Gays More Dangerous to America Than Terrorists

[Lex]

To be clear--I am not offended by her words. I am embarrassed by them.

Politicians and other people in power have to be very careful about the words they choose and the actions they take. She was elected by her constituents--some of whom are gay and most of whom, I would hope, would not agree or support such ridiculous drivel. People in positions of power who express feelings of bigotry/exclusion/repulsion are extremely dangerous.

 

[dong20]

well i think so, but it's not as if this woman is lobbying in favour of a bill requiring all gay people to wear ankle monitors so we can be sure they don't conglomerate to advance the insidious gay/liberal/communist/vegetarian/alien agenda. what she says is quite apart from what she does and what laws she attempts to enact. and besides, even if she did it would presumably only affect people in Oklahoma.

I think what DC is saying is that the distinction between Sally Kern (private citizen) saying she is opposed to homosexuality and Sally Kern (Public Official) saying so is less clear that your comments would imply. I agree.

What Sally Kern (Public Official) doesn't have is a right to avail herself of the pulpit of public office from which to say it. Neither does she have the right to use the powers afforded her by that office to pursue a private legislative agenda in support of those views.

To get back to my first paragraph; this is because in this case, Sally Kern (private citizen) and Sally Kern (Public Official) are regrettably, 'joined at the hip ideologically'. Thus, whatever is said is given a degree of weight and authority far beyond that which would be given to the same sentiments expressed by John Q Public.

Of course I could be completely wrong about DC's intended meaning, but that aside my take on the situation is this; the women is, IMHO unfit for public office.

You are a 20-year-old (mostly) straight female living in London... you can't possibly have a clue what it means in this country when legislators make statements like that. And yes, she does push for anti-gay legislation.

DC, that was a bit harsh.

 

[CuteGuyLondon]

oh look no i understand it's a sensitive issue, no-one here's going to express support for this nutcase, i'm just saying that her right to free speech isn't limited by the fact that what she says is highly offensive and unevidenced. we have nazi's here as well, the Mayor of London for example, but we can't censor them unless they either act illegally or make exhortations to act illegally.

for what it's worth, i'd very much like to see this woman play the pig in Lord of the Flies :biggrin1:

Thats quite a strong thing to say about Ken Livingstone - a left wing guy who has always supported (and passionately campaigned for) gay rights and racial equality. Be careful how you sling around that powerful word "Nazi" just because of a few articles in the Evening Standard (the owning company of which supported Moseley's campaign to rid london of Jews during the 40s..)

Back to the original thread, this woman in public office.. I don't get why America puts up with it? If someone in pulic office said that in the UK they would be thrown out.. it would be seen as bad as rascism.. some parts of the states seem so liberal.. and some so .. not..!

 

[xLx]

ok look you're both right i suppose, whatever context these remarks were made in they were unbefitting of an elected representative. im disappointed to read that she refused to retract what she'd said, much less offer her resignation, but then again it's a bit different to what Elliott Spitzer did: she hasn't perjured herself nor is she guilty of financial improbity. it's difficult to see on what grounds she could be forced from office, nice as that would be.

the point i was originally trying to make though was a more abstract one. someone said (quite rightly) that one individual's liberties end when they prevent another from practicing said liberties. he/she (sorry will check afterwards) seemed to suggest that Rep. Kern's remarks were illegitimate on those grounds - that they somehow overruled the freedoms of another.
what seems to me to be so great about freedom of speech is that no amount of it can ever push back the boundaries of any other freedom.

if your interpretation of her comments was as an encouragement to legislate away the rights of gay people, then ok you might have a point. but really they were so nebulous and insubstantial that i couldn't really perceive any particular policy proposal in them.

 

[xLx]

haha i knew that was coming.......ah he's not so bad really, i just like to slag him off whenever i get the chance. he just seems to make bad decisions re: his friends and allies, and i think the congestion charge could have been better conceived. nevertheless, he is about six million times better qualified to be mayor than Boris Johnson is, but i shall be voting for Brian Paddick so bring it on.

Thats quite a strong thing to say about Ken Livingstone - a left wing guy who has always supported (and passionately campaigned for) gay rights and racial equality. Be careful how you sling around that powerful word "Nazi" just because of a few articles in the Evening Standard (the owning company of which supported Moseley's campaign to rid london of Jews during the 40s..)

Back to the original thread, this woman in public office.. I don't get why America puts up with it? If someone in pulic office said that in the UK they would be thrown out.. it would be seen as bad as rascism.. some parts of the states seem so liberal.. and some so .. not..!

 

[dong20]

...he is about six million times better qualified to be mayor than Boris Johnson is, but i shall be voting for Brian Paddick so bring it on.

That much? You must really hate old 'Scouse Basher' Boris then. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them to pull the skin off a rice pudding, let alone run a city like London.

