February 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm EST | by Noah Baron
Gays for Hillary: It’s an election, not a coronation
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, gay news, Washington Blade, Democratic Primary

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Photo by 1photo; courtesy Bigstock)

From the outset of this primary season, just as in 2008, Hillary Clinton’s supporters have viewed the quadrennial democratic process as a mere formality. Clinton, we are told, deserves the nomination — it is her “turn,” she is “inevitable.” Accordingly, supporters of Clinton have, often without bothering to engage in substantive discussion, dismissed her opponents as non-serious, their proposed policies as fantastical, and their supporters as delusional time-wasters. This political denigration has manifested itself in a variety of ways, from Clinton surrogates saying that young women support Sanders because “the boys are with Bernie,” to Clinton supporters suggesting that I “do not know how politics works” because I intend to vote for Bernie, to, most recently, Brock Thompson’s Blade column of Feb. 26 in which he condescended to Bernie Sanders’ supporters: “Playtime is over.”

The problem with this approach — aside, of course, from its patent offensiveness and corrosiveness to democratic and political discourse — is that it lacks any basis whatever in reality. Like many who support Hillary Clinton, those of us who support Bernie Sanders are reasonable, thoughtful, educated individuals who support our chosen candidate for principled as well as pragmatic reasons. This is not, for us, “playtime.” Though not without his flaws, Bernie Sanders has presented an inspiring vision of a better America, one that addresses the needs of our poorest, one which is far truer to the soul of the Democratic Party than the “no we can’t” defeatism pushed by Hillary Clinton. Bernie recognizes that marginalized communities, including LGBT people, are disproportionately impacted by economic disaster, and has presented concrete proposals to address those problems.

Bernie’s record reveals a man who reliably exercises the moral judgment we require in a president, even where that flies in the face of what is popular. It is unsurprising, then, that he has been a staunch ally to our community. As a mayor in the 1980s, at a time when gays and lesbians were nationally demonized as infested with a plague sent by God, Bernie ushered through an ordinance protecting us against employment discrimination in his city. As a new congressman, Bernie spoke out on behalf of gay and lesbian service members and called for their full and equitable inclusion in the military; he likewise objected strenuously to the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” Years before President Obama and the Democratic Party embraced it, Bernie supported marriage equality. Even now, Bernie advocates for prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people in lending and credit, and extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to LGBT people. In short: Bernie Sanders has supported our community, even when we were among the most reviled minorities in the United States.

I was therefore astonished to read Thompson’s ahistorical claim that it has been Hillary who has been a “staunch supporter” of our community, so we should “be there” for her instead of for Bernie. One would think that, at this point, Clinton’s active support for the Defense of Marriage Act need not bear repeating, but here we are. Not only did Clinton push for DOMA at the time of its enactment — she could not even muster the moral courage to press for a full repeal of it in 2008. Nor does Clinton’s support for marriage qualify her as an ally: She “bravely” arrived at that position only after a majority of Americans and every other major Democrat had already endorsed it.

There may be good reasons to support Clinton — but given the history and policies discussed above, all must admit there exist legitimate reasons to oppose Clinton and to support Bernie. So, supporters of Hillary Clinton: It is time to stop dismissing us, to stop insulting our intelligence, to stop treating us as annoying obstacles to the coronation of your “kween.” Take us and what we have to say seriously and engage us with respect. If you cannot do that, perhaps it is you who does not “understand how politics works”: Votes must be earned.

Noah Baron is a Washington, D.C.-based attorney.

  • Glad to see at least one pro-Bernie piece finally appear in the Washington Blade amid the Clinton love fest. Maybe you will even include this in your print edition – after Super Tuesday is already over of course.

  • The author conveniently forgets that Hillary’s DOMA position in 2008 is exactly the legal strategy employed by Roberta Kaplan in Windsor V. United States. Both Robbie and Edie Windsor support Hillary. Hillary is also credited as being the architect to prevent the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006/2007. Papers in the Clinton Library show that she and her staff were often advocates for the LGBT community while her husband was President. While she is imperfect, she has traveled a journey, like most of us as well as our friends and family have, and she has been there with us all along the way. What Bernie lacks is not principle or being right on the issue, he lacks the history of being in the trenches with us. That is why many in the LGBT community feel a strong connection with her. To not understand this is to not understand why she enjoys overwhelming support in the LGBT community.

