"Homosexuality is wrong"... putting it to rest

This is Part II of "Homosexuality is Wrong"... An update for those readers who don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  SUPPOSEDLY, Joe Lieberman said, "Homosexuality is wrong." at some point in time, and many GLBT organizations (and Lieberman's primary opponent Ned Lamont on his website) make that claim, saying Lieberman made this quote to the New Haven Advocate.  This quote was SUPPOSEDLY told to Paul Bass, reporter at the Advocate (at the time)...

In response to Matt Stoller's "Doug Ireland" e-mail quote, in which Ireland says to ask Paul Bass if Lieberman ever said "homosexuality is wrong" in some obscure "particular clip" which he "unfortunately no longer has" (below)...
---------------------------------------- ----------

"I no longer have the particular clip that Paul Bass sent me with that "homosexuality is wrong" Lieberman quote in it, but I'm sure if you got hold of him through the Advocate newspaper chain in Connecdticut he could easily supply you with a copy of his inteview with Lieberman from which that quote comes.

Feel free to quote this note of mine if you think it useful.


Doug Ireland"
---------------------------------------- --------------------
So I asked Paul Bass (I took Ireland up on his request)... THE ORIGINAL SOURCE that SUPPOSEDLY heard the quote... (Did Stoller go to this original source? I doubt it.

---------------------------------------- --------------
I went back and looked... You're right; I didn't see that
quote in the Advocate. I agree with you that people shouldn't say it appeared when it didn't.

I actually like Joe Lieberman. He's a nice guy. Anyway, thanks for calling this to my attention. Best, Paul
---------------------------------------- --------------
So, "Homosexuality is wrong" -- Joe Lieberman to the New Haven Advocate, should NOT be used. Period.

Like Lieberman or hate him, one CANNOT attribute this quote to the New Haven Advocate.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY. It NEVER appeared in the New Haven Advocate. PERIOD.

Saying, "It's in a nonexistent clip I heard once that was told to a new haven advocate reporter who denies its existence" means that attributing

"Homosexuality is wrong" -- Joe Lieberman to the New Haven Advocate is nothing but SLOPPINESS and HERESAY.


Tags: Lieberman, Paul Bass (all tags)



The bottom line...

"People shouldn't say it appeared when it didn't."--- Paul Bass concerning the inappropriately cited Joe Lieberman "quote" ("Homosexuality is wrong.") attributed to the  New Haven Advocate.

by NCDem 2006-06-05 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Bush's Favorite Dem Homophobic?

In yesterday's HARTFORD COURANT Paul Bass has an extensive column about what a duplicitous turd Lieberman is. He didn't bring up the quote but he still seems to feel that Lieberman has been bad on gay issues.

"The Bush administration values Joe Lieberman because he has been a crucial ally in efforts to free Enron-style corporate crooks from regulation, transfer wealth to the wealthy, hound gays, trample on the rights of government critics and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to dishonest, dangerous military adventurism."

I doubt Doug Ireland made the whole thing up. It sounds more like Lieberman said it to Bass and Bass passed it on to Ireland but never printed it in the NEW HAVEN ADVOCATE. One certainly doesn't need that particular quote to make the case that Lieberman is not a friend of gay men and women. He himself recently-- now that's he's being called on the carpet for activities unbecoming a Democrat--  admitted he was wrong to have teamed up with Jesse Helms to legislate homophobia in schools.

by DownWithTyranny 2006-06-05 06:25AM | 0 recs
I agree...

I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree.
(I don't know how many times I can say that.)


"Homosexuality is wrong". should still not be attributed as a quote from Joe Lieberman to the New Haven Advocate....

by NCDem 2006-06-05 06:29AM | 0 recs
And please people...

All future comments in MY diary about Joe Lieberman STILL possibly being a fag-hater will be hidden.  I agree that Joe Lieberman MAY be a fag-hater.  I agree that Joe Lieberman may believe in his heart of hearts that being gay is wrong.  Please do not write 17 paragraphs about Joe Lieberman's anti-gayness, or I will choose to delete your comment because I don't want to hear it any more.  Yes, Joe Lieberman may not like gay people. I agree with that, and that particular discussion will not perputate in this diary. It is MY diary, and I'll delete those comments, and all of your troubles will be for naught.  However, the QUOTE attributed to Joe Lieberman... "Homosexuality is wrong" in the New Haven Advocate is inappropriate, because it never appeared there.  That is my only point.  Transparency. If the quote didn't appear, it didn't appear... period, no matter what Lieberman "believes".

by NCDem 2006-06-05 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: And please people...

I agree 100% and would only reiterate that it was also inappropriate for the quote to be posted on this site without the original quote being verified.    

by HSTruman 2006-06-05 07:53AM | 0 recs
He supported the Helms amendment

to block funding for counseling gay students because it sent the message that being homosexual was okay.

That was IN EFFECT saying that he believed homosexuality was wrong. In fact, it was worse because just saying it would harm nobody. The Helms amendment was designed to increase the instance of gay suicides.

Way to go, Joe!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-06-05 09:03AM | 0 recs
Something fishy here

Leaving all other elements aside for the moment, and just concentrating on the did the quote appear in the Advocate? issue, there's surely something of an inconstistency.

The first we get is Matt blazing away (via FDL) with the 2003 LA Weekly piece. Then he emails the scribe who says he got a dossier of Advocate pieces from Paul Bass in which he found the quote. (But the piece with the quote has gone AWOL.)

Then Bass emails you to say

I didn't see that quote in the Advocate.

Does he mean he didn't see it when he looked following your email? Or at some time in the past?

And does he mean that, while he didn't see it in the Advocate, he did see it elsewhere?

Let's pass that for the moment.

The upshot would seem to be that the statement in the LA Weekly piece is false.

Presumably, if the publishers were to fail, on being so informed, to take it down from the site or amend it, they would be liable for damages for defamation under the Sullivan rule.

Plus - it would, if the Weekly truly is, as Matt alleged a respectable paper, be damaging to its reputation to have a defamatory statement about a leading national politician on its site.

To close to my bedtime to tease it out. But, somehow, this fails to pass the smell test.

by skeptic06 2006-06-05 06:42PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads