skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

First Gay Marriage Proposal on Military Base at Camp Pendleton

Cory Huston and Avarice Guerrero
Enlarge this image

Above: Cory Huston and Avarice Guerrero

A Navy veteran and active-duty Marine may be the first gay couple ever to have gotten publicly engaged on a military installation. It happened this week when Cory Huston proposed to Avarice Guerrero at Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

San Diego LGBT Weekly broke the story, and was there when Huston got down on bended knee to ask Guerrero to marry him. Guerrero had just returned from a ten-month deployment to Afghanistan. He told LGBT Weekly:

“I was blown away. I was shocked that after all we’d been through, he would honestly want to spend the rest of his life with someone like me.”

LGBT Weekly reports the engagement may be the first-ever public betrothal of a gay couple on a military installation. So far, no one's disputed that.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the government policy that banned gays from openly serving in the military - was officially repealed on September 20, 2011. Huston, who served in the Navy as a Hospital Corpsman, was discharged from the service under that policy.

Comments

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | April 27, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

The gay minority makes more noise for its size than any other in the country, and the media gives them more attention than any other minority in this country. I don't understand why. Why is it that such a small portion of the population is so extremely vocal and gets so much attention?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | April 27, 2012 at 5:42 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

Idk, maybe their loudness is a result of paying the same amount of taxes and not receiving equal treatment (they at least deserve a discount). Or maybe it's because they are making history every time they do something. Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's to give people something to criticize every time they are **forced** to read, listen or watch it. Maybe we should get all commie like our buddies in St. Petersburg and make laws to make it illegal to talk about.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bhinderliter'

bhinderliter | April 27, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

I would like to congratulate this couple for making this commitment to each other. I am happy for you both and wish you the very best in life. Many will denigrate your relationship, please ignore them. It's YOUR relationship and no one's else. Gay men and women need role models like yourselves. Stay strong and love each other always.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | April 27, 2012 at 11:58 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

Binderliter, well said!!

Jean, if gay people had the same rights as everyone else, things like this wouldn't be newsworthy.

If you're going to blame anyone, blame the ani-gay rights crowd. They are working 24-7 on preventing gays fom having equal rights in our society thus making it news when rights are achieved despite the oppression.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'khuston2'

khuston2 | April 28, 2012 at 10:01 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Studying_Nomad there is no need for you to read, watch, or listen to the news about two gay people happily in love. You are NEVER FORCED to not press the channel change button so you do NOT have to listen to the news on this subject. OR you can always press the mute button? Cory Huston is my cousin and I am proud that he is happy and fankly if you do not like this topic why on earth did you press on this article? There have to be hundreds of other ones and you chose this one? Hmmmmm someone want to complain much? If you do not want to hear, read, or watch it DO NOT PRESS THE BUTTON THAT TAKES YOU TO THAT ARTICLE! Because then those that support it do not have to read that. Those two served this country to protect you so who are you, who is anyone, to complain?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Hebijudo'

Hebijudo | April 30, 2012 at 6:46 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

if a Got Aids Yes thing was wounded in combat, for fear of contamination with blood, it would die because why should he infect our Corpsman and other Marines with HIV ? Look what this has done to the military in Africa, the Virus, over a period of time has made them an ineffective fighting force.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | April 30, 2012 at 8:10 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

This country is becoming so liberal that I will have to leave soon.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | April 30, 2012 at 8:26 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@JEANMARC, so go already!

My point here, however, is the blatant hypocrisy of invoking "privacy" ONLY when it benefits the agenda.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | April 30, 2012 at 8:39 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

MA I feel like I am missing something, which agenda are you talking about? Your comment seems uncharacteristically incomplete... it makes me wonder if you are adding onto another comment you posted on this article that is not showing anymore? Because I only see your last comment, and no others.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | April 30, 2012 at 10:34 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

khuston2 - that was my point man. Sorry that the sarcasm was not more obvious. However, you did elaborate the point I was making, so good looks.

