« Another blow to DNC in Hitchcock case | Main | Here we go »
July 03, 2008
For all those who enjoy trashing gay Republicans...
Posted by: Kevin
...think again.
And the fact that just by someone being a gay Republican makes you froth at the mouth and hurl obscenities makes you closer to being a right-wing evangelical Christian yahoo than it makes me.
No matter what happens in the 2008 election, I for one will be committed to building a GOP that looks more like California's and less like Mississippi's. The former will win elections, and deservedly so. The latter will, and should, lose.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e5538526168833
Comments
-
SS:
The point of the article is to show that yes, indeed, Republicans are playing a very serious role in this issue in California from the top ranks of government to the grass roots. And you can't erase that reality no matter how you feel about it. That's what my post is about, and that is what the article is (very accurately) about.
-
frothing at the mouth about "right wing Christian yahoo's" isn't any better than frothing at the mouth over "gay" Republicans.
Name calling is name calling. Intolerance is intolerance no matter the flavor or angle.
-
The writer of that article tends to take a conservative view on issue, which makes the premise somewhat self-serving for him.
Yes, others have mentioned, Schwarzenegger is relatively good in the issue of gay marriage, but to suggest the CA GOP, as an entity, had anything of substance to do with bringing gay marriage to CA is laughable. Also, the article suggests Schwarzenegger did the gay marriage cause a favor by vetoing the gay marriage bills. Whether or not those acts resulted in good for the marriage movement is debatable, but the fact is Arnold vetoed the bills to keep a promise he made to conservative Republicans in order to get elected. If anything, he deserves credit for not waffling on that promise. Of course, to do so, he took an amazing odd stance, which is that marriage was best left up to the courts.
The official CA GOP platform opposes gay marriage, as does the National GOP platform.
Next, the gay marriage case came to the Supreme Court via Gavin Newsom’s earlier act allowing gay marriages in SF.
Also, when the gay marriage bills came up, they were largely voted against by CA Republicans. In the Assembly 07 bill, of the 34 noes, 32 were from the GOP. None of the Yeas were.In the Senate, 14 or the 15 noes were republican, while again none vote for it.
The article also, amusingly, trumpets that only 57% of California republicans support a CA constitutional amendment. There’s some support.
Are all republicans anti-gay? Obviously not. However, the party itself if clearly anti-gay as is the majority of republican voters, in California and nation wide.
-
Exactly what about this posting or article seemed to be a call to join and support the Republican Party to you guys? Is it so agonizing for you to admit that Republicans are playing a part in the pro-marriage side of the fight in California?
-
Nothing the article points to the GOP as playing a part on the 'pro-gay' marriage plank, save for Arnold not supporting an amendment prohibiting it.
That is not, as the article tries to suggest, reflections of the greater Republican Party. Now has the GOP, as the article implies, helped bring about gay marriage in California.
If you want to be Gay and Republican - knock your socks off. Don't try to suggest, however, that the future of gay rights lies with the GOP. It doesn't.
-
The only thing this article suggests is that the GOP is starting to get less hostile in the more socially liberal places. I'm glad for that, but I'm not delusional enough to think that the GOP as an entity is helping the cause.
-
Kevin, look at it this way; the only manner in which Democrat gays can endorse and support politicians who support state constitutional amendments, the FMA, and discrimination against gays, as well as being "weak-minded fools" who follow and pander to those whose beliefs they characterize as "Middle Eastern fairy tales".....is to argue that the Republicans are worse.
If they acknowledge that Republicans are less than pure evil, then their acceptance, tolerance, support, and endorsement of said behavior in Democrats makes their objections to Republicans blatantly and obviously hypocritical.
-
*Chuckles* Oh, NDT, darling, I was starting to go through withdrawal due to your extended absence. You are truly a one-trick pony.
-
Is it so agonizing for you to admit that Republicans are playing a part in the pro-marriage side of the fight in California?
Kevin, your statements above and the Advocate story you link to have an element of truth to them, but they're a distortion of reality.
You are suggesting that because our popular, high-profile Republican governor has announced that he will oppose Prop. 8 (yes, it has a name now), that the GOP in CA is becoming more gay-friendly as a whole, and that is utter hogwash.
The CA GOP is only somewhat less anti-gay than, say, the Republican party of Mississippi or Kansas. You said above that you're committed to building a Republican party like California's. That ain't sayin' much, my friend.
Republicans aren't leading the charge to defeat Prop. 8. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated he opposes Prop 8, but has also said he will not actively campaign against it. Thanks, Arnold.
And, by the way, ol' Arnie has been as non-commital on this issue as you can be. First he said, in his opinion, that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Then he vetoed the same-sex marriage bills, twice, and then, during the Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage, Arnold ordered his state attorneys to oppose the plaintiffs who were seekeing marriage rights.
Only after the court announced its decision did he say he would uphold the ruling and oppose Prop. 8.
I'm just asking for a little perspective here, Kevin. You linked to a news storty which is perhaps factually true, and then tried to extrapolate from that that the California GOP is becoming more gay progressive. It ain't.
-
PS:
OK, I now realize I didn't take a look at the rest of the story -- I missed the link at the bottom of the first page. My bad.
I'm glad the gay GOPer's are recruiting high-profile names to speak out against Prop. 8 and are doing their bit.
BUT, to the extent these Log Cabiners are electing anti-gay politicians to statewide office, that's a problem.
-
"Reality", of course, being Strict Scrutiny's undying belief that Republicans are always antigay and that Democrats are always pro-gay, regardless of what they do.
This is why Republicans don't bother. Gays like Strict Scrutiny endorse and support Democrats who are state constitutional amendment and FMA supporters as "pro-gay", but claim that Republicans who oppose them are antigay. The Republican Party has simply figured out that Strict Scrutiny's definitions of antigay and pro-gay have nothing to do with actions, but merely reflect political party affiliation.
-
OK, I now realize I didn't take a look at the rest of the story -- I missed the link at the bottom of the first page. My bad.
What a surprise; a gay Democrat criticizing an article on gay Republicans and gay Republicans themselves as a "distortion of reality" -- without having read it.
I'm glad the gay GOPer's are recruiting high-profile names to speak out against Prop. 8 and are doing their bit.BUT, to the extent these Log Cabiners are electing anti-gay politicians to statewide office, that's a problem.
In other words, you don't care how pro-gay they're being if it threatens the power of your Democrat massas.
Sort of like how you're perfectly willing to support Democrats who oppose gay marriage, discriminate against gays, and pander to religious people.
-
NDT
The whole ‘vote for someone who opposes gay marriage’ thing is a tired misdirection. Yes, Kerry did not/does not support gay marriage. But, in 2004, his opponent was George W Bush, who not only opposed gay marriage, he supported the FMA (which Kerry did not), nor did he support Civil Unions.
Likewise, while Ford was not the best on Gay Issues, he was better than Corker, his opponent. Sometimes in elections you are stuck with the lesser of two evils, and Ford was that.
The DNC treatment of the gay staff member was horrible. Did the RNC have any (openly) gay people on staff?
And before you simply dismiss the above as a gay blinded by the dems, explain to me how Bush or Corker was better than thier opponent on gay issues?
Likewise, today, both Obama and McCain oppose gay marriage. However, McCain stumped for "Marriage Protection" in Arizona, has spoken out against the CA Marriage decision, and supports amending the CA constitution .
-
Good luck with that, Kevin. It's refreshing to hear you talk about working on the Republicans to bring them to moderate their stance on LGBT issues instead of throwing insults at Democrats.
I wish you all the best!
-
NDT,
Your comments above are just petty, snotty little taunts worthy of a 5-year old dunce. You're just a talentless conservative hack whose only real talent is the ability to push buttons and blow smoke. How pathetic.
-
And before you simply dismiss the above as a gay blinded by the dems, explain to me how Bush or Corker was better than thier opponent on gay issues?
Look at it this way, Henry.
You go to the bar and meet two guys. One of them refuses you and walks away.
The other tells you how nice you are, how he supports you, and how he's your friend. Impressed, you buy him several expensive drinks....and then, when you come back from the restroom, you find him telling other people how much of a loser you are.
Of course you get upset.....but he then reminds you of the other guy who walked away, making it clear that you're no catch, that without him, no one would like you, and that you can't expect him to jeopardize his own popularity for yours.
The former is infinitely preferable to the latter -- which would be the cycle of the classic abuser, or how the Democrat Party treats gays. They constantly tell gays how unpopular they are, they tell gays how everyone else hates them, and they tell gays that they should keep their mouth shut and accept this sort of treatment in the name of political expediency. Abusers create the image of hopelessness; that is what the Dems do for gays.
Case in point: you weren't even aware that the RNC has openly-gay staffers. Jay Banning comes immediately to mind; so does former staffer Dan Gurley, Mary Cheney, as well as the innumerable other out gay Republican staffers that I know and that I know Kevin knows well.
But again, knowing that there are gays working for the RNC would shatter the image of hopelessness. Furthermore, it makes Howard Dean's behavior even more disgusting, so that knowledge is suppressed in the gay community. Worse, Democrat Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter, as well as the DNC, openly fund activist hatemongers like Mike Rogers and John Aravosis to attack these staffers, to make their lives miserable, and to try to get them fired -- all, again, to maintain the image of hopelessness.
What the Democrat Party makes clear, through that behavior and through the behavior of Howard Dean towards Donald Hitchcock, is that they support gays all right -- as long as gays do exactly what they're told, shut up, and keep quiet. Otherwise, you're nothing but scum to them, and you can be treated accordingly. It's no different than the Maryland Democrat Party's endorsement of attacks against Michael Steele; your skin color or minority status should determine your political views, and if they don't, you have no right to exist in their eyes.
-
Your comments above are just petty, snotty little taunts worthy of a 5-year old dunce. You're just a talentless conservative hack whose only real talent is the ability to push buttons and blow smoke. How pathetic.
Actually, I have many talents, Strict Scrutiny, as well as a job I love, recognition from my professional association as an expert in my field, and a great reputation for volunteerism and going the extra mile to help people out.
But, as was demonstrated above, you can't see past my political affiliations or my religious beliefs -- especially not since both challenge the image of hopelessness I just talked about in responding to Henry -- and thus, you must tear me down.
That's fine. I read Aesop, and I understand the process at work.
-
Kev - good luck to you and yours. You know, as impossible as it seems, I don't really give a damn about the GOP in California - but I do give a damn about the GOP in Georgia (which has a de facto goal of making Georgia look like Mississippi) and the national GOP - whose platform steadfastly dismisses my existence as a biological error which ought to be rooted out before it infects worthy citizens.
-
Politically non-aligned with any party to retain objectivity, two of my most esteemed public servants are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, liberals to the core of their spines, and proud of it. I might disagree with their politics and policies, but rarely with their integrity. Howard Baker and Everett Dirksen are both towering Republicans of Abraham Lincoln tradition. So, prior to 1994, Republicans had what Democrats imitated.
Then came Newt Gingrich, Richard Viegarie, Jesse Helms, and Dixiecrat Republicans. We tend to forget that the Republican Party's first president was Abe, and its last was Bush I. Then the crazy Evangelicals took it over, so crazy that fellatio off the oval office as a case par excellence of sexual harassment in the workplace was lost on the vast right wing conspiracy. All that mattered was the fellatio. And all the lies about the lies took second seat. Let's scrape bottom, with Hillary feigned tears in drag. Bill was a known philanderer. Had H. Ross Perot, via Larry King not surfaced, we'd never know of the Arkansas prick and his failed wife in Czar, losing universal health care in a Dick Cheney secret meeting with Ira Magaziner.
Well, don't look now, but the Cabal that brought us Newt, Ira, Hillary, Dianne, Iraq, and Lieberman, are all birds of the same feather. What are the Bill of Rights when Democrats control Congress? Originalist awayed. Antonin Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are not simply plutocrats for hire, they jump when the Israel Lobby barks. Fear not!
Schumer, Feinstein, and Lieberman may have failed to deliver the goods for Olmert, but not Sheldon Adelson, Marty Peretz, Rabbi Eckstein, and McCain all walk the "money talks" line to plutocracy. Can we all say Yeal, Chutzpah, Spitzer, and 02.0% dictacting 99.9% of all policies. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Dupes for Jesus were really dupes for U.S. Invading Iraq (not Afghanistan) for Israel. Remember, the Ten Commandments apply between Semites only, and only Semites of the Tribes of Judah and Israel. All other bets are off. The social club that makes its own history and rules.
None dare call it Anti-Semitic, because that is Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish -- by, of all Human Rights Organizations, BUSH'S Civil Rights Commission. The Israel Lobby dictates U.S. foreign policy, practices barbaric male genital mutilation with impunity, practices subprime hoaxes on the masses so the Fed can bail them out, and sends U.S. soldiers to die for Israel's existence.
As my father once observed: FOLLOW THE MONEY! I think it all leads to Mount Zion. And McCain and Gingrich are just DUPES that not even HILLARY'S ALL-JEWISH staff could not recover. A Muslim from Africa captured the nomination, with fits of convulsion from HRH JAP Dianne Feinstein, who tabled election reform AFTER 2012 to insure Hillary's HILIAL. Some one's bar mitzvah just got cut. Don't look now, but now McCain is an Orthodox Jew. Why not? Democrats are constituents, and the smallest constituent are Jews. So cut your Cindy for Yeshiva, and hope Armageddon is averted because an African AMERICAN takes orders from NO ONE.
