User Name
Pass Word:


The chairman of the RNC is homosexual
Previous | Next by Casey 29 March, 2005 - 4:07 AM

[One of the members] said he expected not to hear a GLBT welcome from Mehlman. “He just can’t do it yet, but as long as [RNC Chairman Ken Melman] is sleeping with men behind the scenes, that’s all I care about.”
-Fred Bachhuber

"[Ken] Mehlman has already said publicly that the gay issue is fair game for politics. If it's fair game, then the same rules apply to him."
-John Aravosis

More from the Washington Blade.

Isn't it weird that the chairman of the DNC was the first executive in America to vote for civil rights that apply the chairman of the RNC, who doesn't support those rights for himself?

3/29/2005 >> rich

While Mehlman has been more than willing -- both before and after the election -- to talk specifically about campaign-related issues, he has made his personal life off limits. By refusing to answer direct questions from reporters about his sexual orientation, he has left open the possibility that he is gay.

And who cares? I don't. If this is referencing gay marriage, while it may not seem totally logical, not all gays support gay marriage.

People would not look favorably if people went on a crusade to out a Dem that didn’t want to be outed

3/29/2005 >> rich

Oh and regarding marriage I do not think the state should even recognize marriage per say.
However if the government insists on having specific tax rules and etcetera applying to couples (another thing I do not actually agree with) there should be no guidelines at all beyond being of legal age to enter into such a government-recognized pairing.
For instance through out our bachelorhood if my brother and myself had thought it advantageous to form a “union” or “household” for tax proposes why should we prevented from doing so. We both trust each other implicitly, live in the same house and I think would even currently be considered next of kin in an emergency. Sounds to me like most any benefits provided by the system to any pairing of people could and should apply to us.
Marriage should be nothing more then a social custom, not a government regulated and prescribed arraignment.

3/29/2005 >> Dan

Dood partnering with your brother is just plain wrong :)

But I do believe a cousin is okay.....

But, yes I would agree the marriage is a religous institution and Congress shall make no law blah blah blah.....

3/29/2005 >> Casey

"And who cares? I don't."

But apparently you have an opinion anyway. As you said yourself, you don't think the feds should even be involved in the marriage issue, and yet, this is exactly what Mehlman has promoted, vehemently.

"while it may not seem totally logical, not all gays support gay marriage. "

Uh, Rich, that's exactly the point. In fact, its even more than "not logical" its hypocrisy.

"People would not look favorably if people went on a crusade to out a Dem that didn’t want to be outed"

If said Dem politicized the gay marriage issue or was a strong supporter of the defense of marriage act, I think people, (read: Dems) would look very favorably on the exposure of thier hypocrisy. I know I would.

3/29/2005 >> Casey

That is, if said Dem politicized the gay marriage issue from an opposition perspective.

Also, your point about you and your brother forming a civil union is a little misleading, dishonest and diversionary. As you know, you already at least have the right to claim his body and his inheiritance as next of kin. Gay couples that have been monogamous for 60 years don't even have that right in most states. Also, as siblings you can claim "head of house hold benefits, which are essentialyl equivalent to "married filing jointly. Gay couples also do not have this tax advantage.

Head of Household Benefits

Filing as head of household offers the following advantages:
* Your standard deduction is higher than that allowed for a single or married filing separate return.
* Your tax rate usually will be lower than a single or married filing separate return.
* The limits for itemized deductions and the phase-out of deductions for personal exemptions begin at twice the income levels for heads of households than for single or married filing separate returns.

Requirements. You can file as head of household only if you were unmarried on the last day of the year. You must also have paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was your main residence for more than half of the year. The home must have been occupied by you, and any of the following qualifying persons for more than half the year:
* Unmarried children -- your child, grandchild, stepchild, foster child or adopted child. These children must be single to qualify. If married, you must be able to claim an exemption for them.
* Other relatives living with you and whom you can claim an exemption for. These can include parents, grandparents, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, stepfamily members, half-siblings or in-laws. One exception: parents do not have to live with you, but you must pay more than half the cost of keeping your parent in a rest home or home for the elderly.

So you can still get the sweet tax exemptions and even file jointly as long as the brother who put in 51% of the household expenses files as head of house and the other gets listed as a dependent.

Again though, that is way far beside the point.

3/29/2005 >> rich

Just learned something new, I thought head of household was only if their were children in the house.
I just might get industrious and see what redoing the taxes would be like. Thanks man

But secondly…

I for one do not agree with the argument as I have said above, however compelling arguments can be made regarding keeping marriage and opposite sex arraignment. Just because one “bats for the other team” sexually does not mean they think the government should allow same sex marriage.

Just because I disagree with something does not mean I can not see how it could be a compelling argument in another’s mind.

3/29/2005 >> Casey

"Just because one “bats for the other team” sexually does not mean they think the government should allow same sex marriage. "

But it should, based on basic self-interest.

Listen, the conservative right has expressed a sentiment that they deserve to know all of the most intimate character details of thier leaders. At least they sure did think so when Bill Clinton was president. The people responsible for recent anti-gay legislation are the same people telling us that homosexuality is an immoral sin and that homosexuals are evil. Don't you think that this constituency deserves to know that the leader of thier party is an immoral, evil, homosexual sinner?

Frankly I wouldn't trust a homosexual who was anti-gay marriage as far as I could throw him. Any homosexual that would put his politics before the love of his life is an actual immoral homosexual. That's the real sin.

3/29/2005 >> muhgcee

I don't believe that self-interest should always rule. I (sometimes) admire someone who believes in something so strongly that it overtakes their own self-interest. Well, as long as they know what the hell they are talking about and aren't tricked into it.

3/29/2005 >> muhgcee

But in this example, I don't admire this man.

You must be logged in to comment.


This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Kheiligh. Make your own badge here.