Conservative Gay Porn Star Slams Barack Obama

[canis_lupus]

Former gay porn star and current conservative activist Matt Sanchez has come out against Barack Obama, arguing that the presidential hopeful not only has a pastor problem but a gay problem as well.

Though he doesn’t exactly define what Barack Obama’s "gay problem" is in his recently published article at World Net Daily, Sanchez, a former marine who was famously outed for his work in gay adult films after cozying up to hardcore right wingers, alludes to the fact that the democratic frontrunner’s gay issue may be even more significant than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue.

According to Queerty.com, Sanchez loosely likens Barack Obama’s gay problems to "a staph infection resistant to aggressive antibiotics" and suggests that it will continue to recur if the American media would begin to pay attention to it.

Sanchez also simultaneously calls on both the right wing of the Republican Party and gay and lesbian voters to come out strongly against Barack Obama and to encourage a review of his past and his associates.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=75068

I can't even think about the content of the article ... I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of a "conservative gay porn star." :puke:

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Conservative gay porn star

equals Jews for Hitler.

[El Supremo]

2. So why did you even post this, Lupus? n/m

[Fearless]

3. So there's a conservative coming out against Obama...

pardon the pun. But seriously, get with the program.

[JI7]

4. he is kind of like Lieberman

[Kutjara]

5. With credentials like "conservative porn star"...

...this guys credibility is above reproach. We must heed his every word.

[GoesTo11]

6. I have no idea what the effect of this is

Alienates anti-right wingers in favor of Obama? Against him?
Alienates right wingers in favor or against Obama?
Gays?

Wonder if Jeff Guckert/Gannon agrees.

[fed_up_mother]

7. Fiscal conservative?

But, geesh, hasn't he noticed anything lately?

Like...who's running up the deficit?

[populistdriven]

8. "New York Post: Gay Porn Star Services Bohemian Grove Members"

W hugs gannon

[Old and In the Way]

9. In this particular case, I think the legal definition of porn fits.

No socially redeeming value.

[rocktivity]

10. Matt "Major Rod" Sanchez?

Yes, I remember him well. Oh, and here's his resume.

x(
rocknation

[Goat or Panic]

11. Conservative Gay Porn Star?

Isn't that redundant?

[Ian David]

12. Did Matt Sanchez invent "The Dirty Sanchez"? n/t

[ccharles000]

13. "Gay Porn Star Slams Barack Obama".

That would be hot!

[mitchtv]

14. Ha! you are a card Charles

:spank:

[Beregond2]

15. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Every gay man I have known who was into the whole leather thing has been a right-wing whacko. Expecting people to make sense is a toboggan slide to madness.

[Creideiki]

16. I didn't know Barack was into leather.

Well, he might as well be right-wing when it comes to minorities he doesn't belong to. :shrug:

[LeftCoast]

17. You obviously haven't met too many gay men into leather

LOL

[sui generis]

18. old hairdressers don't die . . .

they just get into leather. :hide:

:rofl:

[sui generis]

19. I have a question for Barack.

What does BO think of the California decision? He has stated that he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions. Is he therefore against the California decision, or wholeheartedly for it, and how does he reconcile his statements with this sentiments?

I AM the sharpest marble in the bag, and I want to know.

[newmajority]

20. Here's his official statement regarding the CA court decision

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

This is the common sense approach. Obviously there are some states, such as California, which are likely to allow marriage/civil unions and other states, such as Utah, which aren't likely to do so. Why should the more progressive states have to wait for the regressive states to catch up, when it's possible they never will?

Obama is for civil unions with the full equal rights of marriage. Again, this is a common sense approach, because it kicks the church out of the equation. Religious denominations have every right to decide what ceremonies they will or will not perform within their own church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. But they do NOT have the right to conform state laws to their religious beliefs, and create second-class citizens with less rights than others. So the obvious solution is that the state issues the same legal document to a gay couple that they would a straight couple, and leave it up to them to find a church who will do the ceremony.