The Religious RIGHT is AIPAC.
-
Sad to think that some gay people are so willing to write off others because they don't agree with them politically. And what a small view of politics to think that you can only support a candidate based on their stance on glbt rights. When I vote for a republican, it is because I agree with their stance on 90% of the issues. It would be more dishonest for me to vote for a Dem because I agree with their stance on glbt issues when I disagree with them on almost every other issue.
-
I think the question is this ... will you give your support to someone who won't support you in your essential civil liberties? Can our foreign and fiscal policies ever be more important than the civil liberties of an underprivileged group of which you happen to be a part?
If the answer is yes, then I say, by all means, go republican.
However, accepting other people's choices is an important part of being human. Quit bashing.
-
Charlie:
Very good points. And it's interesting as well because "civil liberties" is a broad issue, and includes those that are fundamental (like freedom from heavy-handed government intervention in your life and livelihood, or government-sanctioned spying on citizens, etc) and not merely related to being a member of a group. There are many gays, for instance, who are torn over the Democratic Party's position on guns in the same way that many of us are torn over the GOP's position on gay marriage and gay family recognition. What is on the "essential" list to one gay isn't the same exact list as another's. That doesn't mean one only cares about his money and the other cares about what "matters more".
I have more respect for gay Democrats who say gay marriage cannot be swept under the carpet than I have for gay Republicans who say that flat-out anti-gay bigotry is something excusable. And so in turn, I respect a gay conservative who fears government intervention in all aspects of his life than a gay Democrat who is willing to sacrifice everything else on the broad issue agenda facing the United States so long as a candidate merely pays lip service to some narrow bill like hate crimes or ENDA.
I just think it's a matter of being narrow-minded vs. being broad minded and intellectually curious. When I was a kid I always thought the gays would be much more the latter. Interesting how things turned out.
-
I would suggest that the future of gay rights does lie with the Republican Party, or wherever there is gay bigotry. For gay people to be fully accepted and integrated into society, we must change the hearts and minds of those who fear/hate/dislike us. So if the Republican Party harbors such ill will toward gay people, then it would make sense to try to work on changing that attitude within the Party. There is anti-gay sentiments in both parties and we should embrace opportunities to find common ground and work together, dare I say it, across Party lines. To demonize and dismiss only sets back our cause.
-
Bob:
You're very right, and frankly I think there are a lot of gay people who DON'T want that to happen. They are the ones who tend to use the same style of extreme rhetoric as the anti-gay Christian right uses, perhaps for selfish reasons of their own (in both cases). It would make their concept of politics far more difficult to sustain. I don't make it my business to make it easier for (either of) them.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Strict Scrutiny on Jul 3, 2008 4:18:51 PM:
Kevin,
As a life-long, 36 year resident of the Golden State, I have to say the article you reference is flawed, and, well, wrong.
First, Republicans in no way, shape, or form helped bring same-sex marriage to our state. Governor Schwarzenegger is unquestionably one of the the most pro-gay governors we have ever had. Kudos to him. BUT, he is not the face of the California GOP -- think more 2008 Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter (endorsed by Ann Coulter) and Pete Knight, who gave us Prop. 22, the Knight Amendment which became was our very own CA state DOMA. Schwarzenegger has been rebuked a number of times by his own party for being out of touch with mainstream conservatism. Schwarzenegger SHOULD BE the face of conservatism, but he's not.
The reason CA is such a gay-friendly state is because we've had a Democratically controlled congress for several years. It's the Democrats who gave us gay partnerships and various other legal protections, not the Republicans. Admittedly, it was 3 Republicans and a Democrat who gave me the right to marry, but again, they are the minority. The Republicans in the legislature have given us zip.
Finally, Reagan's opposition to the Briggs Amendment was laudatory. He also had at least one gay buddy in Hollywood (Rock H.) and was probably very kind to other gay people he met. But let's face it. He had a mixed legacy on gay issues. If he'd addressed the AIDS crisis as vigorously has he battled communism, we might have had a drug cocktail in 1990, instead of 1995-96. How many lives might have been saved if he'd gone on national television in 1984 spoken out about AIDS like he spoke out against the Briggs Amendment?
So forgive me if I still think the Republican Party is awful. There are a few shining stars there, but until sane, rational people like you wrest control of it from the religious fanatics that have held it captive for the last 25-30 years, it will still be America's anti-gay party. Period.