage of people who are not opposed to same sex marriage, but if you asked them individually what they mean by that, many would more than likely say”civil unions” with all the rights afforded the opposite sex married couples. Now try to take away an institution that has been around since time began almost, and I would say that it would cause riots, not only in the U.S. but world wide. You can’t just abolish tradition and hope that the other side comes around to your way of thinking, it would produce the opposite effect of that I’m sure, and the sympathy gained for the gay community would decline which would be such a waste of years of hard work to get to where you are now. It would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

          • escribacat says:

            Kalima — what do you mean the govt would steal 50% of any savings? That sounds pretty dodgy.

            • Kalima says:

              “Do they also require your husband’s permission to leave the country?”

              No of course not, and absolutely nothing like Iran. I’m a foreigner here and everything is in my husband’s name. The house, the phone and so on. Surely even in the U.S. there is usually a householder, and often that would be the husband, or am I confused?

            • escribacat says:

              Khirad, I also was thinking it sounded more like Iran than an advanced nation like Japan.

            • Khirad says:

              Do they also require your husband’s permission to leave the country?

              I mean, wow, a few shades of Iran there.

            • escribacat says:

              Kalima--It’s really outrageous. It even makes the govt sound unstable to me. I do hope you move elsewhere when your husband retires. Wales is awfully nice!

            • Kalima says:

              I know e’cat, it’s scary to say the least. They have become quite paranoid in the last few years. You can only draw a certain amount from the bank on any one day. To send a money order to a friend or family member you have to fill out endless forms explaining why you are sending it. Paypal has been ordered to stop personal payments to individuals out of Japan, even family members in other countries. I ordered something for my father online yesterday from the U.K. I couldn’t pay through PayPal. They give you a spiel about money laundering and money going to terrorist groups, but that’s pure boloney, they just don’t want you to send your money out of the country. I hope to be out of here when hubby retires, I can’t just up and leave because I can no longer run that fast.

            • escribacat says:

              Kalima — I am speechless!! I’ve never heard anything like that. Wow.

            • Kalima says:

              It’s law here e’cat. When a husband dies, they immediately freeze his bank account, then they send someone to your house within days and claim half of his assets. There is nothing you can do about it, and this is money that has already been taxed.

              I heard of one woman who was invaded by these creeps on the day of her husband’s funeral, they looked through everything in the house to make sure that there wasn’t some extra cash stashed away, she never got over the shock of having her house being turned upside down, she felt violated.

  5. ADONAI says:

    I would love to criticize Dan Choi for his strongly held opinions, but I have all my rights. So i don’t feel like being THAT big of an asshole.

    And civil unions isn’t a euphemism for marriage. It’s a euphemism for “won’t you just accept this and shut up?”

    • Marion says:

      Tell that to the French and to the Italians. The only legal marriages in those two countries are civil unions performed by a licenced local official at the town hall.

      • ADONAI says:

        And if this were France or Italy I would say, “You got me”.

        But, since it isn’t, civil unions are a euphemism for “go away and be quiet”.

    • choicelady says:


      Actually it’s NOT anymore. It was different; it is not now. Why? Because ALL the pro-marriage equality folks are emphasizing marriage as a civil union to bypass the religious zealots who can’t get past tulle and tuxedoes (on opposite sex people, of course). The focus on civil marriage/unions that are absolutely equal to opposite sex marriage/unions is now the coming argument. It’s NOT a religious issue. It’s a civil rights issue and all marriages begin and end with the state. Hence -- civil unions.

      I did agree with your sense that it was a second class status which it WAS, but because Equality CA and many other groups have shifted ground, it no longer is. Obama’s running right along with the rest of us on this.

      I had no doubts about Lt. Choi’s fitness for the military because of his sexual orientation. I’m coming to have GREAT reservations about his mental stability. Hoo-boy -- that is one messed up man.

      • ADONAI says:

        choice, I don’t really have an argument. Like I said, I have all my rights. Here’s what i would say though. Bypass all the religious zealots. I can still get married. They have to have civil unions.

        As a married person, my marriage is recognized all over the country, regardless. With a civil union, many states will not recognize it. Many laws will still deny me the rights a married person has. It’s not the same. Not even close.

        Now, granted, if more and more states adopt some sort of gay union, civil statuses MAY change. Become more uniform across the country. Who knows? All I know is I understand anyone won’t accept a handout when they have a rightful place at the table.

  6. TakeInAPlay says:

    I’ve known Dan to be a publicity hound more than a committed activist. Which in my mind belittles his point and lessens his effectiveness. Even the stunt he pulled at NN 10 with Harry Reid and the West Point ring was staged to a degree. He made sure Harry knew what was planned so he could react appropriately.

    • choicelady says:

      TIP- that is very insightful. Thank you. He’s beginning to give me the creeps as does Cindy Sheehan. I LOVED her -- can’t bear to be around her now. Look -- I GET how horrible it is to be ignored and dissed when your cause is righteous. But neither Dan nor Cindy can say the greater part of America -- including the president -- have not been supportive. It’s just not true.

      When your drive for justice become a drive for revenge, and your targets for that revenge are illogical, you’ve passed a major corner. Not good.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories