VIDEO: Charlie Crist to be outed in film--"We know what you did last session"

By GottaLaff



Out rage: They're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it any more:

The Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, who is strongly considering a run for Senate, will be outed in a independent film being released tomorrow.

The film, “Outrage,” tracks the outings of prominent gay political figures, such as Crist and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. It’s being produced by Magnolia Pictures and will appear in Landmark Theaters across the country.

“Using some firsthand accounts of former sexual partners, old campaign footage (to occasionally humorous effect) and commentary from gay political media watchdogs, the film makes the case for each man’s homosexuality, and presents his lifetime gay rights voting record,” according to one reviewer. “In each instance, the disconnect is staggering.

“The usual suspects are all there: Craig, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, former New York mayor Ed Koch, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, former Rep. Ed Schrock, even dusty McCarthy relic Roy Cohn. [...]

Salon notes that Crist is the biggest fish in the film for critics.

“The person most reviewers have been focusing on is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was recently married — his engagement was announced right around the time when speculation was mounting that he could be chosen as John McCain’s running mate,” Salon’s Alex Koppelman writes. “He was actually first outed back in 2006, by Bob Norman, a reporter for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, who was also the first reporter to the story of former Rep. Mark Foley’s sexuality, in 2003.

“And, in cases like Crist’s, it means that the media knows something its audience doesn’t, and is holding back information about people who are running for public office,” Koppelman added.

Gay Supreme--Jeff Sessions: Okay,Thune: Nay

By GottaLaff

What's up with Jeff Sessions these days? It's a plot. Yes, that's it, it's all an evil plot to suck me in:

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he could consider a gay nominee for the nation’s highest court.

“I’m not inclined to think that’s an automatic disqualification,” Sessions said of a gay nominee. He said he intends to consider only the nominee’s legal judgment when deciding his support for Justice David Souter’s proposed replacement.

Ohh, he can't fool me. Somehow I don't believe that too many legal opinions of a gay nominee would sit well with Jeffy. Just a feeling.

Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor.

But conservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama’s effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he'll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”

So a gay man or woman couldn't be right down the middle? Really?

Other GOP senators on Wednesday said a nominee’s sexual orientation is of lesser importance than his or her legal qualifications.

"Lesser" importance? Why should it be of any importance?

Other Republicans seemed caught by surprise at the possibility.

“It’s something I’d have to think through with respect to whatever issues might be forthcoming that the court may have to consider,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.).

"I have never, frankly, thought about that situation," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP standard-bearer in the 2008 presidential election.

“I’ve never thought about it,” said Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.). “But I don’t look at things through that lens in regards to the type of position we’re talking about."

How odd. The thought has never entered their little noggins, frankly. It just hasn't occurred to them at all! Frankly.

Study: Utah Leads Nation in Online Porn Purchases, Sales Higher Nationwide in Religious Areas

By GottaLaff

Hyp. O. Crites, Inc.:

A study of the online porn purchases nationwide by Harvard Business School uncovered something surprising (or maybe not). Residents of right-wing religious areas purchase more porn than those in liberal areas:

Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

“Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by,” [Benjamin Edelman of Harvard Business School] says.

I'm not surprised. Are you surprised? I'm not surprised. I already said that, but I said it again for emphasis.

And guess which religion appears to be the most porn-obsessed? Yup, Mormons:

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. “The differences here are not so stark,” Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Repressed much, righties?

Of course, this study was done by the Harvard Business School, so we should completely discount it. We all know that they're all nothing but a bunch of gay atheist sex addicts with nothing better to do than... reveal the truth.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11 percent more porn subscribers than states that don’t explicitly restrict gay marriage.

Let's recap:

Rightie wingnuts: Gay = bad. Porn = dandy.

Let me rephrase that:

Healthy, loving same-sex relationships = Immoral sexual behavior.

X-rated online voyeurism = Religious Rightie version of monogamous, hetero loving relationships.

Moral: If you vote Republican and pray a lot, you get to regularly enjoy the company of your favorite cyber boinkers, as long as you condemn it publicly.

For more on the study, go here

H/t: Wendy

Republican Ken Blackwell Could Restrain Homosexual Urges... if he had 'em... but he doesn't... so he won't

By GottaLaff

"Let me be clear: I am not gay. I never have been gay. I am not gay. I love my wife."
--Larry Craig.

Gay-rights activist/talk radio host Michelangelo Signorile has the audio of Ken Blackwell during the Republican National Convention discussing how:

[H]omosexuality is a compulsion that can be "restrained," and he's quite confident he would be able to suppress it within himself -- though of course he's never had any sort of problem like that.

Of course not, Ken dear. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell said, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge."

If only he could have suppressed his urge to be straight. Then all that threatening gayness wouldn't matter so much to him.

Does the New York Times think "gay" is a bad word?

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Think Progress caught this:

Towleroad notes that when a reader text messages someone a New York Times article with the word “gay” in the title, the New York Times web service censors the word “gay,” replacing it with a “beep”.

Try it yourself here, suggests Think Progress.

I could understand it if they did that with "Bush" or "Cheney"... but "gay"?