Gay Republicans, please explain yourselves.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
    With all due respect, you few gay Republicans are the minorities' minority and I am curious what drives it. Before diving straight for the small, efficient government, lower taxes line, here is my confusion:
    I have several conservative-aligned values. I am a gun owner, believe our government is wasteful and inefficient, think individual states should take it upon themselves to regulate within their own borders, believe in a strong national defense (without going to war), and that individuals should shoulder a great deal more personal responsibility than they seem to today.

    Unfortunately, I cannot conscience voting for a party that actively campaigns against the right for me to visit my partner in the hospital, will not allow us equal inheritance rights, actively denies me the same job protections as people who "choose" to be religious in the work place, and generally accepts people within its ranks who have all but advocated the death penalty for those who commit sodomy. Because of this, I am generally referred to as a "single issue voter."

    During the Civil Rights Era, there was a major party shift in the southern states from Democratic to Republican directly because of a single issue. Southerners did not approve of social justice when it had to be applied to black people as well. The history is there, starting with Strom Thurmond's party shift from Dem to Dixiecrat (racist Democrat) and finally to Republican.

    So, given my view of the importance of this "single issue" of civil rights that the Republicans insist on putting up for a majority vote, who can explain to me the gay Republican framed against the Civil Rights Era black Republican?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2008 11:42 PM GMT
    What have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?

    When I vote down here in Oz One votes Liberal. Liberal = Republican. Because when I vote I give my vote to the better of Oz, and put my own selfish wants and needs last. I put the advancement of OZ first.

    So if One had a vote in the US of A I would do the same, for the same reasons.

    Oh One is 6 generations born to OZ, and it drives me nuts that new Australian's, children of new Australians, even grandchildren of new Australians, get rights One does not. A White indigenous Aussie.

    Anyone can be an Australian, may it be a new one, or just an Australian. But.....not an Aussie, as we are not One, or One Nation.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    May 12, 2008 12:02 AM GMT
    Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?

    When I vote down here in Oz One votes Liberal. Liberal = Republican. Because when I vote I give my vote to the better of Oz, and put my own selfish wants and needs last. I put the advancement of OZ first.

    So if One had a vote in the US of A I would do the same, for the same reasons.

    Oh One is 6 generations born to OZ, and it drives me nuts that new Australian's, children of new Australians, even grandchildren of new Australians, get rights One does not. A White indigenous Aussie.

    Anyone can be an Australian, may it be a new one, or just an Australian. But.....not an Aussie, as we are not One, or One Nation.


    There are indeed few Democrats who 'embrace' gay rights, that being the political equivelant of toxic waste, not that that's any excuse. Human rights are human rights. Republicans have made it pretty clear if they had their way we'd all be on the express train one-way to Auschwitz. Oh, yeah, and they blamed US for 9/11 and hurricane Katrina. Y'see, in OUR country, being gay invites 'God's Wrath'. Yeah, Republicans here actually believe that and vote that. Don't take my word for it, just hit google and see for yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:07 AM GMT
    I vote republican for the candidate, not because of the party. Carter, Clinton, give me a break? Course W is not a hero, too. For the most part I thing all political guys aren't worth a shit. I try to carry on without their BS. I hate politics, or could you tell?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:25 AM GMT
    Colbert nation. One is well aware of what the right wing Adventist think on gay issues. We get them down here to trying to invade Oz, with their lifestyle choice.

    Soon we will even have that evil pope down here for some youth rally, a pedophiles Paradise. When is it going to sink into his head, that the catholic Church is no more a supper power, and it's rule does not belong outside of Vat City, or in protestant Oz. Yet many democrats, labour voters support this evil interfusions rule, and anti homosexual stance.

    So left is no better than right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:27 AM GMT
    The bottom line is people belief what they want to believe. You can't convince them they're wrong, just like no one can convince you you're wrong. If you truly want to educate yourself regarding the rationale of gay republicans (and not just pick a fight on a blog) attend a local Log Cabin meeting.

    icon_idea.gifFurther, I find it very interesting that people who so desperately want to be tolerated are so intolerant of others who don't think like they do. Just like there are many types of heterosexuals with varying political opinions, why must all homosexuals have the same political views. Is it narcissism, arrogance or insecurity that fosters this rigid view? At the very least, it's hypocritical and a total turn-off.icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:31 AM GMT
    i'm a registered independant and i've voted for both parties (and 3rd parties). the "gay republican" appeal only applies to gay-friendly republicans -- who are plentiful in the northeast. you really don't find social conservative politicians here, it's nothing like the south and midwest.

    for me the dicier issue is national politics -- i fear the well-intentioned but clumsy efforts of dems in the
    past: don't ask/don't tell, DOMA. no thanks - we'd be better off if they'd done nothing.

    while pres bush SAID he supported a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage (while running for reelection and needing to engage his base) he never actually tried to achieve it. AND he quietly appointed openly gay staff and tripled HIV/AIDS research funding. his VP has an out lesbian daughter and when his wife was asked if they have gay friends she said, "well, yes, everybody does." i believe her.

    so, i don't care if they're dems or republicans, i try to focus on their goals and track record of results. I don't think gays should disregard republicans because of the national platform's avowed homophobia -- we don't have enough choices in the first place.


  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    May 12, 2008 12:32 AM GMT
    Pattison saidColbert nation. One is well aware of what the right wing Adventist think on gay issues. We get them down here to trying to invade Oz, with their lifestyle choice.

    Soon we will even have that evil pope dawn here for some youth rally, a pedophiles Paradise. When is it going to sink into his head, that the catholic Church is no more a supper power, and it's rule does not belong outside of Vat City, or in protestant Oz. Yet many democrats, labour voters support this evil interfusions rule, and anti homosexual stance.

    So left is no better than right.


    Pattison ;) You're blowing my idealized concept of Oz as a paradise where everyone plays rugby, drinks beer and runs around naked all the time icon_razz.gif.
    Last election here, right-wingers were MORE concerned about the 'horror' of gay marriage then they were about 'minor' issues like the economy and the occupation of Iraq! It's not to be believed! It's like the lunatics have taken over! Run! Save yourself!!! icon_confused.gif
  • CSPYNY

    Posts: 187

    May 12, 2008 12:34 AM GMT
    I tend to swing to the right - but I dont consider myself a republican. Just who I am. However, none of the candidates appeal to me for the 08 election.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    May 12, 2008 12:37 AM GMT
    I am a liberal (and damn proud of it), but am confused by the perception that much of the gay community has about the right being anti-gay. Allowing gay marriage CAN fit into a right-wing ideology, and better yet should. If the gay community shows itself as a important voting block in the Republican Party, the party would have to soften its stance. Thus, as a "coastal liberal elitist" I applaud the Log Cabin folks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:50 AM GMT
    Colbert Nation: Thats what it is, an idealised concept of Oz as a Paradise.

    AFL Rules not Rugby.

    The beer is great!

    We don't all run around naked (thank god), yet I live in shorts all year round.

    Political correctness, is ruining our Aussie culture, of being forthright, str8 to the point. Yet the beer is still good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 12:51 AM GMT
    Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?


    Well, for starters, Democrats made up 200 of the 235 representatives in the House who passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in November 2007. I don't know about you, but protecting gay people from employment discrimination is even more important to me than gay marriage initiatives. We may not all get gay-married, but almost all of us have got to work.

    With 159 Republicans voting no on ENDA, left is clearly way better than right.

    I admit, there are Republicans who sponsor and support gay-friendly legislation, but they are the minority in their party. And there are Democrats who oppose it, but again, they're in the minority. So you won't convince me that there is no difference and they're all equally bad.

    This may be an interesting question for the Gay Democrats: Imagine, if you will, a bizzaro world: What if the Democratic and Republican parties exchanged policies on gay-rights only, so that the Democratic Party was the party of social programs, the anti-war movement, and the defense of the American family, while the Republican party was the party of less social spending, military solutions to foreign policy problems, and equal rights for gay people? Would you become a Republican? Or would you hold your nose and keep voting Democratic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 1:07 AM GMT
    Pattison saidWhat have the democrats done to advance your gay rights in the past?


    I think the better question would be "what have democrats done for gays that wasn't done only to capture the gay vote."

