There's a video on the site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/lindsey-graham-gay-conser_n_544554.html

Quote :

"William Gheen, head of the conservative, anti-"amnesty," anti-illegal immigration group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), spoke at a Greenville, S.C. Tea Party rally this weekend and called for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to "come out of that log cabin closet." According to Gheen, being gay is "a secret that Lindsey Graham has." Gheen told the crowd: "I hope this secret isn't being used as leverage over Senator Graham, so today I think Senator Graham, you need to come forward and tell people about your alternative lifestyle and your homosexuality." "Barney Frank is more honest and brave than you," Gheen continued, referring to the openly-gay Massachusetts congressman. ALIPAC has posted the video titled "US Senator Graham is Gay" on YouTube, where various news outlets have covered it."

4/22/2010 11:57:42 AM

so if she really isn't, would this be considered slander or libel?

4/22/2010 12:17:10 PM

^Graham is a dude

4/22/2010 12:28:22 PM

^^lol, might be time to leave The Soapbox

I had no idea Barney Frank was gay. I thought he just talked funny!

4/22/2010 1:03:47 PM

welcome to......


his entire political career.

4/22/2010 1:06:52 PM

Quote :

"^^lol, might be time to leave The Soapbox"

says the guy who didn't know Barney Frank was gay

4/22/2010 1:26:35 PM

who cares if he is gay or not?

4/22/2010 1:31:27 PM

like

his voting base

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM. Reason : his constituents, if you will]

4/22/2010 1:32:49 PM

Quote :

"would this be considered slander or libel?"

Not in NC at least. The N.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 1994 that falsely claiming someone is gay or bisexual is not libel. That however did not prevent the current head of the NC GOP from filing a lawsuit against someone who called him gay back when he was running for head of the NC GOP.

During the Sanford scandal in South Carolina all the GOPs starting calling the Lt Gov gay to try to keep him from ascending. Its a fairly routine smear campaign among conservatives to call someone gay as a part of party infighting.

4/22/2010 1:43:23 PM

^I had no idea they did that to each other.

I thought it was hilariously absurd on last night's Daily Show.

But, man, that's all kinds of screwed up...

How is that party gonna make any progress if it still views an important issue in the same context that school kids on a playground do?



And has anybody noticed conservatives on TWW are a lot less likely to be homophobic than they used to be? I don't wanna name any names, but there are some folks that have done a complete 180 since they lost big in '08...they may have realized alienating ten percent of the population (plus a bunch more allies) isn't the way to go on something that doesn't affect them in the slightest, which is good!

4/22/2010 1:54:46 PM

Quote :

"like his voting base"

maybe. i am not sure how many of them would switch votes to a 'gay-lovin liberal' in his stead.

so again, who cares?

4/22/2010 1:55:54 PM

TKE, I had no idea about frank until the so called yelling event.

Thanks for the info Supplanter, however that seems to describe exactly what slander/libel is. A false claim with the intent to harm, which is exactly what you mentioned. The nature of the claim shouldnt matter, imo.

4/22/2010 2:00:34 PM

Quote :

"And has anybody noticed conservatives on TWW are a lot less likely to be homophobic than they used to be? I don't wanna name any names, but there are some folks that have done a complete 180 since they lost big in '08...they may have realized alienating ten percent of the population (plus a bunch more allies) isn't the way to go on something that doesn't affect them in the slightest, which is good! "

I bet you that a very high percentage of the conservatives in the soap box lean libertarian and are actually pro social-rights. speaking for myself, I dont give a F about social issues. I equate social-issue politics with magazines like People and US Weekly. colorful, pretty to look at and ok to browse through in the checkout line once in while, but there are a lot more important things facing our country then caring about what gender my neighbor prefers to squirt on.

most of us want less government, which would include less of a government who mandates said squirting in a legal sense (ie marriage).

the right is demonized by left to hate gay people, etc...because of the bible-beaters. I would argue that most on the right actually dont give a shit.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2010 2:01:41 PM

^

4/22/2010 2:05:23 PM

Quote :

"I would argue that most on the right actually dont give a shit."

Yes, but they've had no problems tolerating misguided bigots in their midst. In other words, it seems like now they give a shit in that they're actively trying to distance themselves by speaking out in favor of gays rights instead of going along with or even defending the views of their bigoted bedfellows.

