January 14, 2010 at 9:05 am EST | by Christopher R. Barron
Gay left smears GOP Senate hopeful Brown

Special to DC Agenda

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley. As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they predictably turn to smears, distortions and name-calling.

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10 percent, spending spiraling out of control, an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam.

For gay Democrats, what has your unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party brought? More than three years after Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress, and more than a year after a Democrat captured the White House, gay Democrats have almost nothing to show for their fealty to their party. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains in place, the employment non-discrimination bill hasn’t been passed, neither has the domestic partner benefits bill, and instead of a repeal of DOMA you have a White House that has defended DOMA in court — going as far as to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.

No one party deserves blind loyalty and not all Republicans deserve the votes of gays, lesbians and those who care about us and our families. If you care about stopping the expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, if you want to stop the growth and influence of the federal government in every aspect of our lives, if you believe that we should confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam, then Scott Brown, while not perfect, is a Republican who deserves your support.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts have an opportunity to send a message to the current crop of elected leaders in Washington. Nothing would send a clearer message about the unhappiness about the direction of our country than a win by Scott Brown.

  • Brilliant! Another perfectly worded Op-Ed piece that logically states the reality of the misguided approach of the gay left leaders, that are leading our community to the precipice of economic disaster, and their followers are blindly following them to that abyss.

  • Kudos on the well written article, Chris.

  • this is funny to read simply because it’s only in out-of-touch DC that these flailing apologist gay Republicans have any standing to spout their self-serving point of view.

    the rest of us outside of the weird Washington cocoon gave up long ago on the Republican Party as anything but a sad anti-intellectual joke, and W & sarah palin & other GOP leaders & stars bring that point home daily.

    sure, the (gay) lefties can be crazy & shrill, too, no question. but their hyperbolic campaign tactics could never possibly reach the bottom-fishing level of the institutionalized anti-gay methods of most (not all, perhaps) Republican candidates at all levels of government.

    one would hope that, even in DC, gay folks would have a bit more personal pride & clarity of mind than to be openly… Republican.

  • I am not expecting Scott Brown to be perfect, I am not expecting him to be 100 percent perfect, but he should at least support 66 percent of the equality agenda of Employment Non Discrimination Act and repealing DADT.

    I know our economy is hurting and the Democratic Party is failing to deliver, perhaps Scott should be given a chance. If Scott behaves more like Jim DeMint instead of Olympia Snowe then dump him in 2012.

  • I’m with Chris and electing Scott Brown. My main priorities are the economy, defending the Constitution of the United States from a collectivist attack, and individual liberty. If, as some here would proscribe, I were to base my entire person on being gay – why would I be a Democrat? Who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Bill Clinton – a Democrat. Who implemented Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Bill Clinton – a Democrat. Those would be the two most singularly anti-gay pieces of legislation ever. So I choose the party of individual responsibility and adherence to the Constitution. Is every Republican perfect? Far from it. But the worst Republican ends up mirroring a Democrat by using the state to enforce his prejudice. This is the statist approach advocated by Democrats – so I would contend they are just in the wrong party! Lighten up Francis, and start voting your pocketbook honey!

  • Yet another instance in which the GOProud crowd has predictably tried to distort reality with half-truths. Oh, if all there were to Scott Brown’s record on LGBT issues were his current opposition to marriage equality! I might even then need to concede that his record were indistinguishable from the President’s (while also pointing out that the President has to run in Missouri and Indiana and North Carolina in two years, presumably making it far more politically difficult for him to stand for equality than someone running for office in Massachusetts).

    Of course, however, there is much more to the story and those are the facts that Barron so earnestly doesn’t want you to know that he willfully concealed them in his latest diatribe. First, President Obama has never supported the enshrinement of anti-gay discrimination in any constitution and in fact voted against the FMA and expressed his opposition to Proposition 8 in California (not as loudly as he should have perhaps but he voiced it nonetheless). Scott Brown, on the other hand, gleefully assisted Mitt Romney’s efforts to overturn marriage equality in Massachusetts by writing anti-gay discrimination into the State’s constitution. He was so proud of those efforts that he emphasized them in his race for a state senate seat in 2004. He may be savvy enough to recognize that running on a platform urging the repeal of marriage equality in 2010 in Massachusetts would doom what is already an uphill battle for him in a State where well over half of voters support marriage equality but let’s judge him on his record.

    But wait, there’s more and of course Mr. Barron doesn’t want you to know this about his friend, our great ally Mr Brown. In 2001, Brown said it was “not normal’’ for then-state senator Cheryl Jacques and her partner to have children. He also referred to her “alleged family responsibilities.’’” In his campaign this year, Brown has welcomed contributions from numerous activists and groups that have fought equality for gay and lesbian people. I recognize that, among the crowd who would hail John McBush’s selection of Sarah Palin by proclaiming her a “mainstream” and “inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters” (this is from the official press release of the Log Cabin Republicans following McBush’s selection of Palin), that the above-described attacks by Mr. Brown on a lesbian colleague and her family do not merit the label “anti-gay” but I suspect that, for most of the rest of us in the sane world, they do.

    We’ve seen this storyline before, by the way. Republicans running in progressive States in the Northeast sound inclusive and de-emphasize their anti-gay records while campaigning in order to get elected and then, once in office, they return to form. Thus, Mitt Romney in 1994 promised to do more for gay rights than the great Senator Kennedy had ever done but, once in office as governor, he spared no effort in his attempts to overturn marriage equality and even made clear his opposition to civil unions. Rudy Giuliani sold himself as a “moderate” on LGBT issues when running in New York but then, when seeking the Republican nomination for President, declared that he would’ve vetoed the New Hampshire civil unions law and also stated that he might be open to supporting the FMA in the future if enough States recognized marriage equality. Chris Christie did his best to avoid any focus on his hostility to gay people while running for Governor of New Jersey last year but, once elected, he personally lobbied “moderate” Republican state senators to ensure that they did not buck the party line and vote for marriage equality.

    So, how should we judge Scott Brown? Mr. Barron would like us to believe that, because he says he wouldn’t seek to overturn marriage equality in Massachusetts (a matter of state, not federal, law) as a U.S. Senator, we should embrace him as our friend and ignore the vicious personal attacks he previously made against a lesbian colleague and her family. I say that, especially when his opponent is an accomplished woman whose record on LGBT issues is unblemished and who in 2009 became the first State Attorney General to bring suit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, we judge Mr. Brown by his record. And yes, Mr. Barron, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that record is most decidedly an “anti-gay” one.

    As for Mr. Barron’s other allegations, apparently he would have us believe that Mr. Obama should be held responsible, after one year in office, for the State of the economy and the unemployment rate, despite the fact that it was his crowd who drove our economy into the ditch and left us on the precipice of the worst economic crisis in 70 years. The President has kept us from going off the cliff and has, with a stimulus program that no doubt should have been bolder and bigger, created jobs. By all means, though, those who believe that we should return to Bush economics should vote for Scott Brown!

    I have no idea on what basis Mr. Barron would suggest that the President is unwilling to confront extremists from the Middle East, given the attacks that have been waged in recent months in Yemen and in Pakistan. Apparently, Mr. Barron feels that a more effective strategy would be invading countries that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks since, you know, invading Greece makes sense when you’re attacked by extremists from Denmark. They’re all Euopeans, right? Those who want more spectacular successess in the battle against “radical anti-gay Islam” like the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq (and all the great results that has brought for gay people within Iraq) should by all means vote for Scott Brown!

    Mr. Barron also suggests that the health insurance reform bill likely to be signed by President Obama in the coming months represents “an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare,” presumably contending that private insurance companies are much more the friends of gay and lesbian people and much more likely to act fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner toward us. Of course, the bill to be signed by the President does not in fact represent “government-run healthcare” (which you can find, I might add, in the UK, where patients report greater satisfaction with the state of their health care than patients in this country do). Doctors will continue to work in the private sector and hospitals will continue to be privately owned (other than in the the case of veterans’ hospitals, one of the most successful corners of our health care delivery system). The bill to be signed by the President simply expands coverage (a result which is not only socially and morally responsible but also benefits those of us with coverage) and seeks to curbs the worst abuses of private insurance companies by preventing them from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping premium-paying patients once they get sick. Apparently this is objectionable to the GOProud crowd but I suspect they’re just a little nervous about how grateful voters might thank Dems for these sensible reforms in elections to come. No doubt the bill to be signed by the President does not do enough but Republicans like Joe Lieberman and the rest of his party, on the behest of their patrons the big insurance companies, made sure that the bill would not herald the introduction of any real competition for the fat cat insurance companies.