  • Love that the article doesn’t mention he opposed DOMA not because if equality but because he wanted states to decide on marriage.

    Nor does it mention he opposed gay marriage in Vermont in 2006.

    • Sanders propagandists always erase those inconvenient “details.”

      • hilarious considering hillary supporters erase a lot more inconvenient details. glass houses and all ..don’t be such an ignorant.

        • Seriously? Do you not both get how your little tiff plays right into the hands of the likes of Ted Cruz and Babyface Rubio? Not to mention the Facist Trump? OK we may not agree on all the details of their records, or even that they would be good for advancing LGBT rights, but I believe we can agree that EITHER one of them MUST be elected in November over the GOP nominee, whichever dolt it may be.

    • Yes. Because as Clinton now proclaims about Single Payer Healthcare, he felt gay marriage could not pass in Vermont in 2006, so he instead supported Civil Unions, which he felt was more in line with the electorate at the time. Even for that there was huge backlash when Vermont became the first state to enact a law for Civil Unions. Gay marriage would never have made it there at time. He voted against DOMA on more than just the state rights issue, because he’s spent 20 years now working for the rights of not only gays and lesbians but also trans people. A vote for DOMA, such as Clinton did, clearly does not ally her with GLBT rights, as it indicates exactly what it says — that the person believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Sanders may have been playing politics to not mention gay marriage, but he was not actively against this very basic right.

    • He never opposed gay marriage; he pointed out that it would be too contentious an issue, since they had *just* had a major battle to get civil unions there.

    • Probably because you’re a liar, James.

  • It’s hard not to condescend when you get so much wrong and leave out so much that is important. It’s great that Bernie supported gay and lesbian service members in 1991 from his seat as the socialist/independent representative of Vermont. Bill and Hillary Clinton supported gays and lesbians in the military while he was successfully running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in 1991-1992 from his southern home state of ARKANSAS. He paid dearly for it. To say that the Clintons “actively supported” or “pushed for” DOMA is nonsense. I have the advantage of having been a politically conscious adult throughout this period. The Clintons are the LGBT community’s biggest friends in the modern era.

  • “When it was wildly unpopular politically, Sanders backed a pride parade. In the LGBT community, word got out: Burlington was a place trans Americans could be safe.”


    • Bernies history of defending all oppressed and voiceless communities is long. It wasnt just us, he defended anyone who was bullied, legislated against and victimized by both society and government. Not only his backing gay pride in Burlington, but he also pushed for and got employment and housing anti discrimination laws, helped make Vermont the first state in the nation to pass domestic partnership law and had the foresight to ask activists to slow down on pushing for full legalization until the raw nerves around domestic partnership calmed down. The Clinton re writing of history has made me nuts… no less so than the way republicans have done with the Bushs and Reagan. They will pander for votes, just as they will reject us if they think there are more votes to be had by continuing our oppression.

  • It’s hard not to condescend when you get so much wrong and leave out so much that is important. It’s great that Bernie supported gay and lesbian service members in 1991 from his seat as the socialist/independent representative of Vermont. Bill and Hillary Clinton supported gays and lesbians in the military while he was successfully running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in 1991-1992 from his southern home state of ARKANSAS. He paid dearly for it. To say that the Clintons “actively supported” or “pushed for” DOMA is nonsense. I have the advantage of having been a politically conscious adult throughout this period. The Clintons are the LGBT community’s biggest friends in the modern era.

  • Nobody said it was a coronation…..very interesting non analysis. We all know this is a very serious election. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and insulting.

    • 1) You can literally just google “Hillary coronation” and come up with dozens of results from major media outlets, as well as the usual barrage of political cartoons.

      2) I’m not getting how it’s insulting to Clinton supporters to provide actual quotes on things that have been said by major figures about Sanders supporters.

      • The title of the piece was really intended to be a read. In the end, this is a serious election. Nobody has times for games. Of course, it’s not a coronation. Perhaps the writer woke up and realized this and hence the title. We all know it isn’t so perhaps he is LATE. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

        • The title and content of this piece are both responses to the narrative that has been built around Clinton and Sanders; that her nomination is a foregone conclusion, and Sanders is messing things up.