JeanMarc - Liberal? Really? Definition please? All I see are .gov attempts at reducing our freedom and privacy. We revolted based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. Sorry, but this is what happens when people are allowed to pursue individual happiness and the allowed freedom to choose one's own conscious over the state and church. If freedom scares you then maybe you really should move to another country. I hear China is hiring.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 1, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

One of the responsibilities of the government of a country is to do things that will insure the future of that country. Among other things, promoting a stable family structure for raising the next generation is critical. That is why tax breaks are offered for married couples, to promote stable long term environments for our children. The purpose of having a man and a woman in a marriage is so that the children can learn how they should act as a father, a husband, a man, or learn the qualities they should look for in a future husband. Likewise for the mother. Children need an example of how a mother should act, how a wife should act, how a woman should act, and learn the qualities they should look for in a future mate.

If a child is raised by two men, or two women, they are missing half the equation.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | May 1, 2012 at 11:12 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Feel free to occupy a fantasy world that has never fully existed, personally, I prefer reality. Based on your reasoning, we should not allow full citizen rights to married couples that do not produce children, to married parents that have one parent that is dysfunctional (abusive, alcohol dependent, immature, unavailable, etc), single mothers, or single guardians (grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends). Outside of a group memory based on a restrictive (keep our secrets in the family) tv reflection of middle class idealism of the 50’s, the world you speak did not exist. Back in the day (keeping it within the industrial period), working class parents (women and kids included) had to work to support their families. Who was providing that stable long-term role models then, the foreman? What about when men were fighting and dying during wars, who influenced the children then? Women were more likely to die of childbirth than any other cause of death, who raised the children then?

Study after study shows that children do better in a healthy two-parent household. Most of the success has to do with economics and access to resources, attention given to child and relationship with parents, not the gender of the parents.

Yes, it’s different, it’s not the lens most were taught to see through, but “family” has throughout time and space been changing and evolving. If it were only the parents that influenced a child’s world-view then certain groups would not be so threated with secular culture. So the idea that only a parent can be a role model for children is pretty rose colored hippie lens.

If our government is so interested in the next generation they should consider investing in education. We have fallen very behind in math and science. There are plenty of jobs available today; the problem is that our current generation is under-educated and debt-burdened. I think that’s much more of a national security risk, then a couple of gays making the commitment to raise a child or to get married.

I’m curious as to what role you think the government should play in enforcing the ideal two gender healthy family?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 1, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

I think the role the government should play in this regard is a constitutional amendment that marriage is recognized only between a male and female.

And I agree with you on your thoughts about education. I agree very, very strongly. Truthfully I couldn't care a whit about gay marriage when compared to education... I fear for future generations.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | May 1, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

I will be the one leaving the country the day our constitution, the one that I and many others would die to defend, begins limiting individual freedom and liberty.

Personally, I think that marriage should be taken away completely as a state function. Historically and today, the main function of marriage has to do with property transfers and yeah, that includes women and children as property. I know a heterosexual couple that has been together for a very long time and is raising three very responsible kids, they aren’t married and do not believe the gov should be involved in their personal life. I know a married heterosexual couple that is raising a kid, but I’m not sure exactly when they have the time to pay attention to him, considering they fight all of the time. I also know a gay couple that has been together longer than any couple I’ve ever met, and I would have been lucky to have been adopted and raised by them. If we really care about kids in this country, we should be applauding any healthy loving couple for taking on the responsibility of raising children. The last thing we need is even further government involvement in our personal lives. I think that once all of the emotion and fear of change leaves the conversation and we allow science and time to give us the evidence we need to form a better opinion, we will see that economics, education and maturity of parents will be much better predictors of how a child will develop then the sex of the parent/s raising the child.

Let’s say you get your amendment of restriction, how do you suggest the gov handle all of the single parents and heterosexual couples unable to provide ideal or positive influences to their children?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 1, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Jean,
You wrote:
*This country is becoming so liberal that I will have to leave soon.*

Which country were you thinking?

I have travelled pretty extensively, and the U.S. is definitely one of the most conservative developed countries (i.e. Western Europe, Australia, Japan).

Even developing nations are improving their records on gay rights. India, for example, decriminalized homosexuality and gay people are able to live openly there now. I've spent a lot of time there and know gay couples who are enjoying more freedom than ever before and the ability to be open about their sexuality.

