Why some of us were so insistent in pointing out Byrd's record in regard to gays

[dsc]

Linked is the obituary of Byrd from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html?_r=1

Not one, single, solitary word, in an obituary that had to have been thousands of words about his horrible record on gay rights. Not one word despite his decades long record of not voting for any legislation benefitial to gay rights until his last year in office. Not one word about his use of his power as appropration's chair to prevent AIDS funding because there were no gays in West Virginia. I am not saying this should have defined his obituary. I don't even know if it should have appeared on the first page. But not one word? Really, not one word? It should matter when you use your public office to discriminate against a group of people. That is what we were trying to say.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[RKP5637]

2. Also Recommend! n/t

[SunnySong]

3. Because gays are second class citizens even in the democratic party, nt

[katandmoon]

4. K&R

[kelly1mm]

5. Didn't you hear? Gays are supposed to write checks and shut up

about any policy issues. The Democrats are in power so what else do you want?!!

It is sad that I have to but :sarcasm:

[JoeyT]

6. Yes, but as someone pointed out earlier

Clinton forgave him for being in the Klan, so he probably forgave him for being a homophobe too.

[dsc]

7. I think he did turn around, substantially, on race

without regard to Clinton or anyone else forgiving him for being in the Klan. Gays are another matter.