NC can claim a homo-bigot of the week

Pretty boy Nathan Tabor, and the source of his factoids about homosexuality, discredited "scientist" Paul Cameron.

Nathan Tabor has a problem. He has an obsession with gay people. He thinks a lot about them in his essay "Homosexuals should pay more insurance," spewing forth a diatribe of nonsensical lies and hysterically insecure commentary. The Kernersville, NC-based Tabor considers himself a "conservative political activist" and is a contributing editor at The Conservative Voice. He also worked with Focus on the Family and BC04 on GOTV campaigns, and made a bid of his own for the Fifth Congressional District here in NC. He thankfully missed the runoff by 8 points. That's way too close, as you will see when you read this crap he's writing after jump.

 
Nathan with newly minted NC Senator Richard Burr; Nathan getting cozy with our other Senator, Elizabeth "Empty Wig" Dole.

Nathan is a two-for-one bigot, because while he may be a Tar Heel, he hails from Huntsville, Alabama. That's my wifey Katie's birth state; I give her no end of grief about possible gubernatorial candidate Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore and various wingnut crackpots such as your friendly bigoted sheriff Mac Holcomb. I will humiliate the state again by tying it to yet another homophobe. More from Nathan's article:

Some would say it is a known fact that most homosexuals, and especially gay men, are promiscuous. Their rhetoric is carefully crafted to give the impression they are in "committed, caring relationships" while research suggests that the vast majority of gays are neither celibate nor monogamous. (All heterosexuals are not celibate or monogamous either.) Some may say, so what? Well, the corollary to this homosexual health hypothesis is another proven fact: most sexually active homosexuals simply don't live a very long time. The heartier they party, it seems, the shorter the time that party lasts.

According to a article entitled "The Longevity of Homosexuals" in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death from AIDS for homosexual men is 37, and the median age of death from other causes is 42. This does not compare favorably to the ever-increasing average lifespan of the rest of the heterosexual American population.

Nathan gets extra bonus points above for referencing the discredited "scientist" Paul Cameron's "research" that gay men die at 42. Therefore, he reasons, gays should be charged more for insurance because of the higher incidence of AIDS in gay men.

...The conclusion is simple. Homosexual activists say they want equal rights and treatment. Fine. Let's use their own arguments against them here. Let's start by having them pay their fair share of the healthcare costs that accompany their lifestyle.

Long-term medical treatment for HIV and AIDS is usually protracted and tremendously expensive. Maybe that's why gay activists are pushing so hard for spousal benefits for domestic partners of homosexuals - so somebody else, like the government or an employer, will pick up the tab. "Risky" behavior is called risky for a reason. It means that by doing it, you put your life in danger. It's really a lot like gambling for high stakes. The more you play, the more you stand to lose. For indulging in this risky behavior, you rightfully SHOULD pay more for both life and health insurance.

 
Look! Nathan's smiling with Mr. Viagra himself; And there's a nice one with pious John "Let the Eagle Soar" AssCroft.

This isn't a religious or even a moral values argument. This is strictly a common sense fiscal argument. You play risky, you pay more. That's only fair. In fact, if these types of policies aren't implemented, then health-conscious people are the ones being discriminated against. You can't blame the insurance companies for charging more. After all, their likelihood of having to pay out large sums of money on behalf of their gay clients is significantly greater.

Drinking and smoking, for example, are all directly related to dozens of diseases and medical conditions. So insurance companies habitually charge higher premiums. But non-smokers, non-drinkers and those who exercise get better rates than those who don't practice such healthy lifestyle choices.

What about skydivers, hang gliders, and racecar drivers - do they pay the same life insurance premiums as those who watch birds or collect stamps? Not hardly.

[Last time I looked there was a skyrocketing rise in the the transmission of AIDS to black, heterosexual women who did nothing more than sleep with their seemingly monogamous partners. Are they engaging in risky behavior? -- Pam ]

The same logic should be applied to practicing homosexuals. When actuaries and insurance underwriters finally figure out this formula, we may see some instantaneous lifestyle changes. After all, their risky homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice, not a destiny. If the proven threat to their health won't do the trick, maybe the cost to their pocketbooks will.

This man is a fool, and thank god he didn't make the runoff when he ran for the Fifth Congressional District seat here in NC. No Tar Heel needs a jackass like Nathan representing them. Take a look at the endorsements he received:

 
• Dr. Jerry Falwell

 
• Dr. Pat Robertson

 
• Local Gun Stores

 
• Dr. Bob Jones III

 
• Concerned Women of America

 
• Right to Life

And no political future is sealed without a kiss up to Rummy! Thanks, Nathan!

Pam's House Blend

•  I just had to vent

  So many of these junior wingnuts are trying to get elected here, despite the progressive blue center of the state. To see the GOP leadership lending support to these fringe folks is just amazing.