So I'm afraid your options are limited to the strict Islamic world under Shiria Law like Iran and Yemen and nations of developing Africa such as Somalia or Uganda if you want some hard line right wing utopia.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | May 1, 2012 at 12:59 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

JM, If two is good, wouldn't three be even better? Why are you not advocating for polygamy? Think of all the extra time, attention and resources that could be devoted to rearing the next generation if children and a dad and TWO mommies! THere would be no shortage of good rolemodels to observe. Or maybe it would be preferable to have a mommy and two daddies? Or two of each?

In any case, back on topic. It happened, it's their business, feel as joyous or as queasy about it as you like and move on to something more important than someone else's family structure.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 1, 2012 at 1:51 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@JEAN MARC, the fact that gay militants invoke "privacy" when politically expedient and fhout it to the Four Winds, likewise, when politically expedient. THAT hypocrisy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 1, 2012 at 2 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@DUCKSTER, well I guess everything IS all relative! Define "conservative."

Many Mexicans, for example, even today still consider the US "lliberal" compared to their own country--even though, for example, prostitution is perfectly legal in some areas of Mexico. For the US, that would be the Horror of Horrors. Yet in Mexico, domestic pornography is pretty much banned or very limited, unlike the US where we are saturated with pornography. On the OTHER hand, they've had TV commercials in Mexicoback in the 80s and 90s that would have been then considered "risque' by US standards. In Spain, I am sure you know that same-sex "marriage is legal now. Yet their attitudes towards immigrants (most North Africans) is worse than in the US's attitude toward undocumented Mexicans. And even well known eccentric Spanish filmmaker, Pedro Almodovar, who is openly gay, can make tactless comments about the drug-related violence in Mexico. So . . . concervative . . . there are differences even within the borders of the US, Mexico and other countries.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Outside2view'

Outside2view | May 1, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Missionaccomplished I bet you would not like the government to regulate who you fall in love with since this is your "privacy" issue, and you will shout to the four winds if they tried.
and JeanMarc. if the government encourages families by offering married couples tax breaks, to promote stable long term environments for our children, should they not take back the breaks when over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | May 1, 2012 at 2:19 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

PDSD, did you just describe Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Uganda as utopias? I find it difficult to quantify how different from mine one’s preferences would have to be to think of those as ideal cultures.

MA, Isn't prostitution perfectly legal in some areas of Nevada?

The thing about conservatism is, there has to be a good reason to conserve something. Just 'saying new is bad' makes little sense.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 1, 2012 at 5:46 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Benz, I don't consider them utopias, but perhaps those who want socially right wing extremist laws would.

It seems that on many social issues, conservatives in this country are more similar to Islamic countries under Sharia law than they are to the leading world democracies.

Lax gun laws, executions of minors, repressive laws against homosexuality, poor records on women's rights, etc., etc.

Case in point, in 2005 the SCOTUS ruled against allowing states in this country to execute minors. Only a handful of nations on this planet allow the execution of minors, but the Bush Administrtion fought to allow it, which would have put us in company with countries like: Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, north korea, and Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that this was a 5-4 decision with the conservative justices wanting states to be able to execute minors.

Conservatives also wanted the SCOTUS to allow the government to prosecute people for the kind of sex they have in the privacy of their own home (Lawrence v Texas).

Then we have the anti-birth control extremists in the Republican Party and those who want religion playing a direct role in our government.

You don't see these extremist things happening in Western Europe, Japan, Australia or other democratic countries.

This is the type of draconian social conservatism you see in places like Iran and Pakistan, and the Republican party seems to be embracing them these ideals more and more.

Of course I was partly sarcastic in saying Iran would be a right wing utopia for extreme social conservatives, but it's just because the religion is different, not because the ideas aren't similar. Replace Iran's national religion with Christianity, but keep all the draconian and oppressive laws and I think many of the more extreme social conservatives here WOULD think it's a utopia.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 1, 2012 at 5:50 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes, mission I agree. Japan is another example, progressive I. Some areas but still very conservative in others particularly women's rights.

