NJ Democrat Calls Philadelphia Eagles "Gaybirds"

[Max]

Charles Mainor, a Democratic member of the NJ Assembly, issued an apology after posting on his Facebook page that the Philadelphia Eagles are "gaybirds."

http://www.boston.co..._gaybirds_post/

Not surprisingly, Mainor said that it was a friend of his who actually wrote the term "gaybird." The assemblyman then reminded everyone that he has gay relatives (which is very reminiscent, IMO, of how Rick Santorum told the public that he has gay friends).

This story is over 24 hours old, but not one of the liberals who love to trash the "homophobic" GOP has yet to post this story. Furthermore, the outrage in the homosexual community seems to be but a blip on the radar screen. I guess a simple fact of life is that when a Democrat makes anti-gay comments he is truly sorry about it (and probably didn't even mean any harm in the first place), but when a Republican makes such statements it is proof positive that the party is obsessed with hating gays morning, noon, and night.

[DRW50]

Is this Democrat:

- known for supporting anti-gay legislation

- known for making anti-gay comments

- known to have heavy ties to anti-gay organizations

?

If not then that's why he hasn't had as much criticism.

I should also point out that the media WORSHIPS Chris Christie, who is anti-gay to the point that he used animus against gays to help get elected (going on about how he would block gay marriage, so vote for him) and has continued to do so while in office.

[SFK]

Not sure what exactly this adds to the conversation, but I have plenty of Democrat Facebook friends, female as well as male, who on game day have no qualms tossing the "Cowgirls" and "Tony Homo" about. When it comes to sports, playfully politically incorrect/inappropriate chauvinism seems to be non-partisan, just ignorance all around.

[Max]

SFK, I perfectly understand your point, as you have never been partisan. Though this has nothing to do with you, the fact of the matter is that some in the gay community would be hyperventilating if a Republican ever made such a comment (even if it was made in the context of a sporting event). While the Democrats have a s#itty record on gay marriage, that pretty much is ignored by these people, while they hold steadfast in their belief that the #1 goal of (the vast majority of) Republicans is to persecute the gays.

Thanks for explaining the "logic" that it's OK to use anit-gay slurs so long as you pretend to be an ally to the homosexual community.

It wasn't hatred against gays that got Christie elected. (If the people in NJ hate gays--and if hating gays is what the GOP is all about--then Republicans would win every single statewide election in NJ; instead, Christie was the first Republican to do so in twelve years.) Christie only won because of the gross incompetence and unpopularity of incumbent Jon Corzine, a filthy-rich man who is currently under investigation for his role in the demise of the Wall Street firm formerly known as MF Global.

Furthermore, why the double standard on gay marriage: Christie is an evil person for opposing it, yet Obama gets off scott-free for not supporting it. Given this, it is no wonder why the Democratic Party takes the gay vote completely for granted.

[DRW50]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretend." Does he have a history of actions or statements against gays? If not, then it's not pretend.

Then why did he need to use it as a campaign issue?

http://www.nbcnewyor...e-63919797.html

[Max]

Carl, I really don't understand why you are going out of your way to defend this homophobic Democratic lawmaker. At the very least, can't you condemn what he said?

And it certainly is a big leap to suggest that Christie won because of anti-gay sentiment (simply because he campaigned against gay marriage). Christie won by nearly 100,000 votes, which is four times the amount the much more moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman won by in the 1990s. None of the mainstream political analysis attributed Christie's victory to homophobia; rather, NJ's poor economy and high tax burden were the main issues. (Since the economy is still poor, Christie is in real danger of losing re-election, regardless of what he does on the issue of gay marriage.) While this may come as a surprise to some, most swing voters don't spend a great deal of time thinking about the "dangers" of gay marriage; rather, they care about pocketbook issues.

[DRW50]

This isn't about the lawmaker at all. I've never heard of the man and I doubt anyone cares about him outside of the local politics he's involved in. It's a stupid comment from this man and I don't like it.

You mentioned that you didn't understand why "liberals" or "the homosexual community" were not spending more time complaining about him, compared to a Republican. I asked what his background on this issue was, and compared him to a man that many Republicans worship as a god.

And yet Christie still went out of his way to make gay marriage an issue. Not sure what that says about him.

[rcsnj]

I don't know where you're getting your information, Max, but there are many people in the gay community (myself included) who have criticized Obama for his stance on marriage equality.

[Max]

Carl, thank you for finally condemning the comment made by the NJ Democratic Assemblyman. Regarding Christie, I just don't see how he went "out of his way to make gay marriage an issue." (He did mention that was one issue that he would fight against, but--unless he was completely lying--I would expect that Obama would fight against any attempts to make gay marriage the law of the land as well.) In all seriousness, you don't mean to suggest that gay marriage was the core theme of Christie's campaign? (Because most observers will tell you that Christie's main focus was on economic issues and taxes.) Furthermore, since Christie is not the first NJ Republican to oppose gay marriage, why was he able to win a statewide election in NJ when so many others failed? (Given your conclusion that gay marriage was the most important issue to the homophobic voters of NJ, shouldn't Republicans then win every single statewide election there?)

RCSNJ, I apologize for my rudeness, but I think that relatively mild criticism of Obama on gay marriage isn't all that meaningful if the homosexual community continues to give their near-universal support to the president on election day. For the life of me, I just don't understand why the gay community doesn't field more pro-gay marriage candidates in presidential primary elections (if they ever want to be taken seriously within the Democratic Party), or threaten to form a new political party altogether. (These are tactics that the far-right has successfully used for decades.) The sad fact of the matter is that the current crop of gay and lesbian leaders are doing a terrible job when it comes to advancing their agenda.

I can't recall any prominent gay leader call Obama "homophobic" for opposing gay marriage, whereas that label appears to be routinely applied to any Republican who is against marriage equality. And the media as well likes to give GOP candidates a grilling on this issue (like they did at a recent debate) while allowing Democrats to not have to answer for their positions on this issue. (This double standard even goes beyond the mainstream media; for instance, four years ago, McCain was given holy hell by Ellen when he appeared on her talkshow because of his position on gay marriage. Yet, when Obama--whose position on gay marriage is the same as McCain's--was on her show, he was asked questions such as what tunes were currently uploaded into his I-Pod.)