  Pam's House Blend

  by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 06:49:52 AM PDT

  •  So Sad

    I grew up in NC and, although I now live in OH, NC will always be home.  This makes me very sad.

    I grew up with a family that was Democratic through and through.  Many in my family were active in the textile union movement.  One of my aunts demanded she be released from the hospital early after surgery so she could vote in the Democratic primary.

    What has happened to NC?  I always felt NC was head and shoulders above the rest of the south with a culture that captured the best of southern history but rejected its worst aspects.

    My mother, who still lives in a small NC town, says that the religious right is taking the state in a very bad direction.  She says she can't even talk to some of her neighbors anymore.

    by Getreal1246 on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:09:33 AM PDT

    •  I'm in the Triangle

      It's a progressive bubble here, especially Durham and Chapel Hill (Raleigh and Cary are more conservative). But all I have to do is drive several miles outside the bubble and it's a sea of BC04 stickers.

      We're going to have a dickens of a time fighting off a state marriage amendment.

      Pam's House Blend

      by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:14:14 AM PDT

      •  Me too

        I'm squarely in BushWorld with Wake Field as the predominant (resource sucking, infrastructure taxing, pollutant dumping, Bush SUVing) neighbor.  

        I frequently go to downtown Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill and the difference is a welcome one.

        Going to the blue dot ball tonight?

        by debraz on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:23:37 AM PDT

    •  Is NC really getting any worse?

      From 1992-1998, years that people consider more liberal than today (I don't know why), NC had 2 of the biggest bigots in the Senate, as well as two of the biggest homophobes -- Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth. Edwards beat Faircloth but that seat has changed parties every 6 years. In spite of that Bowles could have won if he hadn't run such a lazy, safe, overconfident campaign.

      NC has a center-right Democrat governor who was reelected easily. Democrats also took advantage of ugly splits in the state Republican party and ran the house even when Republicans had the greater numbers. Now Democrats officially control the house and senate, and some Republicans may switch parties (some of those who were targeted for defeat in GOP primaries and barely won -- are they still going to switch?).

      I don't really see how North Carolina is getting any worse. Vernon Robinson, the biggest nut of 2004, lost a primary in the most Republican part of the state. A lesbian was elected to the state senate, and I don't think she was from the most liberal area either.

      North Carolina is still a long time away from most other Southern states, and really was never a progressive place anyway. The last time they voted for a Democrat for Prez was 1976! Even Georgia voted for Clinton once. Look at Georgia now and look at North Carolina, and you will see some big differences.

      I do think the anti-gay amendment will pass but unfortunately that is typical of most states.

      by Turlough on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:25:44 AM PDT

      •  not all bad, there are good signs

        The Dems have the legislature and the gov (but Easley came out in favor of a state amendment, the bastard, forcing the local gay rights group to withdraw its endorsement). Still, most of the Dems are conservative by Blue state standards.

        
        Julia Boseman is the out, recently elected state senator, from the Wilmington area (Wilm. is not as wingnut as other parts of the state).

        Pam's House Blend

        by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:31:04 AM PDT

        •  Wilmington also isn't liberal, is it?

          That seat was held by wingers for years (Ballantine, Woody White) so her winning it, in a year when Bush and Burr swept the ticket, wasn't bad, no?

          I'm not trying to defend Mike Easley's bigotry. What I'm saying is that his views are not atypical for North Carolina and that he is not a sign that North Carolina is moving further to the right. If I'm wrong, please tell me. Am I?

          North Carolina is a beautiful place but I always heard there was only one area of progressive values, and that's Chapel Hill. Now there are a few other pockets in the state and there are other places which may not be liberal but are moderate. That's progress. And while I do wonder about what will happen if Democrats no longer control the legislative maps, or if the GOP fully unifies itself and makes a full charge for power in the state, I think all the new tech interests and influx of population in North Carolina probably means the state will not fall back into the mire. The Democrats even got a new Congressional seat a few years ago.

          I do wish someone would kick these state Dem parties in the head and make them less right-wing. My only disagreement with people in this diary is the idea that something has "happened" to NC and that its becoming a fascist paradise. Just compare the rhetoric from Biddy Dole and from Jesse Helms -- their voting records may be the same, but on the surface at least, she knows that the state won't let her get away with what Helms got away with. Burr probably knows it too.

          by Turlough on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:40:32 AM PDT

          •  I don't disagree

            Easley's views are typical of most moderate North Carolinians. The influx of Yankees here over the years (I'm a native, born in Durham) has resulted in a more politically moderate state government overall. It's much less wingnut, than say Virginia, or god forbid Alabama. Helms was successful because he did provide excellent constituent services. Dems could learn from this. It's why he kept getting elected even though most voters didn't share his views overall.

            Dems should not continually cede a state like NC that has a good progressive base (Wilmington, Charlotte and Asheville are have good progressive representation). Chapel Hill and Durham are magnets for progressives. (Go into any Home Depot or Target in Durham and try and find an aisle without bumping into several lesbians, lol).

            However, the religious conservatives in the agricultural base of the state think like this cretin, and they are organizing and jostling for political control if the Dems at the national level don't get off their asses.

            Pam's House Blend

            by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 09:29:31 AM PDT

          •  Progressive values

            in Chapel Hill, Carrboro (OK, so it's right next to CH and they share a school district, but it's my adopted hometown), Durham, and Asheville. Greensboro appears to be moving that direction. I'm sure there are some more that I'm less aware of.

            Raleigh appears to be fairly moderate-to-progressive. The rural counties, the coast, and Winston-Salem seem to be the conservative areas.

            by Bill Rehm on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:38:14 PM PDT

            •  Cary and Raleigh went Bush

              in the last election. The vote probably being base more on economics/war on terror (though that is ridiculous on its face), rather than holy roller values.

              Pam's House Blend

              by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:56:22 PM PDT

              •  OK, so I should have left Raleigh out

                FWIW, I think it takes more than 1 presidential vote to characterize an area. Although "progressive" was overkill for Raleigh and I didn't mention Cary.

                by Bill Rehm on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:48:42 PM PDT

          •  Going Back Further

            I guess my view is a bit longer since I grew up in Concord in the 1950s and 1960s.  In those days, every adult I knew was Democratic.  Many of them were part of the efforts to unionize the mills around the Kannapolis area.

            I think what drove many of these people to the Democratic Party in those days are the same issues that should be driving them to the Democratic Party today.  North Carolina has always had a stronger industrial presence that most of the other southern states (textiles, tobacco, furniture, etc).  Unfortunately, all of these industries have been in severe decline recently and people are hurting as the result.  My mother lives in Kannapolis and what used to be Cannon Mills is now gone completely -- shuttered, a set of ghost buildings anchoring the downtown.  And thousands of people are out of work.

            Yet, those people seem to think that it is more important to vote their "morals" than to vote their economic well-being  (just like Franks' Kansas).  That is a huge shift from the the 1960s with regard to voter thinking in that area.

            Just seems to me that there must be opportunities in this kind of environment for the Democratic Party to prosper.

            by Getreal1246 on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 07:47:10 AM PDT

•  The scary thing is

  he was probably the most moderate of the three main candidates (current Congresswoman Virginia Foxx and Citycouncilman Vernon Robinson being the other two).

  by DrFrankLives on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:02:07 AM PDT

•  Never count on a wingnut

  to use the truth.  They have no relationship with it.  Rick Santorum is but the tip of the phallic symbol-shaped iceberg.

  by soonergrunt on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:04:48 AM PDT

•  We should investigate...

  As a gay man, I usually don't condone outing anyone.  But someone should investigate Nathan.

  (I have no information identifying his sexual identity.  A hunch tells me maybe someone should look into it.)

  by tilden on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:24:37 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    My gaydar is beeping too.  What's the saying?  He who doth protest too much....

    by Chicago Jason on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

•  No room for silence

  Who can get Burr and Dole on record on supporting these views?  Maybe the Independent?

  Liddy campaigned for Tom "rampant high school lesbianism" Coburn for god's sake, but I didn't see that in the local press.

  by debraz on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:45:29 AM PDT

  •  Maybe the Indy weekly

    It's a great progressive, investigative paper, but I don't know that they can take on all the state wingnuts by themselves.

    Independent Weekly

    Pam's House Blend

    by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:16:31 AM PDT

    •  Burr and Dole

      have been in the hidey hole.  Worth a shot.  Or two.

      by debraz on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:19:50 AM PDT

•  Lower taxes?

  If I have to pay higher insurance premiums, can I pay lower taxes?  I don't have all the rights as other Americans, and I don't have kids in the taxpayer-funded public schools.

  Seems only fair.

  by runchadrun on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

•  Wonder what Tabor would think of this?

  I wonder what our friend Nathan Tabor thinks of this story: Same-sex partners of Montana university system employees to get insurance coverage (The Missoulian).
  

  The Montana Supreme Court ruled in December that the university system's current health insurance policy, which allows unmarried heterosexual couples to receive benefits, violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution since it doesn't afford gays and lesbians the same benefits.

  Cathy Swift, attorney for the office of the commissioner of higher education, will develop health insurance policy options for the regents to consider at their March meeting.

  Commissioner of Higher Education Sheila Stearns said it's more likely that the university system will open its policy to include gays and lesbians, rather than restrict it to heterosexuals who are legally married. A constitutional ban on gay marriage in Montana, as well as a state "Defense of Marriage Act," prevent gays and lesbians from marrying here.

  The current university policy, which allows people to sign an affidavit of common-law marriage for the purpose of attaining health insurance benefits, has been suspended until the problem is solved.

  ...The university system has not removed anyone from the health plan since the Supreme Court ruled, and officials said they hope to have the issue resolved by April 1, when open enrollment in the health plan begins. Swift said she is still gathering data from the campuses as she prepares her list of options.

  Regent Lynn Hamilton of Havre said expanding the policy to include gays and lesbians could boost the university system's ability to recruit and retain employees. She said she's been surprised to discover that many large corporations do offer partner benefits to their employees. Mercer, however, is calling the debate an "insurance question." He said it could make sense to allow more people into the self-funded health insurance pool, since a larger pool tends to be more stable.

  
  Oooh. I love the slam dunk of that last line. How about that Mr. Tabor?

  Pam's House Blend
  

  by pamindurham on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:20:07 AM PDT

•  Ignoring for a moment

  the baselessness of the "science" he's reporting, I wonder if he'll argue for similar actions against other people who engage in high-risk behavior -- smokers, overweight people (sometimes I think that's more than half of NC's population and I sure count as one of them), or heavy drinkers.

  I wonder how far he'd get if he actually attempted to push something like this into areas where it's epidemiologically accurate. Most likely, rode out of the state on a rail, after being tarred and feathered.

  by Bill Rehm on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:41:09 PM PDT

•  Update: email from the Tabors

  In the spirit of fairness and balance (unlike Faux News), I posted on my blog the following email exchange I had with Jordan Tabor, wife of Nathan Tabor. The latter is the publisher of politically off-the-charts Right web site, The Conservative Voice and a former candidate for state office here in NC. Nathan was featured a while back in the post,  The Tar Heel State can claim a homo-bigot of the week for publishing the incredible essay "Homosexuals should pay more insurance." A choice snippet:

  Some would say it is a known fact that most homosexuals, and especially gay men, are promiscuous. Their rhetoric is carefully crafted to give the impression they are in "committed, caring relationships" while research suggests that the vast majority of gays are neither celibate nor monogamous. (All heterosexuals are not celibate or monogamous either.)

  Some may say, so what? Well, the corollary to this homosexual health hypothesis is another proven fact: most sexually active homosexuals simply don't live a very long time. The heartier they party, it seems, the shorter the time that party lasts.

  ...An analysis conducted at the end of 1997 by the Centers for Disease Control revealed that fully 60 percent of all AIDS cases in the United States are found among homosexual men. This is an amazingly high figure, especially when we consider that homosexuals -- contrary to Kinsey's flawed study and fabricated "one-in-ten" myth -- constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of our total population.

  The conclusion is simple. Homosexual activists say they want equal rights and treatment. Fine. Let's use their own arguments against them here. Let's start by having them pay their fair share of the healthcare costs that accompany their lifestyle.

  He referenced the discredited "scientist" Paul Cameron's "research" that gay men die at 42 to back this position up. [BTW, he didn't address anything about lesbians, because, apparently for the purposes of his commentary, we must not exist.]

  Back to the email...Jordan wanted to point out that the Tabors  just had a baby (congrats -- a healthy and happy birth is always cause for good tidings, despite political differences), and that the other person folks have been speculating about in some of the political pictures on his web site is a relative. So, here are the letters.

  Subject: FYI
  From: Jordan
  Date Sat, January 29, 2005 6:10 pm
  To: pam

  Hi Pam,

  I was forwarded your website and curiosity forced me to take a look since Nathan is your "homo-bigot of the week." I just wanted to let you guys know that the other man in the pictures is his older brother, definitely not his "pretty friend." Nathan is very straight, we actually just had our first baby two weeks ago.

  Thanks for reading the column and passing it along to your friends. It's amazing how much success he's having with it.

  Sincerely,
  Jordan Tabor

  *

  Subject:  Re: FYI
  From: Pam Spaulding
  Date: Sun, January 30, 2005 6:00 am
  To: Jordan

  Hello Jordan,

  I will post your letter on the Blend; I have no problem making sure your email is publicly available to clarify that piece of information about Nathan Tabor.

  Nathan Tabor's political views and goals, which are committed to legislating gays and lesbians into second-class citizens, are based on fear. The Right's full flower of intolerance in Mr. Tabor's publicizing of homophobic and anti-choice initiatives and events is sadly clear.

  The religious theocrats have spent a lot of time and money fraudulently hijacking the words "family," "faith," "patriotism," and "values" for political gain, but the Right is already beginning to overreach. That is guaranteed to continue to expose the Right's unfortunate, narrow-minded, and short-sighted vision of what America should be and its role in the world.

  --Pam

  
  

  by pamindurham on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:39:03 AM PDT