But my point was to Jean who seems to be a social conservative.

I was just tring to make the point that many of the more extreme conservatives seem more aligned with the way laws are made in the world's strict theocracies as opposed to the free democracies.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 1, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

By the way, there *are* extreme right wing movements in all countries, I didn't mean to imply there aren't.

What I meant to convey is that they haven't penetrated significantly into the government and influenced much of the legislation in the same way they have in theocratic countries like Iran.

The separation of church and state is one important reason.

Here in the U.S., it seems like with the whole tea party movement and the assault on women's health that we have elements of this type of extremism slowly creeping into our congress and SCOTUS. Obviously we have a very long way to go before we would be like one of the more extreme countries I have been using in my examples, but his kind of stuff does start somewhere and it concerns me very much to be seeing the the direction we re going.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 1, 2012 at 6:15 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Mission, re: your "shout it to the four winds" comment:

You seem to be implying that all gay people are in-your-face activists which is a crude stereo-type.

There are many low-key gay people who live their lives quietly and without a political agenda.

But that's not to disparage the activists because they have helped achieve so many rights we have today and I commend their work.

You have very articulate points that I usually agree with when it comes to the racism against Latinos that has become politicized in our country, I just wish you would apply some of the same ideals you have about fairness and discrimination when looking at other groups that are victimized by bigots as well.

Not to mention the GLBT community in San Diego is proud to have a significant Latino population who are all our brothers and sisters, many of whom have had to deal with the terrible situation of being discriminated for *both* their ethnicity and their sexual orientation during their lives. I've talked to many, and they tell me that while the two types of discriminion are different, they both sting and they both hurt.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | May 2, 2012 at 7:23 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

PDSD, I follow most of your reasoning until you trip from social conservatism into economic conservatism. I can personally attest that these are two very different ideals. I actually see economic liberty as a prerequisite for social liberty. You may find this sounds counter intuitive given the first statement, but the economic policies embraced by the party currently labeled 'liberal' in this country have very little liberty in them and a great deal of collectivism and socialism.

Back on topic, it is their life; they should live it as they please. The government should not dictate behavior in situations that do not harm others.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 2, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

STUDYING_NOMAD, right! But what will happen when that very "Libertarian" coupld of yours decided to split apart? Ah, then we will need government intrusion!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 2, 2012 at 1:04 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

No, DUCKSTER, it is not a stereotype, it perfectly describes the militant leadership. They are IN YOUR FACE--like Dan Savage, for example, or the Hillcrest C of C chairman who wants giant flag or the blankity blank who keeps sending me nasty e-mails through YouTube because I happened to like the film CRUSING!!!

But it's true, not ALL but certainly MOST. Evidence of this is the so-called LGBT's endorsement of Nate Fletcher as opposed to De Mayo or Dumbanis. Apaprently, (and I don't like either by the way) de Mayo and Dumbanas are not "gay enough" for their liking because "same-sex marraige" across the board is not a priority over San Diego's more vital issues. And furthermore, I have yet to work with a gay person who did NOT tell me they were gay!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 2, 2012 at 1:07 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@DUCKSTER as to your other post, the declining Teebircher movement is itself split over the secularists and those wanting to creep in Protestant fundamentalism.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | May 2, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

"And furthermore, I have yet to work with a gay person who did NOT tell me they were gay!"

Just wondering... how can you be sure this is true? It seems like an odd thing to have happen. I suppose it could come up in conversation (if you had that level of personal conversation with everyone you have ever worked with), but that doesn't really seem to be the point you are trying to make.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 2, 2012 at 1:27 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Because, Benz, I have worked with people who may or not be married; may or may not have a boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other or whatever. Heterosexuals--especially women--don't go around shouting it to the Four Winds. I don't know if my immediate co-worker is dating someone. She doesn't tell me and I don't ask--nor do I care.