Equality for all. Separation of church and state. What could be more American?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. umm seperate not equal? both barack and HRC are wrong on marriage

marriage laws are already seperated in term of church vs state. giving us marriage rights does not override the seperate between church and state

agreeing with seperate is equal however is a spineless move

[sui generis]

23. xchrom is right

I've known a few dowagers in my time but xchrom's tiara is visible from orbit. :evilgrin: :hide:

[newmajority]

28. Hey, if I were the benevolent dictator (insert Chimp "it would be easier" joke here)

I would say "gays can get married in whatever church they want, and if you don't like that, fuck off".

But we don't live in a dictatorship. Not yet anyway. And we're trying to go back the other direction, aren't we?

I'm not saying "separate but not equal" or even "seperate but equal". I'm saying that any couple that gets married should have exactly the same legal rights, regardless of the genders of the parties involved. There's one license issued. Call it a civil union, or whatever, but it's the same piece of paper, to a straight couple, or a gay couple.

The ceremonies are left up to the churches to decide, as is their right. Yeah, in some cases, its the right to be wrong, but that goes with the territory. What self respecting gay couple would be attending one of those churches anyway? (and in this case, I use "churches" as shorthand for all religious institutions.

As far as the state thing goes, it makes sense to leave it up to the states, because that allows more progressive states like Massachusetts, Vermont or California to proceed with equality and not wait for Utah and the so called "Bible Belt" states to catch up to the 21st century. Eventually it will be heard by the US Supreme Court. I'm sure we'll all agree that it would be best if the makeup of the court was a little better than it is right now, before that time comes.

[sui generis]

22. States rights is and has always been about states rights to

discriminate.

When a man who claims to be for equality cops out with that phrase, we know he means that he doesn't have a personal leadership stance on the issue in any meaningful way.

I liked what Feingold and Hackett said; it brooked no response and did not rely on states to decide whether individuals had a right to make decisions out their own property and families.

It was a position of "moral" leadership in the original sense of that word; the unequivocal practice of fairness.

[newmajority]

29. The ugly reality of it is, that some states probably will continue to discriminate

That's not a justification by any means, just a statement of fact. But why should states like California, Vermont, and Massachusetts have to wait for the Mormons in Utah, or the Fundie Baptists in Mississippi to wake up to reality?

Obama is right when he says let the states decide. California was right to decide. Governor Patterson in NY is right when he says he will recognize the validity of marriages in other states. Those three facts are one Hell of a foundation to build on, and I'm guessing the result will be full equality in more states very soon. Eventually the case will be heard by the US Supreme Court. The number of states which have embraced equality by that time will impact that decision as much as the makeup of the court at that time does, in my opinion.

[xchrom]

24. adjusting my tiara -- who cares what ANY conservative thinks?

i think barack has a gay problem -- but rod major's isn't a barometer for any thing.

he's an idiot.

[sui generis]

25. hey love

how yer durrin?

I missed you guys. :grouphug:

[xchrom]

26. ...

:* :hug: -- glad to see ya!

[Creideiki]

27. I agree. This is the hallmark of the "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

The argument is that Barack will have problems garnering the normal levels of support from the gay community that Democratic candidates have enjoyed. The guy being an idiot has nothing to do with that argument.

[xchrom]

31. exactly. -- you're so well spoken. well done. nt

[mitchtv]

30. shucks , I was hoping this thread was chock full

of Links. Rod should shut up, and er, entertain

[and-justice-for-all]

32. Yeah! Right!

Obama 08' biatch!

:puke:'Conservative Gay Porn Star' :eyes:

[Q3JR4]

33. Don't put too much thought into it,

most intelligent gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transfolk will undoubtedly be voting for Obama.

Q3JR4.

[Falcon_Lights1916]

34. Maybe I'm Just Dull, But...

Why would any gay person want to be a conservative? I have known Log Cabin Repyblicans and well, I didn't "get" them in 1994 and 14 years on, I still Don't "get" them. Why would a gay person want to belong to a party that has no intention of fighting for GLBT rights?

[BillSam]

35. Sanchez -- forgotten but not gone

http://jatgab.blogspot.com/2008/06/some-holes-never-go-away.html

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

36. Sounds more like a typical closet hypocrite

Than a Log Cabin Republican.