    People are quick to label republicans as anti-social progress. While that's certainly true for the right wing christians who hijacked the party we can always hope that influence wanes someday soon.

    I guess in answer to the OP I'd call myself conservative because I want smaller, not bigger government, less pro immigration policy, less involvement in the UN and world affairs, and I don't support universal healthcare or many other federally run agencies. I'm only registered as republican because it was required to vote for RP in the CT primaries.

    The # 1 reason I say I'm conservative thou centers around the fact I think the individual is more important than society as a whole. That may sound selfish but it's the notion the nation was founded on. Certain rights and freedoms able to be exercised by all citizens with limited government to prevent a majority attempt to restrict those rights for the "benefit" of the masses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 1:13 AM GMT
    I'm an old Cold Warrior, the Democrats did everything they could to lose to the Soviet Union. The Democratic party is doing the same thing with terrorism and the war in Iraq. I will always oppose the Democratic party.

    I'll have you know that if it weren't for the Republican party the civil rights amendment and the voting rights amendment wouldn't have passed. Just because Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party doesn't make us racists. We're still the party of Lincoln and will always be so. Opposition to Affirmative Action doesn't make us racist, it is part of our liberalism.

    The Republican party must make some concessions to maintain support of the base constituencies. I'm not happy with the Christian Taliban wing of the party but
    they vote Republican. If more gay and lesbians were actively Republican the party would be supportive of us.

    You oppose going to war but support a strong military,
    what were you thinking when you wrote that?






  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    May 12, 2008 1:22 AM GMT
    I should preface this with the fact that I'm not actually a Republican. I'm an independent, who will at times vote Republican and at times Democratic (and other times for third party candidates (most often Libertarian).

    You seem annoyed by the label of single issue voter, but from what you said, it's an accurate one. You will only vote for someone based upon a single issue. If you feel that that one issue is so much more important than everything else, that makes sense, and you're free to decide that way; you don't need to defend your choices. A label is not necessarily a value judgment.

    The wording of statements like "Unfortunately, I cannot conscience voting for a party that..." indicates that you're viewing your vote as for a party, not for an individual. I find that problematic, as we're not in a parliamentary system. Politicians, whether Democrats of Republicans, are individuals who do not all think the same way and who do not all vote in lockstep. This is true even on big-ticket political issues; I can give you lists of pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, for example. A political affiliation does not equate to a monolithic view on everything.

    This actually ties into one of my biggest beefs with current notions of diversity. If you mention diversity, people will immediately think you're talking about visible characteristics: skin color, ethnic origin, sex, and gender identity. Maybe they'll also toss in religious affiliation. People rarely think about diversity in terms of policy views, education, philosophy, and the like. Personally, I think there's more true diversity in a group of people that look the same but think differently than there is in a group that look different but think the same. That's an opinion, of course, and you're free to disagree.

    At the poll, I base my votes on who I feel is the best candidate for the given office. Given my stances on several issues of importance to me, it's unlikely I'll ever find a candidate I complete agree with, so I make the best with what options are given to me. I'd be unlikely to vote for a rabidly-anti-homosexual candidate, but I don't feel it's fair to call all Republicans this.

    I've also heard the argument before that it's much easier to create change from the inside rather than the outside. There are gay men and women who agree with more stances from the Republicans than from the Democrats, and feel they're better off trying to change the party from within rather than from outside. If everyone who supported gay rights left the Republican party...the Republicans would therefore by requirement only ever offer up anti-gay-rights candidates, and voters who otherwise agreed primarily with the Republican platform on issues like affirmative action, or abortion, or tax policy, or illegal immigration, or whatever else you want to pick would be stuck having to make awful choices.

    There's also the question of what will actually get done. The rhetoric of the far right is bad; the actual legal results of a Republican presidency haven't been that different from a Democratic one in terms of gay rights. As was mentioned previously, regardless of Bush's statements about gay marriage, he's made no serious effort to get an amendment through on it, and HIV funding has been increased substantially. The abomination known as the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Clinton, one of the champions of the Democratic party. That same Clinton also signed in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military policy that has resulted in such insanities as a number of Arabic translators in the past few years being ousted from the Pentagon because they're gay. For some of the more pragmatic among us, the rhetoric isn't as important as what actually happens.

    As far as I'm concerned, in the struggle for civil rights time is clearly on our side. The younger generations are far more open to gays, both in terms of tolerance and actual acceptance. Culture shifts less from people changing their minds than it does from the previous generations being replaced by the younger ones, who have different views. Sure, it would be great if we were another generation or two further along, but it's still so much better than it was a few generations ago. There are a number of other issues I think are more likely to have a larger impact immediately, and a larger impact in the long-run, than gay rights. Of course, I'm more likely to vote for a candidate who has a record on gay rights that I agree with, but it's just not all-or-nothing issue for me.

    Just my $0.02
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 4:28 AM GMT

    Bravo, MSUBioNerd.


    PERFECTLY STATED.

    icon_biggrin.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 4:38 AM GMT
    crispro said
    Bravo, MSUBioNerd.


    PERFECTLY STATED.

    icon_biggrin.gif



    Down in Oz. Teenage boys, and to some degree girls too, are still very homophobic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 4:48 AM GMT
    I'm with JustJohn on this one.

    The parties are NOT equal. The Republican party, besides its troglodyte views on sexuality, has done nothing worth noting since freeing the slaves. On every social issue, they have been wrong. On every economic issue, they have been beyond wrong. Bush's policies may be short-sighted and stupid, but they are a rerun of the 1920s, another Republican era. They are the party of yesterday--a fake idealized yesterday at that--smallness of spirit, selfishness and general ugliness. If you don't believe me, read the platform of the Texas Republican party. Even if you ignore the religious aspects, it is a repulsive document.

    And as for that often-repeated crap about how we were founded as an individualist nation, I'd like to point out that if that were really true, the thirteen colonies would have each elected to go it alone. And they nearly did. But it was decided that there would be a strong FEDERAL government, because there are some things that the states can't be relied upon to do uniformly or well.

    "States' rights" is just the watch-cry of the racists. Always has been, always will be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 6:41 AM GMT
    Some well thought out posts here fellas. Also a few that are not so much, but I expected that.

    I've actually never declared a party affiliation until this year. South Carolina has open primaries but for the expatriate delegates, the only option was voting in the Democratic primary. I'd also failed to consider some of the Northern and Western states where social attitudes can be somewhat different. Having grown up in South Carolina, we still still have the legacy of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and their ilk. To be a Republican here really does qualify you for membership in a very narrow mindset. I never realized just how much so until I was talking to a friend of a friend in his driveway in Columbia, SC. The discussion was classic cars and he had bought his cream puff from "a dealer who had bought it for his faggot boyfriend." This led to some of his ideological beliefs including the very direct statement "I'm a conservative, so that means I don't like fags." I'd never really heard it so explicitly put before, but there it is.

    Maybe the disclaimer should be Southern Republicans instead. Now we've got Linsay Graham (closeted) and Jim DeMint (rabid). I've actually given up writing any issue letters to DeMint because its more or less like trying to douse a blast furnace by shooting spitballs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 6:45 AM GMT
    I wish more people voted as Pattison does; for the greater good.

    I'm not registered to vote. I never have and never will vote. I'm a seperatist; I'm a malcontent; I'm a subversive, and give you leave to loathe me.

    If I did a kneejerk vote, I would vote Republican. Why? Firearms legislation. I doubt must people know why so many rally around firearms. It's far too easy to simply apply a demeaning label on those whom don't agree with you, and it is so convenient to despise than to understand. I know some of those Many, while I do not share their passion, I do understand, and agree.

    You're gay: die painfully. You're a Republican: burn in hell. It's all the same. There's no difference when someone wears the mantel of religion, ethnicity, nationalism or rights to sow the seeds of their own bitter hate.

    I have no use for religion, politics or nationalism. It's a cloak small people can drape themselves in to find strength that they lack, to find courage in the face of their own morality; to find in a uniform or symbol a sufficient passion to carry themselves past their own sense of right and wrong, and thus be excused from responsibility.