On the other hand . . . gays usually make it a point to let you know one way or another. That has been my experience.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 2, 2012 at 2:42 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Gay people are extremely overt about their sexual orientation. I am pretty sure it is due to extreme insecurity, and they are trying to prove that they are not insecure or ashamed at all by proclaiming from the mountain tops that they are gay... BTW this doesn't, and is usually not, done by simple words. It is the lisp, the mannerisms, the dress... it is all a proclamation.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | May 2, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure that most would be extremely offended by JeanMarc's bigoted hate-speech and insulting snark posts,see above, also surprised that his comments, see first post,were actually aired recently. This type of hate-speech has no place on Public Airwaves,unless used to educate, right wing troll behavior has not been moderated lately on this site

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | May 2, 2012 at 3:50 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

I must append with this article for those who don't know what's going on on ALL internet blogs http://www.alternet.org/media/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations?page=1

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 2, 2012 at 4:06 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Grow up JohnL... you should learn how to accept that not everyone on earth has the same opinion as you. Aren't you being a bit closed-minded?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JackYouLater'

JackYouLater | May 2, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

People are born gay. People are also born with different ethnic and genetic backgrounds. In the 1960's the many whites couldn't understand what the minority blacks were doing, making such a fuss over demanding equal this and equal that.

The response then was much the same as it is now; if you pay the same taxes and have to live under the same laws, then you should have the same rights and privileges regardless of the genetic circumstances of your birth. Of course there are exceptions, such as occur when folks are born sociopaths or psychopaths and present a danger to society at large.

The amount of time people have spent worrying about what grown, law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults who love each other do (instead of working on their own self-improvement and enjoyment) is creepy, counterproductive and beyond comprehension.

If you don't like gay people in the military, then you need to find another line of work. Just like some whites did who did not want to serve in an integrated military, gtfo and do something else with your sorry life.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'jon_826'

jon_826 | May 2, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Congratulations! I wish you both a long, happy life together. Additionally, thank you for your device to our country.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | May 2, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Is it any wonder that some of Conservatives favorite tv shows are "Swamp Loggers",
"Top Shot","American Pickers","Swamp People","The Biggest Loser","Fox News","Manscape your Kitchen"and Dancing With the Stars"?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 2, 2012 at 5:40 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@JohnL,

*Manscape your kitchen*!?

Lol! Never heard of it, but some interesting images come to mind.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 2, 2012 at 5:48 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@mission and jean,

Here is a little hint for you: *you might not know people are gay if they don't tell you they are.*

This assuming that all gays let their sexuality be known in the workplace simply because some have let it be known to you is ridiculous.

There are many gay men and women across America who purposefully go to great lengths **not** to let it be know precisely because of the narrow minded stereo-typing you both are doing here.

And Jean, gay people are very diverse.

Some are masculine some are effeminate, some you could tell they are flaming for. A mile away, and some you could know for years and never have a clue they are gay.

In fact, you and mission probably have a few acquaintances who are gay but you would never suspect it because in your minds all gay men have lisps and walk around commenting on drapes and women's shoes and all lesbians wear tool belts and roll up cigarette packs in the arm of their t-shirts.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 2, 2012 at 6:34 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Mission wrote:
*Evidence of this is the so-called LGBT's endorsement of Nate Fletcher as opposed to De Mayo or Dumbanis. Apaprently, (and I don't like either by the way) de Mayo and Dumbanas are not "gay enough" for their liking because "same-sex marraige" across the board is not a priority over San Diego's more vital issues. And furthermore, I have yet to work with a gay person who did NOT tell me they were gay!*

All this proves is that LGBT people are not one-issue voters.

This is like saying that if Willard picks Marco Rubio for his VP, those Latinos who *don't* vote for Romney-Rubio are just radicals who don't think Rubio is "Latino enough" because he supports the republican illegal immigration views.

The issue many gay people have with Dirty Carl and Dumanis is not that they "aren't gay enough", it's that they have **intentionally run away from important LGBT issues in order to preserve their right wing political alliances and their own political ladder climbing.**

Dirty Carl and, to a lesser extent, Dumanis have not only stayed clear of gay rights, they have **formed alliances with overtly anti-gay public figures.**

DeMaio has a long list of alliances with "family values" conservatives who have campaigned against repealing sodomy laws, preventing discrimination in the work place, allowing gay adoption, and of course gay marriage.