    Mr. Barron asks us what allegiance to the Democratic Party brought us? Perhaps not as much as we would like as soon as we would like but it has brought us the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act and the appointment to the Supreme Court of a great new Justice in Sonia Sotomayor. Apparently you would prefer to return to the days when your party attempted to write discrimination against gay and lesbian people into our federal Constitution (a move which attracted the support of 45 of 51 Republican Senators and would have moved forward had it not been for the opposition of 44 of 47 present Democratic Senators) and nominated to the Supreme Court such great friends of equality as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    Finally, for the commenter who believes that Olympia Snowe is the model to which we should be aiming for gay-friendly Senators, I note that, while she is undoubtedly less offensive than the 95% of Republican U.S. Senators who are rabidly homophobic, she in 2009 restated her support for DOMA and refused to say how she was voting on Proposition 1 in her own State. Some friend.

  • http:/gay.americablog.com/2010/01/nom-making-calls-for-scott-brown.html

    but, please, please, don’t call him anti-gay”!


    he’s a mainstream republican!

  • thank you Patric from saving me from all of that typing.
    Brown is not in any way shape or form a friend of LGBT people and he would actively an rabidly work against us if elected.
    he should stay in the centerfolds where his lackluster dangly bits are covered by his wrist…

  • Democrats need to wake up and realize that this race is more important than just local Mass issues. Who is elected could determine the direction many national issues will go. Dems need to get out and vote on tuesday or much will be lost for women rights, gay and lesbian rights, and democratic rights in general.

  • Well I wondered what the “Agenda” was. Now I know. It’s an agenda for shills masquerading as successors to the venerable Washington Blade.

  • As I stated on a blog referring to this original article. This article is a misleading. President Obama does not support gay marriage but he does support civil unions on the national level and has stated that gays and lesbians should have the same equality as those that are married. Scott Brown only supports civil unions on a state by state basis which isn’t the same thing. Actually using the term “support” is misleading, Scott Brown has not promised to do ANYTHING that would promote civil unions or increase gay civil rights! Scott Brown voted twice in Massachusetts to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one women. He even supported the original Travers amendment which would have forbid civil unions President Obama opposed DOMA and voted against the Federal Marriage amendment. He was against the California amendment of the constitution. He has also promised to reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. While he may not have followed through on some of his promises yet, he has shown that he is at least interested in pursing rights for the LGBT community, while Scott Brown has remained silent. The big issue is that Scott Brown is not running against President Obama, but Martha Coakley! Martha Coakley has a measurable and outstanding record for supporting the GLBT community. She believes in marriage equality and has made history by filing a lawsuit to repeal DOMA. Even Martha Coakley’s Web site carefully specifies the gay and lesbian issues that still need work (a full repeal of DOMA and ’don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly, as well as protection against hate crimes and ending housing discrimination) . Scott Brown promise nothing to the gay community and has NOT supported it in the past. There is no way that someone who has done their research can say that Scott Brown isn’t bad for the Gay community. He has a definite, measurable record of being ANTI-GAY! To quote a friend, “Gays voting for Scott Brown is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders!”

  • Martha Coakley is a huge LGBT supporter. As AG of Massachusetts, she is suing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. To urge people to stay home or support Brown is irresponsible and shameful for an LGBT publication. Shame on you.

  • “The Great Senator Kennedy?” Great as in having gotten away with murder, like the “Great” O J Simpson? And Martha Coakley is a huge GLBT supporter? ALL Democrats are amazingly supportive of gays and blacks when election
    time rolls around, then shove them to the back burner. Just WHAT have democrats ever actually done for gays and blacks but made empty promises and kept the latter fully dependent on Government assistance? Yes, I am a gay man.

  • As a gay man, I was proud to vote for Scott Brown. I am sick of the liberal leaders of our community labeling everyone ‘homophobes’. Scott Brown sincerely believes that our lifestyle choice is an unhealthy one and not appropriate for raising children. That doesn’t make him anti-gay. My bedroom antics aren’t the top priority in my life and he knows that.

    There are so many more important national issues than endorsing artificial male/male marriages. We already have what could be characterized as “special rights” in many states that explicitly protect us in employment and housing. I’m proud of Log Cabin and GOProud for representing the majority of gay men who reject the liberal gay agenda.

  • Dale that was by far the worst impression of a gay man I’ve ever seen.

  • Of course, self loathing gays like the author of this spin piece think it’s perfectly OK for bigots like Brown to attack two women adopting kids as “not normal.”

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2021. All rights reserved.