 

[christina]

Yes everyone does indeed have the right to free speak, however when u take on a political position your freedoms are in a different light and they take on much more responsibility and carry much larger consequences.
I don’t think that she would be speaking as she does if her son/daughter was homosexual or if her son/daughter had been killed or bullied by someone as ignorant as her.
Its almost sad that with all we know that people can still be this hateful and ignorant. Its not gays, or ppl with purple hair, or any other stupid thing that sum jackass decides to hate sumone else about. Its plain and simple that the ppl who make this world as evil as it can be sumtimes are the small mined fools like Sally Kern

 

[xLx]

her son IS gay! no really! read about it: Sally Kern Scrubs Gay Son? / Queerty

i think the second quote about how she was 'pushed over the edge' is some of the purest truth i've ever read. all these prejudices come from personal insecurities of some kind

 

[xLx]

i apologise, i'm especially prone to exaggeration this evening. which is odd, because until today i've never exaggerated ONCE in my entire life. not once

Boris is loveable, i do adore him, but i can't see him ever having the gravitas for genuine public service. the mayoralty (is that the word?) is really a pretty big job nowadays, and from what ive heard it's powers are expanding quickly. i think it needs a serious personality in there. like i said, Brian Paddick would be good, as would someone like Shami Chakrabarti if she wanted it (which she probably doesn't). i like a guy called David Lammy too, i believe he's currently the skills minister or something.

That much? You must really hate old 'Scouse Basher' Boris then. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them to pull the skin off a rice pudding, let alone run a city like London.

 

[dong20]

Boris is loveable, i do adore him, but i can't see him ever having the gravitas for genuine public service. the mayoralty (is that the word?) is really a pretty big job nowadays, and from what ive heard it's powers are expanding quickly. i think it needs a serious personality in there. like i said, Brian Paddick would be good, as would someone like Shami Chakrabarti if she wanted it (which she probably doesn't). i like a guy called David Lammy too, i believe he's currently the skills minister or something.

I like Boris too, as a person at least. As mayor I think he would be as hilarious as he would be disastrous. I felt rather sorry for him after the treatment he received over the Liverpool. Well, not that sorry, he is a Tory after all.

Paddick could be OK. Anyone 'essentially' sacked from the Met for what was basically, telling the truth and making sense (an unlikely combination in that organisation's senior ranks) is perhaps worthy of consideration. He will certainly have extensive experience in handling institutional prejudice, another Met forte.

Back on topic, interesting find about Jesse Kern. It's entirely unfair that he could be dragged into the implosion that Kern's political career may soon (with any luck) become.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Is free speech limited? No, unless you ACT on it (if it doesn't constitute as "slander", which is illegal). I can say "I hate Fundamentalist Christians" for all eternity, but once I ACT on my free speech, I've broken the law and need to be punished. No matter what, society needs to speak out against this hate speech.

You still don't see the difference, do you? She was not speaking as a private citizen; she was speaking as an elected official. That's her official stance on the subject. If she, personally, thinks all gay citizens should be rounded up and shot, that's her opinion, and it's her right if she mentions that to her husband over dinner. It is NOT her right to use her office as a bully-pulpit and spout discriminatory hate speech as a matter of public policy. I understand that politicians cannot help but make their official decisions based upon their personal beliefs; but if they cannot understand that their views may not always be suitable for public policy, then they have no right to serve in that capacity. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want about fundamentalist christians - so long as you are not using your influence as a legislator to do so.

oh look no i understand it's a sensitive issue, no-one here's going to express support for this nutcase, i'm just saying that her right to free speech isn't limited by the fact that what she says is highly offensive and unevidenced.

I did understand what you meant, I think. It is not that what she says is offensive; it's that her behavior as an elected official is unacceptable. I'm not especially fond of religious zealots, but I would be just as offended if any legislator in this country made similar statements about religion. It just is not appropriate.

I think what DC is saying is that the distinction between Sally Kern (private citizen) saying she is opposed to homosexuality and Sally Kern (Public Official) saying so is less clear that your comments would imply. I agree.

What Sally Kern (Public Official) doesn't have is a right to avail herself of the pulpit of public office from which to say it. Neither does she have the right to use the powers afforded her by that office to pursue a private legislative agenda in support of those views.

Exactly.

Of course I could be completely wrong about DC's intended meaning, but that aside my take on the situation is this; the women is, IMHO unfit for public office.

You were spot on, dear.

DC, that was a bit harsh.

I really didn't mean it to sound harsh, but I can't help but think that a 20 year old straight Londoner really cannot understand politics in Oklahoma. I do apologize if I'm mistaken about that.

Hell, I lived one state over for many, many years. At age 20, I really didn't have a clue what Oklahoma politics was all about. I'm still not perfectly clear on it. I do know that it can be very backward (not the average person from OK, but the way the politics run...)

 

[xLx]

ok i think we're starting to reach a consensus now. i've just listened to the original recording which was made secretly at a 'gathering' in the district over which Rep. Kerns presides (News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | Watch the YouTube Video).

it's not appropriate but what can be done? the difficulty as far as i can see is twofold: defining the boundary between (invalid) expression of personal views and (tolerable) statements on relevant issues. she might argue that this 'gay agenda' - let's call it the 'gaygenda' for expediency - is a serious issue in contemporary america. we can't demonstrate quantitatively that is isn't. and we don't want our politicians to be semi-mute lackeys who just tow the party line and don't dare to mention anything else besides.

i just don't see how (either practicably or morally) you can curtail what elected officials are allowed to say. what i hope happens, and what would happen here in the UK (see example: Ann Winterton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), is some kind of internal party disciplinary measure, ie the central authority of the Oklahoma Republicans should bar this woman from claiming any affiliation with the party. From what i've read that doesn't seem to be happening. Hopefully it will cost them some votes.

oh and yes i will admit i know nothing whatsoever about Oklahoma beyond the Flaming Lips and the bombing.

 

[hungbiguyuk]

I recently saw a great billboard ad here in the UK - In glorious bright red.

I was a Stonewall poster and it said quite simply:

"Gays exist - Get over it!"

FANTASTIC

So I sent an email with these sentiments to Little Miss Self-Righteous.

I doubt it will do much good though - it never does with these kind of people (and I use the term people in the loosest sense).

I'm just glad that Jesse is out of there - can you imagine living with the woman!

 

[invisibleman]

They were ruby slippers actually. And you click the heels three times and it activates the C4. BOOM!!!

So when I die, I get 74 Mormon Elder virgins and the Angel Moroni will give me a hot lap dance. :wink:

Did you mean 72? :tongue:

Well, I am REALLY horny. :smile: Hehehe.

 

[Hand_Solo]

Maybe if gays had huge untapped crude oil reserves underneath their deserts there would be something exciting to do after we wrap up this current war on terror.

What's the supposed danger of homosexuality anyway? I've never understood how somebody else's sexual preference affects me whatsoever. Are people afraid the population will decline or something? 6.6 billion people cluttering the earth isn't enough?

 

[Freddie53]

I've read the dialogue here concerning this woman's right to say what she did in that speech. Here are some points to consider. What she said as a public official may say more about the people who elected her to office than it does even about her. And that is even more scary than just having one woman with a gay son who has to place and blame and lashes out just before her nervious breakdown.

I suppose legally she has a right to express her views especially as a private citizen according to the US Constitution. But the rest of us have a right to condemn her, what she said and take steps to see that she doesn't remain a public official. We should find a candidate to run against her. If her state allows a petition to recall elected officials, Now is the time to start the petition. We should ask our other US representatives to censure her for her remarks. A censure is just a symbolic move, but it does speak volumes and gives great assurances to our gay community.

The rest of us have a right to picket her office, conduct demonstrations against not just her but all who are pushing this anti-gay agenda. The rest of us have a right to write letters to the newspapers.

If those of you who are straight have friends or neighbors who are openly gay, you can give emotional support when appropriate.

If your church has someone who gets up and spouts this stuff as church dogma, we can make a stand and say no it is not.

We don't have to let the anti gays take over our churches, schools, libraries, and host of other things. We can use our voices to speak out, organize.

We can over time convince the people that this woman is a fool and when she does open her mouth to speak she removes all doubt that she might be a fool.

We can reach out to her son and other sons who have been abandon by theri homophobic parents. And if necessary help provide financial assistance to hlep them get on their feet.

We don't have to just listen to the windbag and do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[B_coldstoli]

I suppose legally she has a right to express her views especially as a private citizen according to the US Constitution.>>

Damn sporting of you. Really.

 

[unabear09]

Not trying to start anything here....just my opinion......another fine example of the great Christian values....... and I say this because I have heard some of this same bullshit from my Christian friends and family

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
The rest of us have a right to picket her office, conduct demonstrations against not just her but all who are pushing this anti-gay agenda. The rest of us have a right to write letters to the newspapers.
<...>
We don't have to let the anti gays take over our churches, schools, libraries, and host of other things. We can use our voices to speak out, organize.

I'm glad you pointed out these two concepts, Freddie. If she does it, she's protecting our country from certain extinction. If I do it, it's an evil, sinister agenda.

That's what this type of sick, twisted individual just doesn't get. They claim that my right to be left alone infringes on their rights.

 

[dong20]

I really didn't mean it to sound harsh, but I can't help but think that a 20 year old straight Londoner really cannot understand politics in Oklahoma. I do apologize if I'm mistaken about that.

Hell, I lived one state over for many, many years. At age 20, I really didn't have a clue what Oklahoma politics was all about. I'm still not perfectly clear on it. I do know that it can be very backward (not the average person from OK, but the way the politics run...)

As you say, I'd imagine a fair number of those living in Oklahoma don't understand it either. At least if the quality of (some of) their elected officials is any indication.