Papa Putrid Manchester, a long-time cronie who runs in the same 'Good 'Ol Boy' network as Dirty Carl has also apparently fingered Carl as his choice for mayor.

When Dumanis was running for DA, she was a regular on local right wing hate radio accepting endorsements from known homophobes.

And, in what was probably the most shameful act, Dumanis, a prominent gay person in San Diego who married her partner right in the middle of the Proposition 8 firestorm, remained completely silent when the gay community needed her the most.

Her voice could have possibly swayed some more conservative voters who respect her to vote no on prop 8.

But true to form, Bonnie ran away from who she is in order to not rock the boat in her right-wing network of political good 'old boys, and she scurried up to Santa Barbara to quietly marry her partner and attract as little meia attention here in San Diego as possible.

To me these acts transcend "The Gay" and go straight to the character of who these two political charlatans really are.

I don't trust people who run away fom their own core beliefs and ignore the rights and struggles of the people simply to prop-up their own political careers.

If they do this on one issue, they will do it on many issues.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 2, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

(continued)

Now, I'm not saying gay people want gay candidates who focus disproportionately on gay rights issues.

We know that simply makes the LGBT community look bad, it hinders LGBT candidates from being elected in future elections, and - most importantly - it's not fair because candidates are elected to represent all of their constituents.

But that does not mean LGBT elected officials should remain silent on important and major gay related issues, such as Prop 8.

It's about a little thing called **BALANCE**, mission.

Look at current City Councilman Todd Gloria and former Councilwoman and first San Diego gay (interim) Mayor Toni Atkins.

Both gay, both do an excellent job representing **all** their constituents fairly, but still able to weigh in on important LGBT issues when they arise instead of running under the covers and hiding from them like cowards afraid to offend their bigot bennefactors as we have seen with Dirty Carl and Ms Dumanis.

Finally, you say "the LGBT's endorsement of Fletcher."

First of all, the LGBT community is diverse and the LGBT community does not endorse anybody. Organizations within the community do.

I'm voting for Mr. Filner myself, and I know many other LGBT San Diegans who are also supporting Mr. Filner.

The Caliph, a well-established gay bar in Hillcrest known for an older gentleman clientele, is apparently supporting Ms. Dumanis as evidenced by the large, garish banner bearing her name they have placed atop their establishment.

I know many gay people with military ties admire Mr. Fletcher for his military service as well as the passionate and courageous way he spoke out against don't ask don't tell.

There are also likely log cabin republican groups who will throw support behind Mr. DeMaio.

So mission (and you too Jean) I hope my post will at least make you think a little bit about the possibility that the gay community is not limited to the narrow stereo-types you both seem to have.

Yes my friends, there are flamingly liberal drag queens and men with lisps who do **amazing** things with interior design and live in Hillcrest and I love them and our community loves them.

But guess what - there are also conservative gay men who are very masculine, vote Republican, and live in La Mesa and our community loves them too even if we don't always agree politically.

So let's try and nix the stereo-types and start seeing people as individuals.

We all deserve that much.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | May 2, 2012 at 7:03 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

PD,glad to provide the Lols, you Cannot be Republican and for gay rights,which SD "In the Middle"Republican Politicians have pretended to be for decades,to say that orientation is a choice is laughable and any thinking person could shred the argument
I'm so proud of our President and our troops and commanders for ending DADT ,our Military will much stronger for it

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 3, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

OUTSIDE, you were deliberately MISSING the whole point. You shout it to the Four Winds. I DON'T need to know about it, I don't care, and they shouldn't have some INNER URGE to tell me. Period.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 3, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

People are born gay."

Sorry, Jackulater, no such evidence on record. Keep living in your fantasy world.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 3, 2012 at 11:52 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@JON, yeah their "device"--their devicesiveness to our country!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 3, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Not "one-issue:" voters? Are you kidding me?

DUCKSTER, your opening paragraph/sentence and your third one contradict each other.

Here's more proof, the gay activist that got up at the forum and asked Dumbanis and De Mayonaisse: "if you're gay, why are you Republican?"

