PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Ken Mehlman Exits the Closet


healthpellets
08-25-2010, 09:51 PM
as you will recall, mr. mehlman was the head of the RNC and the head of GWB's 2004 campaign.

it has long been rumored in "off the record" conversations that mehlman was gay, and it seems that this is the right time for him to make it official.

i wish him all the best and g'luck on his new adventure. i hope he finds support pouring out from his party.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/

Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would arise about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," said Mehlman, now an executive vice-president with the New York City-based private equity firm, KKR. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."

Ed Gillespie, a former RNC chairman and long-time friend of Mehlman, said that "it is significant that a former chairman of the Republiucan National Committe is openly gay and that he is supportive of gay marriage." Although Gillespie himself opposes gay marriage, he pointed to party stalwarts like former Vice President Dick Cheney and strategist Mary Matalin as open advocates for gay rights who had not been drummed out of the party. He acknowledged "big generational differences in perception when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights as an agenda, and I think that is true on the Republican side."

But, Gillespie said, he does not envision the party platform changing anytime soon.

"There are a lot of Republicans who are gay, there are a lot of Republicans who support government sanction of gay marriage, a lot of Republicans who support abortion on demand, a lot of Republicans who support cap-and-trade provisions. They're not single-issue voters." Gillespie acknowledged that the party had been inhospitable to gays in the past, and said that he hopes Mehlman's decision to come out leads the party to be "more respectful and civil in our discourse" when it comes to gays.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 10:15 PM
As far as I understand he has received support. That doesn't mean some won't be offended.

chiefsnorth
08-25-2010, 10:22 PM
I doubt we will hear from a single person who cares what this guy puts in his mouth.

patteeu
08-26-2010, 12:50 AM
OK

WoodDraw
08-26-2010, 12:59 AM
So he's gay? We all knew that. He kept it secret until no one gave a fuck.

Congrats, sir. Your fellow republicans ran a campaign against you that supported an open segregation of your lifestyle.

patteeu
08-26-2010, 01:02 AM
So he's gay? We all knew that. He kept it secret until no one gave a ****.

Congrats, sir. Your fellow republicans ran a campaign against you that supported an open segregation of your lifestyle.

:spock: An open segregation of your lifestyle?

WoodDraw
08-26-2010, 01:11 AM
:spock: An open segregation of your lifestyle?

You don't think the Republicans ran off an anti-gay philosophy while he ran the party?

Taco John
08-26-2010, 01:40 AM
You don't think the Republicans ran off an anti-gay philosophy while he ran the party?

Some of them did. I don't remember this being part of Bush's platform though. I do remember Clinton promoting segregation with his DADT policy, though.

WoodDraw
08-26-2010, 02:00 AM
Some of them did. I don't remember this being part of Bush's platform though. I do remember Clinton promoting segregation with his DADT policy, though.

You don't remember bush pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Several democrats did as well, and I hope they remember it.

patteeu
08-26-2010, 02:03 PM
You don't think the Republicans ran off an anti-gay philosophy while he ran the party?

No, I don't.. Do you have any examples? And please don't say opposition to gay marriage because that position isn't anti-gay any more than support for marriage itself is anti-bachelor or support for child tax credits is anti-DINK.

I think that there are some people who are anti-gay who were attracted by Republican positions in the same way I think there are communists and anti-white racists attracted to democrat positions.

Baby Lee
08-26-2010, 02:17 PM
I doubt we will hear from a single person who cares what this guy puts in his mouth.

I dunno, does ee ea-tah poo-poo?

WoodDraw
08-29-2010, 12:49 AM
No, I don't.. Do you have any examples? And please don't say opposition to gay marriage because that position isn't anti-gay any more than support for marriage itself is anti-bachelor or support for child tax credits is anti-DINK.



That's a fairly lame argument, I'm not against gay equality, as long is it doesn't involve marriage. But don't say I'm against gay equality! I am for it! As long as it's under my terms... I'll give them all the rights I get and everything, as long as they're not equal to me.

Jeeze...

patteeu
08-29-2010, 03:30 PM
That's a fairly lame argument, I'm not against gay equality, as long is it doesn't involve marriage. But don't say I'm against gay equality! I am for it! As long as it's under my terms... I'll give them all the rights I get and everything, as long as they're not equal to me.

Jeeze...

I guess I'm not as narrow-minded as you are. If you think the only rationale for marriage is allowing two people to form a premade contract for lifetime companionship then I guess I can understand why you'd think it's unequal to limit such partnerships to opposite-sex couples. But it's not at all unreasonable to see marriage as something different than that, e.g. as a way of promoting child bearing or as a way of strengthening a cultural ideal of families with both male and female role models. Whether you agree with those rationales or not, they provide a legitimate basis for defining marriage to exclude partnerships that clearly don't benefit those policy goals.

Speaking of fairly lame arguments, I take it based on your response that your entire case against Republicans as "anti-gay" is based on the party majority's opposition to gay marriage. Might as well add that Republicans hate poor people and want old folks to either eat dog food or die too.

vailpass
08-29-2010, 05:20 PM
What a cock sucker.

Saul Good
08-29-2010, 05:37 PM
I guess I'm not as narrow-minded as you are. If you think the only rationale for marriage is allowing two people to form a premade contract for lifetime companionship then I guess I can understand why you'd think it's unequal to limit such partnerships to opposite-sex couples. But it's not at all unreasonable to see marriage as something different than that, e.g. as a way of promoting child bearing or as a way of strengthening a cultural ideal of families with both male and female role models. Whether you agree with those rationales or not, they provide a legitimate basis for defining marriage to exclude partnerships that clearly don't benefit those policy goals.

Speaking of fairly lame arguments, I take it based on your response that your entire case against Republicans as "anti-gay" is based on the party majority's opposition to gay marriage. Might as well add that Republicans hate poor people and want old folks to either eat dog food or die too.

The 70% of Americans who oppose gay marriage are out of the mainstream.

WoodDraw
08-29-2010, 10:03 PM
I guess I'm not as narrow-minded as you are. If you think the only rationale for marriage is allowing two people to form a premade contract for lifetime companionship then I guess I can understand why you'd think it's unequal to limit such partnerships to opposite-sex couples. But it's not at all unreasonable to see marriage as something different than that, e.g. as a way of promoting child bearing or as a way of strengthening a cultural ideal of families with both male and female role models. Whether you agree with those rationales or not, they provide a legitimate basis for defining marriage to exclude partnerships that clearly don't benefit those policy goals.


Which is fine, as long as you're willing to vote for rules that forbid marriage outside of those planning to raise families. That's a fairly neolithic way of looking at things, but at least you'd have consistency.

patteeu
08-29-2010, 10:16 PM
Which is fine, as long as you're willing to vote for rules that forbid marriage outside of those planning to raise families. That's a fairly neolithic way of looking at things, but at least you'd have consistency.

I don't think there's any need for that level of consistency. Obviously, it would be very easy for people to avoid that requirement by simply saying that they plan to raise families so there's not much point in a law like that. Besides, we have all kinds of laws that use rough approximations to achieve policy goals. For example, our DUI laws are intended to make the roads safer, but we use a crude threshold of 0.08 blood alcohol for deciding whether a person is safe enough or not. We don't make distinctions between the guy who has a high alcohol tolerance and a lot of driving experience and the neophyte driver who has never been drunk before.

As for my vote, I'd vote to allow gay marriage. But that doesn't mean I think that those who don't want to expand the definition of marriage are necessarily anti-gay. I don't think Barack Obama is anti-gay. Neither I nor Ken Mehlman thinks that George W. Bush is anti-gay.