          • Not everyone thought that. That may have been media narrative but the media makes assumptions all the time. Not all the “Gays” thought that….go figure, we actually have an independent thought. And this is why this piece is quite trite and insulting. Don’t make assumptions about a whole group of people. How tired is that!

          • #notallgays, but the article never said all gays. The article is addressing the narrative. That there are individuals who do not buy into the narrative doesn’t affect the narrative, and attempts to derail the opposition don’t detract from its effectiveness.

          • Actually the title of the article had no qualifier before Gays for Hillary. So the implication is that supposedly all the Gays for Hillary thought this was some sort of coronation. This is so foolish and conscending. And of course, the narrative become varied as more voices are added to the comversation. The voters are derailing the opposition . As you can see, Super Tuesday results speak loudly.

          • “Dear X” is a common refrain currently, and generally pertains only to a portion of that audience. But in any event, your response explicitly said “NOBODY” which is factually incorrect.

  • The idea that any of Bernie Sanders’ far-left proposals can be enacted is utterly fanciful. His own articulated strategy for enacting them? Have his followers assemble on the National Mall and wail at Congress. That would be as ineffectual as the Occupy movement from which he’s borrowing the tactic. Heck, Sanders hasn’t even demonstrated that he can turn out his followers in large numbers to vote for him, let alone to camp out on the Mall until congressional Republicans are somehow thereby compelled to ignore their own conservative base.

    How would one try to achieve radically progressive change? One would recruit good progressive candidates for local and state positions and get them elected. Then elect some governors and members of Congress. Lastly, with progressive lawmakers in place to support an agenda, elect a progressive president. (See Tea Party.) But then you would have what Sanders has childishly attacked for his entire career: a functioning political party. The gap between Sanders’ absurd rhetoric and reality is nowhere more obvious than in his utter disdain for party organizing and his near-total refusal to help down-ballot progressives win their races. His messiah complex is not a strategy.

    Yes, yes, I know it’s much more invigorating to focus only on how great his policy proposals are. Giving attention to how you actually accomplish something is not so interesting. But it’s crucial. The lack of it is why the Occupy movement achieved nothing durable. Sorry, but anyone who is guzzling down his fanciful strategy does not deserve to be taken seriously. Here’s what might win over skeptics: Articulate a *real strategy* for accomplishing anything. What won’t win over skeptics is throwing a tantrum and petulantly demanding to be respected for promoting strategic mindlessness.

  • “Bernie’s record reveals a man who reliably exercises the moral judgment we require in a president, even where that flies in the face of what is popular.”

    Really? When given the chance to endorse marriage equality in Vermont, Sanders deemed it “too divisive” and had no issue with relegating his LGBT constituents to the lesser status of civil unions. When faced with tough gun control legislation, he found the precepts “too divisive” and worked to dilute the law. When called on recently to address persistent black inequality and reparations, the so-called democratic socialist deemed the topic “too divisive” and retreated to the political safe zone of providing “more opportunities.” Yet when it comes to pushing the most divisive of all healthcare reform ideas, a single payer system, Sanders is all in. The difference? Bernie actually believes in a single payer healthcare and is willing to expend his political capital to make it happen. The others not so much.

    He’s a politician Noah. Different maybe, but a politician nonetheless.

  • The absurdity of Hillary Clinton being a defender of our community has long blown me away. Members of our community were already rallying behind her during her time as first lady and into her Senatorial races when she was still firmly lined up against us… As she started trying to unravel herself from her toxic positions on DOMA, dont ask dont tell and the comments made about her problem with the out of control gays, she lied about the reasons she wrapped herself in anti gay positions. But as they always seem to do, the Clintons got their media friends to help them rewrite their toxic history… just as they did with their assaults on the poor communities, the communities of color, the middle class with their de regulation of wall street, free trade agreements, crime bill and welfare reform… all things they once touted as accomplishments, they now claim they only supported to prevent something worse. Hillary doesnt deserve our respect let alone our votes. The Clinton machine is at the root of everything we hate about our current political system

    • If we get stuck in the past, we can never move forward. Republicans point out the Democratic Party had many KKK members from the South who opposed integration. That was 100 years ago. The Dems have since supported the civil rights act and supported the election of an African-American. LBJ fired staffers for being gay. Yet now the Democratic party is more supportive of our rights than the GOP has ever been.