That sums it up as far as I am concerned and is the point I've been making all along regardless of any apologizing or explanations on your part. Being gay or lesbian has ABOSULTELY NOTHING to do with being either a Democrat or a Republican and I have ALWAYS opposed the politicizing of homosexuality because it should not define politics for a person. It is only the AIDS era gay militants and their post-New Left sympathizers (the Dworkins, the Pollits among others) who decided they were going to turn it into a political issue for mainstream society.

And take a look at your second post, in some ways we concur, gays are one big monolith. My point is that on a societal level, the LGBT people, would love nothing more than to be monolithic!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 3, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

JOHN L , explain "Log Cabin Republicans."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 3, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

High five to MA.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 3, 2012 at 7:11 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Mission, during the AIDS crisis in the 80s one of the largest public health crisis in human history was upon us, and our government refused to even *acknowledge* it for years solely because of **who** was being infected, not based on the public health implications.

For you to suggest gays politicized AIDS is a shameful and ignorant re-write of history.

Gay men were dying horrendous deaths from an infectious disease.

If that had been happening in middle class white communities, Reagan would have made it a top government priority, but because it was gay men our government was perfectly fine with ignoring it and letting people drop dead.

Government and homophobes politicized the disease, not gays.

The only reason HIV research even got to the point in the 90s where we had effective treatments is because of the "radical activists" you apparently don't care for.

People dying as their immune systems shut down using their last bits of energy to try and help bring about research and awareness kowing they would not be around to bennefit but hopeful their actions might help future victims of the disease were heroes, and shame on you for implying otherwise.

I guess you and Jean think gays should have just been silent and content with dying while the government ignored the problem.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 4, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

PKSD... that is quite an assumption to make. I don't think gays should just die silently. I don't think there is any problem with AIDS treatment these days. All humans are important, no matter their sexual orientation. I would not want anyone to be ignored while they die.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | May 4, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

This whole discussion thread is proof that groups are not monolithic. Bigots are everywhere, even in the NPR listening pool.

MA and JM, since you both know whats it's like to be gay so well, do you also know what's it's like to be Cuban? How about poor and black? Disabled? Pleas enlighten the rest of us with your quick wit.

The whole discussion left the main topic which was a public commitment between two people to form a lasting relationship. These two people are part of a group that has been discriminated against and has recently become infamous for demading their rights. That's why this is news.

For those of you who think this country is too liberal or don't like to hear about gays, I suggest Uganda, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.


( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 8, 2012 at 7:46 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@DUCKSTER

1) Re:Japan. Don't confuse "liberal" with "permissive" on a societal level. Two different animals. (May 1 post)

2) There is plenty of SECULAR macho type anti-gay sentiment. It is definately NOT all religious based.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 8, 2012 at 7:56 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Let me put it to you this way, Duck, you feel maybe "uncomfortable, irritated," or "intimidated" by people wearing their religion on their sleeves--like others do when they wear their ethnicity on their sleeves.

This is no different--especially when unlike race or ethnicty, but similar to religion, it a PRIVATE personal matter.

The problem is, the miliansts don't want to stop there!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | May 8, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow, this convo is still going, it's gotten a little emo for me. However, I'd like to point out that there are a whole lot of non-gays who seem to "know" what it means to be gay. Weird.

Missionaccomplished: you don't think it's pretty sad that two adults are unable to handle their personal affairs without government intervention? Just another example of gays paying for services they aren't entitled to. I believe in a small gov, but if you all want to continue with this big gov mentality, at least allow all the citizens equal access to gov benefits and protections.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 8, 2012 at 12:10 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Studying_Nomad, just wait til one of them dies or wants out! They'll be SCREAMING for government intervention.

@DUCK, Mission, during the AIDS crisis in the 80s one of the largest public health crisis in human history was upon us, and our government refused to even acknowledge it for years solely because of who was being infected, not based on the public health implications."

The Ray Gun administration DELIBERATELY minimized or denied the existence of a lot things like the initail reports of the massacre of El Mozote in El Salvador, not just AIDS. But to say the "largest in human history" is just perpetuating more of the paranoia and extremist propaganda that was around at the time, 1980s. I remember the cries that the government was "conspiring" against further research. Fact is, duck, malaria has wiped off more people in world history than you can begin to count. Yet no one, to my knowledge, has charged "conspiracy!"