4/22/2010 2:16:11 PM

I agree Dabird. Im all for equal rights across the board. Now how many libs will want that? Not many. The most important thing is fiscal policy. This country wont collapse bc we have or dont have gay marriage, it will if we devalue the dollar or start having riots when the govt teet runs dry.

4/22/2010 2:30:06 PM

Quote :

"they've had no problems tolerating misguided bigots in their midst."

lets be real here. we all are tolerating some form of imbecility "in our midsts." I am not likely to change the mind of some homegrown hayseed who happens to vote republican anymore than you are going to change the mind of Louis Farrakhan.

4/22/2010 2:30:45 PM

Quick poll on gay rights issues that are currently media.

Repeal Don’t ask Don’t Tell? Support or Oppose
(Might be voted on soon, the President has said its coming this year. Kay Hagan & Richard Burr both sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee so they get to decide its fate. Doing some vote counting, which isn't perfect, they are 1 vote shy in that committee right now so whether or not Burr wins the general election may make the difference)

Repeal Defense of Marriage Act? Support of Oppose
(note: this isn’t the larger question of whether or not you support gay marriage, or whether or not you think the gov should be in the business of marriage at all. DOMA prevents the feds from recognizing states decisions on marriage so that straight & gay couples who are both legally married/partnered/unioned and living in DC, CT, IA, MA, NH, VT, MD, NY, RI, CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI, are treated differently by the feds.)

Hospital Visitation Rights? Support or Oppose
(Most recently in the media. The President recently directed all hospitals participating in medicare or medicaid to allow anyone to designate anyone as an allowed visitor which he said could help everyone, but would help gay people who have been disproportionately affected by this)

For me:

Repeal DADT? Support
Repeal DOMA? Support
Hospital Visitation Rights? Support

4/22/2010 2:32:48 PM

Have any of you conservatives noticed just how untolerant the liberal left is despite trying to claim the high road of tolerance?

Thats kinda the idea of tolerance brid. Im not gay, but what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business, and certainly not the govt's. I see no problem with people having the same legal union, the problem is if they want to sue churches for discrimination. That I would have a problem with.

4/22/2010 2:34:12 PM

Quote :

"the problem is if they want to sue churches for discrimination"

(citation needed)

4/22/2010 2:56:58 PM

repeal DADT? undecided - I think the military should handle this at a lower level than CNC. maybe a straight (no pun intended) vote of all active military personnel? to me, this isnt really a big deal.

repeal DOMA? support (less federal, more local. all for it)

hospital visitation? support (a person should be able to choose for themselves who visits them in the hospital - ridiculous)

4/22/2010 3:02:37 PM

Quote :

"so if she really isn't"

hahahaha

Quote :

"I had no idea Barney Frank was gay."

hahahaha



oh, and:

Repeal DADT? Oppose, but support modifying current enforcement
Repeal DOMA? Support
Hospital Visitation Rights? Support

4/22/2010 3:12:47 PM

here's a question for those of you in favor of gay marriage/unions. if you're in favor of two people, no matter the gender, being able to become a legal union, are you also against the idea of anymore than two people being joined as a legal union? in other words, how do you argue in favor of gay marriage but also argue against polygamy? or, if you aren't opposed to polygamy, are you simply in favor of the government removing itself from the licensing process altogether?

this is more of an intellectual exercise than me arguing for or against gay marriage.

4/22/2010 3:17:59 PM

^ I'm not going to argue on either side of the issue right this moment, but I'll say that my support of gay marriage rights, besides the fact that I'm gay myself, has more to do with inappropriate legislating of morality. Get the church out of legal contracts, rather than the government out of the bedroom.

4/22/2010 3:26:53 PM

Its just a matter of time spooky, but here you go.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

"So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them."

GoldieO, I think it would have to be ONE partner. But I see the slipperly slope. I think the legal mess multiple partners would be too much, but thats just my first reaction.

I think you still have to have the govt certify a legal union for various legal reasons, so I dont think you could ever get the govt totally out of it.

4/22/2010 3:29:08 PM

i'm not advancing the "gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals" slippery slope argument, i just want to know how someone logically defends the union of two consenting adults, no matter the gender, but at the same time argues against the union of more than two consenting adults.

4/22/2010 3:41:34 PM

I know exactly what you meant, which is why I said the legal mess of multiple partners would be a concern.

4/22/2010 3:47:03 PM

I'd just point out that repealing DOMA has no effect on churches.

If you believe that states that have gay marriage will lead to successful lawsuits against churches forcing them to marry gay people, or states that allow atheist marriage will lead to successful lawsuits against churches forcing them to marry atheists, or anything else, that has nothing to do with DOMA since it wont change the status of whether a given state has allowed gay marriage or not.

4/22/2010 3:49:56 PM

basically how do two people divorce themselves from the third person in the union, how do you divide custody of children four ways in a divorce, who pays alimony to who, etc.?

so you're not arguing against polygamy, you're just saying you think in our overly litigious society it would lead to enough undesirable situations that the average non-polygamist would understand why we should stick with two person unions?

4/22/2010 3:56:34 PM

^doesnt matter, you are changing the arguement. I never once mentioned DOMA, this has to do with civil unions and sueing churches for discrimination. Its one thing to fight for legal rights than to sue a religious organization, who disagrees with what you are doing, in an attempt to force them to comply with your desires.

goldie, I think there is a HOST of legal issues you can get into. Liablity, taxes, custody, etc. Im not saying it cant be done, but that is my first reservation.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2010 3:56:46 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "I had no idea Barney Frank was gay." hahahaha"

I mean, I'm not surprised but if I think a person acts kinda funny based on what I see of them on TV I don't research them to determine their sexuality. B/c that's a waste of my time

4/22/2010 4:28:14 PM

Barney Frank is also Jewish. If anything, those characteristics about his personality and background show up in his public persona moreso than his being gay.

4/22/2010 4:31:03 PM

Lindsey is a girl's name.

4/22/2010 4:47:49 PM

not as bad as Leslie Grammer

4/22/2010 5:40:30 PM

... Kelsey?

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 5:47 PM. Reason : you mighta been thining Leslie Neilsen]

4/22/2010 5:46:59 PM

Other gay congressmen & women at the national level:




State level:

4/22/2010 6:54:07 PM

Quote :

"Family...Politics...A Pitcher of Margaritas...And Some Chatter About Food. Thursday, July 23, 2009 Lindsey Graham in a Gay Way Every time I see a clip of South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham spewing his oldwhitemale speak, I want to hurl...something breakable at the TV screen. It brings back all those not-so-WAF feelings about GW. His latest tirade directed at Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor during last week's nomination hearings was shocking in its racist, sexist, condescending, and just plain out-of-touch and out-of-date sentiments. One of the outrageous bits happened when Graham took swipes at Sotomayor with an arsenal of "anonymous comments." Luckily, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart called Graham out on this absurdity, seen here on Jezebel. Included are full-length versions of Stewart's anonymous comments about Graham. Hypocrite much, LG? This got me thinking about what Graham is so...uptight about. What is he hiding? What's that lid on the just-about-to-boil kettle of his soul covering up? Is he having an affair of his own, like his C Street brothers? Nope, the 50-something-year-old Graham is as single as that goose Felix Ungar and has been his entire adult life, so there's no lack of fidelity there. Hmmm...gay? Type that into Google Search. Turns out I'm not the only one to speculate about Graham's sexuality. Over the last few years there have been dozens of folks pondering his extracurriculars. Of course, none of this would matter if Graham wasn't one of those holier-than-thou types against same-sex marriage and just a general tool to anyone whose eyelashes aren't as blonde as his. But since he is, check out all the articles over the past couple years claiming he just might be batting for the other team: From the Charleston City Paper, columnist Greg Hambrick asks the big question and quotes South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Dick Harpootlian saying Graham had no chance of winning the 2002 election because he was just "too light in the loafers." Notice also that even though the post is a few years old, the comments are from within the last week. The paper then brought it up again, and Wonkette has mentioned it (or said MSNBC did). And then here are more links to other bloggers discussing it: Firedoglake, Down With Tyranny, and Big Head DC -- Graham certainly does have Bette Davis eyes, doesn't he? You can even register your opinion about Graham's gayness on Craigslist. "

http://www.inthefringes.com/2009/07/lindsey-graham-in-gay-way.html

4/22/2010 7:25:49 PM

Quote :