      We need to get beyond what positions the Clintons had in the past. Obama also opposed marriage equality before his election and not until his re-election did he become a hero by risking a 2nd term to come out in support of marriage equality and refusing to enforce DOMA saying it was unconstitutional when most politicians saw such support as political suicide!

      One thing we can all agree on is that if Cruz, Rubio or Trump win the election our community will pay a dear price for it. If Hillary wins the nomination, we need to put aside the indignation and anger and move on to support her because not doing so could hurt far more if it gives the GOP the edge to win!

      • The problem with Hillary isn’t her current positions offered during a campaign. It’s her history of bad calls and betraying voters after she is elected. Watch what the Clintons do not what they say.

        I don’t trust her.

        • You really can’t trust any politician on that front. But they can only do so much on their own once in power. They are not absolute rulers after all. There are many other players such as Congress that can aid or prevent them from honoring promises.

          • We can however trust Bernie, because his record is rock-solid and consistent.
            Sorry, I want a leader. Not a lame-ass follower.

          • Trust Bernie to not be the nominee.

          • Trust me if Hillary is, we will have President Trump.
            The MORE we learn about her and how she rolls, the more despicable she turns out to be.
            I’m not afraid of President Trump. He won’t have anyone else in his corner except an angry populist movement that lacks focus or education.
            Hillary will continue her vile machinations, throwing everyone in the nation under the bus, just like her liar husband did.
            I voted for bill in 92 and 96. Looking back at his record, I’m astounded at how little progress he actually made. Other than taking advantage of the dot-com boom and record low oil prices (go look it up), he actively sabotaged our economy, our society, and our political system.
            So, trust me honey. Hillary will NEVER be President. She’d better get used to that.

          • And what progress would the glbt community make under trump? He’s thanking jerry Falwell, jr. And liberty university, being friendly with pat Robertson, taking advice from Ben Carson and looking at his former presidential rivals for a VP.

            If you don’t want Hillary then don’t vote but then stop whining about not getting support for your issues. Trump is comitted to reversing marriage equality and expresses no support for an equality act while supporting religious liberty laws. You like him for supporting your bathroom issue. That’s good for you but does nothing for the rest of us.

            If you’re voting GOP this election then you may as well just blow the little brains you have out of your head!

          • Hillary WON’T SUPPORT any issue I am concerned about.


            Don’t speak another word about her, until you do. I do not think you even know what you are talking about.

          • But you think trump will? You’re going to end up disappointed again!

          • PS, I don’t like trump at all. But let’s consider something.

            If Hil is the nominee she will be going into an election unable to draw more than a few hundred scant followers to her rallies. How will that translate into voters? Enthusiasm? Those Sanders voters, many of us will not, period, vote for her.

            If you say, oh, but all you Sanders hippies are unemployed children (which, we are not), then ask yourself, where are Hil’s grassroots contributors?

            We’ve been holding his campaign up all by ourselves. Not a single corporate dollar.

            Where are her supporters, hmm? Not showing up at rallies. Not contributing.

            She will LOSE.

            Bank on it.

          • Don’t bite off your lose to spite your face. Not voting for hill in a tight election can result in you getting far worse if trump gets elected.

            But if you don’t vote then don’t whine! Many won’t vote for trump eithet so it should be interesting. Time for Bernie to take his nap.

            How about a hil and Bernie ticket?

      • Sorry, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t get my vote because there is rubbish on the other side of the street as well..

      • The problem with Hill is that she is NOT a leader, EVER. She only follows when it becomes so loud and obvious she can’t ignore it.
        I don’t want someone that weak-willed standing up for me, thanks. She’ll fold the minute someone hands her a check.
        Bernie HAS STOOD FOR US since the 1970’s. And he is THE VASTLY SUPERIOR CANDIDATE. You cannot ignore that.

        • The problem is you’re in denial. Bernie isn’t going to be the candidate. Hillary or trump. Pick your poison but trump certainly will fail you!