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Studying_Nomad'

Studying_Nomad | May 8, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

In a way, that was my point, Missionaccomplished. Gov's involvement in marriage is about property distribution, not love, or religion, so I am perplexed by the big deal made of it. I thought we were a country based enlightenment ideas.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 8, 2012 at 9:58 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Mission, you misquoted me as saying AIDS is "the biggest public health crisis in the world" when I said one of.

And study your public health, there is plenty of controversy surrounding government involvement in diseases the effect primarily the poor like malaria.

Again, we are talking about priorities based on **who** is infected not based on the danger of the infection itself.

Malaria existed in the U.S. In fact, the CDC is located in Atlanta because the southeast was malaria ridden in the 40s and they wanted their headquarters in the field with a goal of eradication.

So you see, when white well off peope die of something, the disease gets erradicted. When poor people in Africa, Latin America and Asia are suffering fom the same disease, it festers on decade after decade.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 9, 2012 at 9:24 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

@123UNREALITY, which Cubans? The ones that have been getting free passes to the US over the Haitans?

"The whole discussion left the main topic which was a public commitment between two people to form a lasting relationship. These two people are part of a group that has been discriminated against and has recently become infamous for demading their rights. That's why this is news"

And this has never been reported before, UNREALITY 123, in other circumstances, stories?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 9, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Err, DUCK, I didn't misquote. Recheck my copy/paste of your original claim (May 3).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | May 9, 2012 at 11:50 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

MA, @123UNREALITY? Really? That change up of my name is too cute! You must of been a hoot in grade school. You also relish in pointing out small anecdotal situations that do not represent the entire story, paint entire populations with a large brush, and don't add anything to the discussion.

Let me show you, you said-
"And this has never been reported before, UNREALITY 123, in other circumstances, stories?"

Of course it has, so has domestic violence, murder, political corruption, etc.. should we stop reporting that too?

Was the vote in North Carolina lost on you today? Until this kind of attack on the freedoms of any population in this country persist, no one should be toning down the relevance of acts like the public commitment of this couple. That goes for this specific population under attack. I had to qualify that since you might bring in some other non-related issue to deflect scrutiny of your hateful posts, like the whole Cubans-Hatians comment. I say again REALLY??? I can make those comments too!!! Look, I did it with your own comment-

"which Cubans? The ones that have been getting free passes to the US over the MEXICANS?"

...see it's easy, I substituted Mexcians for Hatians and brought in another entirely unrelated population skillfully deflecting the point of my post which, since you seem to know what it's like to be gay so well, asked you if you also knew what it's like to be Cuban? Your response has no relation at all to my original comment, non-sequitor, a waste of typing.

I say we need to hear more about gays making strides in this caustic environment. It's never enough until legal equality is achieved for all homosexuals, even Cuban ones that have been taking all those spots that should be going to Hatians.

Just sayin..

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 9, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Re: mission, you quoted me correctly first, but then misquoted me in your analysis.

See the bold:

Missionaccomplished | yesterday at 12:10 p.m. ― 23 hours, 50 minutes ago
Studying_Nomad, just wait til one of them dies or wants out! They'll be SCREAMING for government intervention.

@DUCK, Mission, during the AIDS crisis in the 80s **one of the largest public health crisis in human history** was upon us, and our government refused to even acknowledge it for years solely because of who was being infected, not based on the public health implications."

The Ray Gun administration DELIBERATELY minimized or denied the existence of a lot things like the initail reports of the massacre of El Mozote in El Salvador, not just AIDS. **But to say the "largest in human history" is just perpetuating more of the paranoia and extremist propaganda** that was around at the time, 1980s. I remember the cries that the government was "conspiring" against further research. Fact is, duck, malaria has wiped off more people in world history than you can begin to count. Yet no one, to my knowledge, has charged "conspiracy!"

( comment permalink | suggest removal )

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'HarryStreet'

HarryStreet | May 25, 2012 at 9:24 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

We're still making an issue of this?

( | suggest removal )