"'Outrage': Kirby Dick kicks open Washington's closet door April 23, 2009 | 1:25 pm Would a host of key members of the Washington political establishment be less hostile to gay rights if they came out of the closet and acknowledged being gay themselves? That's the question at the heart of "Outrage," Kirby Dick's rabble-rousing new documentary that debuts tonight at New York's Tribeca Film Festival. (It opens May 8 in L.A. and four other cities, including Washington.) Clearly pulling no punches, the film investigates the secret lives of closeted gay politicians, some of whom have spent years in office with only the skimpiest of scrutiny from the mainstream media. If nothing else, "Outrage" establishes Dick as a formidable force in the investigative documentary field, especially coming on the heels of his last doc, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which bashed the MPAA's impenetrable and often irrational film rating system. Daviddreir I know what you're thinking. If you've seen the film, spill it already. So who does he out? Dick's targets include Florida's current governor, Charlie Crist"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/outraged-kirby-dick-kicks-open-washingtons-closet-door-.html

4/22/2010 7:29:33 PM

4/22/2010 7:30:38 PM

So was Representative Polis trying to tell us he was a pitcher and a catcher with that baseball at the wall stunt?

4/22/2010 11:04:52 PM

Multitasking is a fine skill to have in government work.

4/22/2010 11:36:09 PM

^^^^ "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" wasn't too bad. Netflix has it available for streaming.

4/23/2010 7:07:42 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/24/graham-move-imperils-obama-push-for-immigration-reform-climate-change/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"(CNN) – In a stunning move that could throw a major roadblock in front of two of President Obama's biggest legislative initiatives, Sen. Lindsey Graham abruptly declared Saturday he's abandoning talks on climate change legislation because he believes Democratic efforts to bring up a separate immigration reform package is undermining the legislative process."

Quote :

"Graham is the only leading Republican who has been working with the White House on the contentious issue. A senior White House official told CNN that in recent days Graham has been privately threatening that he would abandon the climate talks unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, backed off of plans to push forward with comprehensive immigration reform ahead of the environmental legislation. Reid released a statement Saturday saying he’s still committed to tackling both issues and will not be deterred by Graham’s decision. “I appreciate the work of Senator Graham on both of these issues and understand the tremendous pressure he is under from members of his own party not to work with us on either measure,” said Reid. “But I will not allow him to play one issue off of another, and neither will the American people. They expect us to do both, and they will not accept the notion that trying to act on one is an excuse for not acting on the other.""

Quote :

"This is also an about-face on immigration reform for Graham because he has been pressing the White House to move forward on comprehensive reform on that issue as well. His move comes just one day after Obama called on both parties to pass immigration reform on the federal level in response to a new law in Arizona that will allow local police to stop individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants. Democrats privately charged Saturday that Graham was trying to scuttle immigration reform in order to protect his close friend, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, from having to deal with a sticky issue in advance of his tough August GOP primary battle in Arizona to keep his Senate seat. McCain has previously pushed for comprehensive immigration reform but has been recently talking about securing America's borders first, a position that puts the senator more in line with his conservative primary opponent, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth."

Something is pushing Graham more to the right and to obstructionism. He claims he's against continuing to work on climate change because doing 2 things at once isn't right. The dems claim that he's covering for McCain on immigration to try to help keep him from getting tea party challenged out of office.

4/24/2010 6:10:09 PM

Quote :

"too light in the loafers"

LOL

4/25/2010 2:32:36 AM

Lindsey is trying to obstruct climate change because we can't do 2 things at once, and now "GOP lawmakers seek to halt immigration reform push" because they don't want us doing one thing at once.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/25/gop-lawmakers-seek-to-halt-immigration-reform-push/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"Two key Republican lawmakers joined a growing GOP effort Sunday to halt the push for immigration reform, arguing the time is not right to take on the massive and complex issue."

4/26/2010 2:49:01 AM

The time is never right for anything. Give them a week and they'll come up with a new excuse. They said the exact same thing about healthcare reform and repealing DADT.

In fairness, congressional Democrats will likely give the Repubs that excuse within a week's time.

4/26/2010 8:07:56 AM

Now the GOP are tying to block debate, not a vote on the issue, just debate on financial protection reform.

4/26/2010 8:54:01 PM

Quote :

"^I had no idea they did that to each other."

Rove commenting on the tea party win in Delaware tonight (tea party candidate accusing the GOP candidate that she beat):

9/15/2010 2:36:09 AM

^
This is what the battle will look like as the Grass-root conservatives (warts and all) try to wrestle the party back from the establishment Rinos.

9/15/2010 10:21:33 AM

Why is it that politicians always seem to come out as gay, but never as bi? It's always some crazy story like, "oh yeah, my entire life for the past 40 years has been a complete lie, I'm not even remotely attracted to women."

9/15/2010 11:10:30 AM