          • I’m far more frightened of Hillary as President than Donald.
            I know what she will do. I also know that he is a very ineffective person. His real life proves that.
            So I have picked my poison darling. I hope you’re comfortable with yours, because it will kill the Democratic Party forever.
            And I won’t mind one bit. Time for a new, REAL progressive party.

          • You sound like the poison living her delusion!

            Have fun at your party.

          • Our party is bigger than either of the two mainstream parties.

            Have fun losing the election.

          • Oh, really is that why your party has NEVER elected a presidential candidate to office?

            Have fun with your delusions of grandeur and end up a loser with your tail between your legs…..AGAIN!!!

          • LOL. “Independents” are NOW forming a NEW party.

            Welcome to reality, friend.

          • Oh missy please as if that hasn’t been attempted before and failed. Conservatives are whining about a third party too!

            It’s only going to help eithet Hillary or trump.

          • Also, just understand: all those people you see at Sanders rallies aren’t there because they’re unemployed and lazy kids who won’t vote.
            WE are also keeping his campaign afloat all by ourselves.
            Where are her contributors?
            You’d better find ’em before November honey.

  • I personally think they are both good candidates and who ever gets the nomination, I will gladly vote for them. There is another story here at the Blade on a gay Trump supporter which scares me a lot more than the in-fighting between Sanders and Clinton supporters. We cannot be lazy or upset about who the Democratic nominee is. We have to make an effort to work together once this all comes down to secure a Democratic White House, we have Supreme Court justices to worry about, Senate seats… right now, the Right is so whipped up, violent, xenophobic, anti-gay, racist and anti-woman and we cannot allow that to gain a stronger foothold or this country falls apart.

    • That article has been fairly thoroughly debunked as being full of half truths and extreme extrapolations. Bernie never said he was opposed to gay marriage; he did recognize it as being too contentious an issue to push in his state in 2006, since he had *just* fought tooth and nail to get civil unions there. Several other politicians lost their seats over getting civil unions.


      • No, the article has not been “debunked.” And the article you cite doesn’t even purport to.

        The claim that Sanders “fought tooth and nail” for civil unions is yet another cult lie. And your “just” is referring to something more than a half-decade earlier.

        • I was citing it as an opposing view on Sanders vs Clinton’s records on LGBT rights.

          Sanders has *never* stated he believes marriage is or should be “between a man and a woman.” He has *never* opposed LGBT marriage.

          All well and good to look back now and say “yeah, well he should have pushed harder” but that’s very different from “he opposed it.”

      • Nowhere in the Midwest, Northeast, or West has any legislator EVER lost his or her seat in pushing for gay marriage or civil unions. That is actually an unfortunate fallacy. Even in Vermont in the early 2000’s that just isn’t true. When looking at legislators who lost who supported equality in totality, there is almost always a more compelling answer for why specific legislators (usually very small numbers) who supported us lost, while the vast majority who supported us survived the next election. Usually the real reasons for those losses have nothing to do with supporting equality.

          • The ideas on the Wikipedia page you refer to has been refuted by poltical scientists who studied the issue.

            “Contrary to some political expectations, voting to support the freedom to marry and opposing anti-marriage measures helps rather than hurts politicians, a new study Pro-Marriage Legislators Win Elections released by Freedom to Marry unequivocally shows.

            The success of more than 1,100 state legislators who voted to support the freedom to marry stands in bold contrast to the commonly held belief that supporting marriage equality ends political campaigns and careers. In fact, these legislators are re-elected no matter what party they represent or if they changed their vote from opposing to supporting marriage equality. Even better, legislators who run for higher office win after voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.” from https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/Pro-Marriage_Legislators_Win_Elections_.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwyoH376fLAhVJcT4KHcq3ARsQFggEMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEhIqav5lU6acEd9jIN7MjZpfYceA

            It was a prominent issue in Vermont in one election in 2000, there is no doubt about that, but it is largely not a factor in the elections throughout the 2000’s and especially into the 2010’s. Also, it is true that several Republican supporters may have lost primarily due to the civil union issue in Vermont in 2000 (4-5 Senators, I believe, at least). So perhaps it could have been better stated that no Democratic legislator has lost only because of the issue, but even most Republicans are unaffected. But there were also serious economic and tax issues in the Vermont campaigns in late 90’s and early 2000’s that were also responsible for many waves of incumbent loss.

