Anderson Cooper DESTROYS Pam Bondi: “Sick Irony” Of Gay Marriage Opposition

[SKANK 14,288]

8 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Trumps position on gay rights has been shaky at best. The comments you posted are from 2015 but in 2016 he told FOX News that he’d “strongly consider” overturning same-sex marriage, and he urged evangelical leaders to “trust” him to protect “traditional marriage.”

The fact is  that a presidential nominee like Trump, who is wildly popular is promoting the idea of nominating a supreme court justice to help overturn equal marriage. 

"It's bizarre that you would suggest the massacre in Orland is a consequence of the Attorney General of Florida arguing against marriage equality in a federal courtroom."

I haven't suggested that. It's bizarre that you would twist my comments to make it seem as if I am blaming her for the massacre when I have said since my first reply to you that it isn't even about her, it's about the larger picture. I doubt the shooter even knew who she was let alone heard her words and decided to shoot up an LGBT club.

My point was that Pam, and those who think and acted like her, helped to protect and normalise LGBT discrimination. People like her tried to prevent gay marriage, which would have made much of the work she is doing now almost impossible, and people like her are still barriers to ending discrimination. By pointing out that her opposition to gay marriage would have ironically prevented the work she is doing now, it points out to those that still hold such discriminatory views the consequences of dismantling gay marriage.

Like I said, from the beginning, congrats to Pam for putting aside her political beliefs to help the LGBT community now. It's really very admirable. That doesn't however erase what she has done in the past and it's certainly not a bad thing to call out the impact of discriminatory politics and language after an LGBT club has been shot up.

 

Donald Trump's stance on gay rights being, as you said, "shaky at best" is a stark comparison to the unabashedly anti-gay stances of candidates who have become the Republican's nominee for president in the past. The fact that the "wildly popular" Republican nominee isn't running a campaign rooted in stripping gay people of their civil rights ought to be a pretty clear indicator of the shifting proprieties of the majority of Republican voters. And if that isn't enough of a indicator then just look at polling, which makes clear that Republicans are coming around on issues of gay rights. So, I'll say it again, it's frankly ridiculous to claim that gay marriage is under threat.

 

As for Pam Bondi, we will have to agree to disagree. I think it displayed a tremendous lack of character to berate, I mean "DESTROY" someone on national television when they are working to help LGBT victims. It's not the time. Save the criticism until after the bodies are in the ground. Who knows how formative this experience may be for her, how much it may change her position on gay rights?

The real irony is that Anderson Cooper, a public figure who spent most of his career as a closet case, hiding his sexuality to avoid career repercussions, is going to lecture someone else on their past history of not supporting gay rights.

[Bebe 17,289]

22 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

Donald Trump's stance on gay rights being, as you said, "shaky at best" is a stark comparison to the unabashedly anti-gay stances of candidates who have become the Republican's nominee for president in the past. The fact that the "wildly popular" Republican nominee isn't running a campaign rooted in stripping gay people of their civil rights ought to be a pretty clear indicator of the shifting proprieties of the majority of Republican voters. And if that isn't enough of a indicator then just look at polling, which makes clear that Republicans are coming around on issues of gay rights. So, I'll say it again, it's frankly ridiculous to claim that gay marriage is under threat.

 

As for Pam Bondi, we will have to agree to disagree. I think it displayed a tremendous lack of character to berate, I mean "DESTROY" someone on national television when they are working to help LGBT victims. It's not the time. Save the criticism until after the bodies are in the ground. Who knows how formative this experience may be for her, how much it may change her position on gay rights?

The real irony is that Anderson Cooper, a public figure who spent most of his career as a closet case, hiding his sexuality to avoid career repercussions, is going to lecture someone else on their past history of not supporting gay rights.

Like I said "The future of gay marriage seems pretty rosey, but I still think it's important to be vigilant". I hardly think that it's in mortal danger, but it's a very real risk that the current candidate is strongly considering supreme court judges that want to reverse the decision on gay marriage. Clearly, regardless of the fact that those against gay marriage are losing an uphill battle, there is a threat to gay marriage. It's not urgent, but it would be ridiculous to claim there is no threat when there is a current presidential candidate saying he will consider appointing an anti-gay judge. The republican candidates that were 2nd and 3rd most popular were also very anti-gay marriage and wanted to try and reverse the supreme court decision. You can scream polling all you want, the fact is we HAVE a presidential candidate NOW that has said he wants to appoint a supreme court judge who would reverse their decision. In that situation it doesn't matter how much of the country support gay marriage on a national level - it's not their choice.

