For those whose memories don't go back to 1998, Debra was the least famous, least popular and least liked member of the cast of WILL & GRACE. It's no real surprise that she told MORE in 2013 that she'd turned down the role at first, "I didn't want to be, for a lack of a better word, a f** hag."
Keep it classy, Debs.
Since the 1998 sitcom that brought her attention, she's had a failed film career and 3 failed TV shows.
Having no career, no significant others and no actual friends, she takes to Twitter pretty much 24-7 in an attempt to push the country to a state of hysteria over the election of Donald Trump to US President.
In order to push the hysteria, she pretends she speaks for LGBTQ (she doesn't, see Marcia's "Debra Messing, I am not your accessory").
As the voice of LGBTQ, she insists Donald Trump is a first rate danger to the rights of LGBTQ.
The story of 2016?
We agree there were many.
But since Debra's set herself up as the voice of LGBTQ America, it's interesting how she's silent on whistle-blower Chelsea Manning.
Just last week, Jeremy Scahill authored "The True Scandal of 2016 Was The Torture Of Chelsea Manning" (THE INTERCEPT).
Debra's surprisingly silent on Chelsea -- surprising only if you don't realize that Hillary Clinton was also against Chelsea.
Debra's an airhead who never learned to think but she can be a knee jerk reactionary for elements of the powerful who oppress.
Donald Trump, she insists repeatedly, is the greatest threat to the lives of LGBTQ.
What was she talking about?
Those of us who did not make our lives about the duoply's fight for a coronation this year scratched our heads.
To be fair to Debra, we went to the weakest of all LGBTQ organizations: The Human Rights Campaign.
There we found "2016 Republican Facts" about Donald Trump and the threat he represented.
It conveyed the belief that Trump would overturn marriage equality.
He would do this, we were informed, by appointing judges who would not support marriage equality.
Hmm.
How stupid are the Debra Messings?
Do they not know that the Supreme Court exists to create precedent?
Do they not know how hard it is to overturn a Supreme Court decision?
Marriage equality is now the law of the land.
That makes it hard to overturn.
Add in that it would effect many families.
How exactly do they see a new decision on this issue coming about?
They don't see it because it's not logical and neither are they.
Equally true, Hillary Clinton was against marriage equality until recently.
She was against it when she ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 (and when she supported the 90s so-called Defense of Marriage Act). It would be April 2015 before Hillary would publicly support marriage equality. If this is news to you -- maybe like Debra Messing, you never valued reading -- then you can refer to Robert Samuels report for THE WASHINGTON POST.
So Donald Trump has an inconsistent record on marriage equality -- but the reality is that it's the law of the land.
What else does HRC (Human Rights Campaign, not Hillary Rodham Clinton) tell us?
That Donald would rescind Barack's executive orders.
And?
That's no different than any presidency, first of all.
Secondly, many people concerned with rights and liberties -- including us -- have long been opposed to Executive Orders because Bully Boy Bush used them to go around the law.
The only other thing HRC really has is the issue of "religious liberty."
We support religious liberty -- including the liberty to be free of religion.
We also believe a business can refuse to cater, for example, a same-sex marriage.
They can do that.
That should be their right.
But that right also includes the response which would be many people refusing to grant them business.
You have the right to publicly refuse to cater a wedding because you don't believe two people of the same gender should marry.
And those of us who disagree with you have every right to respond by refusing to use your services ever.
When the will of the people puts you out of business, the country will be a lot better place.
Those are the issues HRC emphasizes.
We don't see the end of the world in any of that.
Nor do we see homophobes benefiting from any of this.
Oh, wait, there's one more section that HRC offers:
Prior to becoming a candidate, Trump said that Pat Buchanan’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric was disgusting, and he said that LGBTQ groups were glad he was hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Russia to challenge the status quo. But he launched ad hominem attacks on Ariana Huffington and Bette Midler, and he defended a CEO who resigned after opposing Proposition 8 and an NFL player who criticized Michael Sam.
He launched ad hominem attacks on Ariana Huffington and Bette Midler!!!!
Dear heavens.
How could he.
On Ariana and Bette!!!!
First off, it's Arianna Huffington -- two "n"s in Arianna.
Secondly, it's not the end of the world or even reason worth mentioning.
It actually is embarrassing -- even for the weak ass HRC.
We went with the weak ass HRC for a reason -- Debra's equally weak ass.
But that's it, that's the reason we're all supposed to be shocked and opposed and feeling the sky has fallen in -- with regards to LGBTQ rights, that's it.
Forgive us for not being as paranoid and doomsday embracing as the Debra Messings.