            Alas, your point is taken, it wasn’t as absolute as my language suggested, but my point remains correct.

            Here is another summary from NGLTF: http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/2004MidwestReport.pdf

          • The facts on the Wikipedia page have not been refuted.

            You provide a link to a study done for 2012 elections, which is not at all the same thing as a study done for elections in 2004. Attempting to address that, you then provide a link to a study on 5 Midwestern states and their anti-gay constitutional amendments from 2004 elections. But even at the height of the anti-gay marriage hysteria of the 00’s, people were largely reluctant to amend their constitutions, even if they also voted against gay unions.

            So, yes, it’s probably true that no Democratic legislator has lost SOLELY because of support for gay unions, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a large factor in many of them.

          • The statement that many of those who lost in the 2000 election in Vermont legislative elections HAS definitely been refuted, whether you’d like to acknowledge it or not. Take a chill pill. Did you even read my original statement? My main point was about northeastern and midwestern states where this issue has been studied, and YES what I posted is absolutely relevant to my point. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, Becky. I apologize for overstating it like I did. If you could see the larger pointthat I was making, it stands correct. We can agree to disagree about Vermont (there are valid differences of opinion about it, not “facts”). And I think you should be less willing to take things written on Wikipedia by not necessarily expert human beings as less “fact” than someone’s version. Wikipedia is infamous for that.

          • Meh. I could also just link to the references in the Wikipedia article, if that would help you. Wikipedia’s lack of reliability is a fallacy (http://m.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html). Pages that are suspect contain warnings thereof.

            It’s possible refutations are out there, but you haven’t provided any. Again, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have had vastly different public support than gay unions themselves, and 2012 was a vastly different political climate than 2004. So no, not relevant.

          • Still totally relevant to my ACTUAL point, which you continue to ignore. In a way, we are both correct, But hey, feel free to continue to be self-righteously rude and wallow in your own willful ignorance.

          • Which point was that? Because, as above, you changed your initial statement, and I’ve addressed that.

            Meanwhile, you’re calling me rude, despite that I, unlike you, have never mentioned the state of your underwear.

  • Well said Noah. Thank you.

    While I do not dislike Hillary, I find Bernie to be the better candidate. I became familiar with Bernie around 2010, then saying, audibly to my husband, that HE was the man that should be President, based upon his clear, untainted by personal gain, vision for America. I stand by that position now.

    So no Hillary supporters, Bernie will not “get out of the way” for your pre-determined candidate to sail smoothly to the nomination. Whether Bernie has or has not a reasonable chance of gaining the nomination, he is giving us all, including Hillary Clinton I would add, a perfect lesson in Integrity, a lesson sorely needed, IMHO.

    • I love Bernie too, but I support Hillary because I just think she is the better choice to lead our nation on the whole. But I want to see many of the items Bernie touts addressed…..but again, regardless of who we nominate, electing the Democratic nominee in November is of paramount urgency.

  • As a Hillary supporter who also happens to love Bernie Sanders, I think this column is just another lame attempt to make Hillary and Bernie supporters dislike one another, and foster division. I agree with some points being made, actually, but why is there so much focus on this? I for one, have NEVER and would never treat Sanders supporters the way that you accuse gay Hillary supporters of doing. When I read tweets from Bernie supporters, trust that there are plenty of condescending comments coming from that end, also. But in the big scheme of it all, both of these people are good people, and people that gay Democrats can trust to fight for them. It is an election. Not a coronation, but more important than any tangential notions we have about one another as Hillary and Bernie supporters, it is CRITICAL that we elect the Democrat in November–PERIOD.

  • All hail the kween. lolz..

  • LGBT people who support Hill apparently do not remember DADT, DOMA, or that it took her until 2013 to support gay marriage.
    I remember being scared shitless in the closet for 45 years until it nearly ended my life.
    I have no use for her. She came so late to gay marriage, she might as well still be pandering to the Christofascists alongside Ted Cruz.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2019. All rights reserved.