Saying Anderson Cooper DESTROYED Pam is silly hyperbole  I don't think he did that, I think he held her accountable. You are right, clearly we will have to agree to disagree. You say this "Who knows how formative this experience may be for her, how much it may change her position on gay rights?" but according to her she is now supportive of the LGBT community, if she had already made that transition then surely she can admit that her past actions where wrong? Like I keep saying, it's bigger than her anyway  I keep congratulating her on her current stance, so clearly my position isn't to burn her to the ground, but I think it's possible and important to congratulate her on her position now while also calling out the discriminatory politics and discriminatory language that surely has some impact on hate crimes.

This was such a giant attack on the LGBT community. It killed 50 LGBT men and women and injured many more. My position is that we should call out the discriminatory language and politics which no doubt plays a role in these hate crimes. We should call out those who opposed giving LGBT members sort of spousal rights that are so needed right now. We should stress the importance of such protections. There is no more of a perfect opportunity to do that then when interviewing someone who is stressing the importance of helping the families and partners of victims when less than a year ago they were trying to deny those protections to LGBT families and partners.

[SKANK 14,288]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

Like I said "The future of gay marriage seems pretty rosey, but I still think it's important to be vigilant". I hardly think that it's in mortal danger, but it's a very real risk that the current candidate is strongly considering supreme court judges that want to reverse the decision on gay marriage. Clearly, regardless of the fact that those against gay marriage are losing an uphill battle, there is a threat to gay marriage. It's not urgent, but it would be ridiculous to claim there is no threat when there is a current presidential candidate saying he will consider appointing an anti-gay judge. The republican candidates that were 2nd and 3rd most popular were also very anti-gay marriage and wanted to try and reverse the supreme court decision. You can scream polling all you want, the fact is we HAVE a presidential candidate NOW that has said he wants to appoint a supreme court judge who would reverse their decision. In that situation it doesn't matter how much of the country support gay marriage on a national level - it's not their choice.

Saying Anderson Cooper DESTROYED Pam is silly hyperbole  I don't think he did that, I think he held her accountable. You are right, clearly we will have to agree to disagree. You say this "Who knows how formative this experience may be for her, how much it may change her position on gay rights?" but according to her she is now supportive of the LGBT community, if she had already made that transition then surely she can admit that her past actions where wrong? Like I keep saying, it's bigger than her anyway  I keep congratulating her on her current stance, so clearly my position isn't to burn her to the ground, but I think it's possible and important to do what while also calling out the discriminatory politics and discriminatory language that surely has some impact on hate crimes.

 

Marriage equality is both rosy and at risk at the same time? lol

Your mistake is holding Donald Trump to one specific quote. You can't do that. Donald Trump is a contradiction machine. By cherry picking one quote to make a point you are ignoring the larger context of his campaign. The reality is, Donald Trump is ambivalent when it comes to gay rights, and that ambivalence is itself a sign of change in the Republican party. That ambivalence is a step toward acceptance. If you honestly believe that Donald Trump would appoint a judge to the supreme court in order to overturn marriage equality, then you haven't been paying attention to the way he has been campaigning.

But again, we will have to agree to disagree about this Pam Bondi. I think it was handled inappropriately.

 

 

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, SKANK said:

 

Marriage equality is both rosy and at risk at the same time? lol

Your mistake is holding Donald Trump to one specific quote. You can't do that. Donald Trump is a contradiction machine. By cherry picking one quote to make a point you are ignoring the larger context of his campaign. The reality is, Donald Trump is ambivalent when it comes to gay rights, and that ambivalence is itself a sign of change in the Republican party. That ambivalence is a step toward acceptance. If you honestly believe that Donald Trump would appoint a judge to the supreme court in order to overturn marriage equality, then you haven't been paying attention to the way he has been campaigning.

But again, we will have to agree to disagree about this Pam Bondi. I think it was handled inappropriately.

 

 

I don't think it's a contradiction to hold the position that, while things look good and it's unlikely for anti gay campaigners to overturn the supreme court decision, there are risks to same sex marriage including a presidential candidate who is suggesting bringing in an anti-gay judge

It's important not to forget about protecting the rights we fought to gain. Things look nice now, but that can change with a republican president and a couple of conservative supreme judges. 

I mean the next president will have the opportunity to nominee one or more supreme court justices. If Trump wins then he isn't going to be picking a progressive judge by any means, he is going to be picking conservative judge. If you don't think that poses any threat to same sex marriage then you are not listening to the current leaders within the GOP establishment.