    I am bitter and tired because I am hated, and I will not reciprocate; hating people is a tiring affair. So I stand aside, seperate. I hold my own naive, laughable wish for the world, but not so naive or arrogant as to think that one person can change the world. The world will have as it will: the bosom-clutched fear for the things they would not sacrifice for others.

    I will never soil myself in politics. To me it is nothing but a path seeking difference, of finding reason to hate another, and to proclaim your desires greater than all other's.

    INDIFFERENCE! You cry. No, I say. I am not so great a fool as to believe that I can change the world a whit. I will not CHOOSE to seek cause to despise another for the promise of power, or acceptance. The world will have as it will; and I will not have the world.
  • TallGWMvballe...

    Posts: 1925

    May 12, 2008 6:59 AM GMT
    John43620 saidI'm an old Cold Warrior, the Democrats did everything they could to lose to the Soviet Union. The Democratic party is doing the same thing with terrorism and the war in Iraq. I will always oppose the Democratic party.

    I'll have you know that if it weren't for the Republican party the civil rights amendment and the voting rights amendment wouldn't have passed. Just because Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party doesn't make us racists. We're still the party of Lincoln and will always be so. Opposition to Affirmative Action doesn't make us racist, it is part of our liberalism.

    The Republican party must make some concessions to maintain support of the base constituencies. I'm not happy with the Christian Taliban wing of the party but
    they vote Republican. If more gay and lesbians were actively Republican the party would be supportive of us.

    You oppose going to war but support a strong military,
    what were you thinking when you wrote that?





    WOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWO I can't DISagree more!
    YES most Rebugs are selfstated racists, and NO the Democrats are NOT trying to "lose" the war on terrorism JUST THE OPPOSITE! they are going about it in a way that will WORK, not encourage MORE people to become terrorsts and hate America for our terrible failed forign ploicies!
    Is THIS the kind of absurd logic that drives gay people to vote republican?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 7:15 AM GMT
    I have two right winger gay republican friends. I find that it's just easier not to talk politics with them because everything I say just makes them foam at the mouth. Who knew saying that Rush Limbaugh is hypocritical drug addicted sensationalist hack or that Dick Cheney drinks babies' blood and sodomizes their dead carcasses could be inflammatory? I think they're crazy and they think I'm psychotic so it's easier just to agree to disagree and never speak of it under any circumstances and especially not at dinner parties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 7:58 AM GMT
    There gay and there republicans...I don't see how they can't get anymore indepth...maby if they were, gay VIMPIRE republicans. then Id be like...But there vimpires...so, not cool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2008 8:24 AM GMT
    John43620 saidYou oppose going to war but support a strong military,
    what were you thinking when you wrote that?

    I was thinking I'd pick out one douche for a direct response on a policy issue rather than the philosophical question of political affialtion being more important than civil liberties.
    I own several guns, by your logic I should go out and preemptively shoot violent criminals before they attack me personally. Sound like a familiar national defense policy?
    Even Reagan, the first credit card Republican, had the sense not to engage the Soviets. He outspent them by driving our strong economy into ever-increasing debt.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 12, 2008 10:27 AM GMT
    We are reaching the pit here in America after a long road of republican leadership

    We're in a war we know we shouldn't have gone into
    The Middle east is on fire because of our hands off policy
    The economic policies of Corporate welfare...offshore tax shelters...tax give backs to the wealthiest Americans
    due to the insane Reagan led policy of trickle down economics have led directly to this recession we're suffering through now

    and The Guns God and Gays campaign to use us as pawns in local and National elections to get republicans elected is a page right out of the Rove school of Republican dirty tricks
    You like being used as a propaganda tool?
    You like being lied about and told how we are an abomination to god and after little children?...because that's what the republican party thinks of you
    So you can say .... Clinton voted for DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell..which was a compromise after he tried to put an end to the ban on gays in the military
    You are an absolute fool if you think the republicans will do anything positive for gay rights at any time at all

    McCain won't moderate Republican platform's anti-gay plank
    Friday April 11
    Topix.net

    The McCain president campaign doesn't plan to try to moderate planned Republican platform planks calling for constitutional amendments to ban abortion and to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
    http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/04/mccain-wont-moderate-republican-platforms-anti-gay-plank