I guess they meant well. But publishing this ad in newspapers, showing that the usual gang of leftwing activists, liberal politicians and big-labor leaders (and some progressive religious folks) support marriage equality made me bristle. In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly can't be good. I think many who aren't on the liberal left have the same visceral reaction.
I wonder if any Republican or conservative gay people (Log Cabin? Andrew Sullivan?) were even approached. And what about respected libertarian conservative figures, such as Charles Murray, who favor allowing same-sex marriage (as noted here)? Nope, no reaching out across party lines in this ad.
Maybe the aim was to shore up left-liberal support. But if they alienate independents, libertarians and centrists, what's gained? More likely, there was no strategy behind this ad at all.
Comments sample:
kittynboi: There
seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if
we drop the support of the left wing.
Avee: If we continue to present gay equality as part of a broad-based leftwing agenda (unions!), we will NEVER expand the range of our support out to the center, much less to the libertarian right. We will continue to remain a leftwing niche, preaching to ourselves, running ads for ourselves, focused solely on ourselves.
{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Dalea, muslims practice circumcision, that doesn’t make them jewish.
Good point Bobby, the sensitivity thing is beginning to take hold. Yes Audrey, you will need to become a connisseure of circumcision. Able to distinguish between a Jewish and Muslim one at first taste, erhhhh something.
An ad, placed by conservative gays in a conservative gay publication. One picturing the excellent conservative gay icons mentioned above.
Never happen. The true, out conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Guerriero were drummed out of the conservative movement long ago. Just look at the vitriol which supposed “gays” like ND30 and “Gay Patriot” direct towards those two men and their organizations.
How are you supposed to create a conservative advertising campaign when all the gay conservatives who are named are now considered “liberal infiltrators” because they’re gay? You cannot run an advertisement signed by “North Dallas Thirty” and “Gay Patriot” and “Gay Patriot West.” Besides, I have my doubts that two of the three are really gay (or even really exist, beyond handles for trolling gay political message boards).
ND30 and Gaypatriot hardly represent the conservative movement, whether gay or not. Patrick Guerriero has A LOT of credibility among MANY gays of all political stripes, especially among Libertarians and GOPers, of course, so he’s hardly the dead horse some would make him for kicking’s sake.
Speaking of trashing LCR, let’s review how it came into this discussion, with Rey’s (or is it Rev’s?) mindless post claiming that all we think about is money. Demonstrably false, given that we’ve yet to take up the banner that the Wall St. Journal and others, including myself, have waved: pushing for full economic equality for gay and lesbian couples, tax and otherwise. So far, the only real concerted push for this has come from a California Democrat, who used her position on that state’s Board of Equalization to advocate such changes and now is seeking more. That’s hardly a criticism of her; I wish she’d done it earlier across the board and that LCR and others would support her more actively. But at least one bunch of Cal. lawyers I know of declines to do so, instead pushing for the “marriage at all costs” approach by labeling such other pursuits “compromising” or “backsliding.”
Thank you, Drew, for setting the record straight – or should I say Right? – on LCR’s ad campaigns, on TV and elsewhere. To my knowledge, we were not approached by NGLTF in connection with the ad at issue.
Finally, for the record, I HAVE worked in a steel mill and paid the union dues I was forced to for two Summers straight – as I was at the time – while in college. What I saw of obstructionist union tactics – e.g., the shop steward routinely telling the other Summer hires and myself to slow down on the job – was enough to turn me into a GOPer. But it took a few more years – including a stint in the Navy – to bring me out. The union had no incentives to offer in that department.
ND30, please stop making false generalizations. There are a great many gay religious groups, and I am sure you don’t think they are anti-religious. There are indeed gay activist groups that use anti-religious rhetoric, but there are also groups, like my own (Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in DC), that do not, and which have cordial relations with gay-affirming religious groups.
I am aware of them, Richard, because I am gay.
But if you asked anyone outside the gay community, you would find in a hurry that the antireligious ones, i.e. ACT UP, are the public face of gays — partly because they are promoted that way by antigay forces, but primarily because those are the ones that the gay community itself chooses to promote and push.
Furthermore, the perception outside the gay community is that gay religious groups are like the Klan’s attempts to stand for family values — a thin veneer done solely out of a cynical desire to hide and obscure underlying hatred, with no real power or influence. When asked why, they will point out something that will stop you in your tracks — do you have reference to a gay-friendly religious group EVER speaking out against hate speech or antireligious statements made by gay leaders?
“Patrick Guerriero has A LOT of credibility”
—I disagree, Patrick is nothing more than a politically correct image of what a gay republican should be.
Steve Yuhas has a lot more credibility, he takes whatever positions he wants and doesn’t try to please anyone.
Well, what can be said? The Republicans blow up houses of worship in the Middle East, send the army in to invade during prayer services, and torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib. “The gays” are just doing what the Republicans say is necessary in order to secure “freedom in our lifetime.”
If churches were stockpiling weaponry to be used against gays and unsuspecting civilians who happened to be nearby, THEN you might have a point.
However, you nicely proved mine; you made a ludicrous comparison to justify gays’ antireligious hatred and actions — and neither Tom or Richard said thing one about it.
ACTUP has been out of business for over a decade. There was one incident involving a RC church, in which the members stormed the alter to protest a noted bigot. In the melee, some crackers got spilled. BFD. The hysteria that accompanied the lost snack is something that comes from the hysteria of the conservatives. Not from Gay folks.
Or do you have more recent examples?
It seems rather clear to me that gay people are often critical of conservative christianity. With good reason. However, I do not see criticizing as out of bounds. And since we all are subject to whatever whimseys are running through the world of the evangelicals, usually to our detriment, it seems only candid to speak doubts about that religion. Like how the whole thing seems plucked out of the air, with no historical base or substance behind it.
There are many gay and lesbian religious leaders with influence. Zusanna Budapest is one I greatly respect and admire. Father Malcolm Boyd is another. At White Crane there are quite a few gay religious practitioners on display. So, what is your idea of gay religion?
Wren of Witches Voice has spoken out against gay misrepresentations.
If churches were stockpiling weaponry to be used against gays and unsuspecting civilians who happened to be nearby, THEN you might have a point.
The US destroyed mosques in the Middle East which didn’t stockpile weaponry, but which were meeting places for anti-government groups. Churches certainly are meeting places for anti-gay groups, isn’t that good enough?
you made a ludicrous comparison to justify gays’ antireligious hatred and actions
Yes, those poor, poor victim churches. Marginalized, out of power, near bankruptcy, the only thing protecting them from the evil homosexuals is an online troll named “North Dallas 30″ who pretends to be gay in order to fit in a bit better in his rants.
in which the members stormed the alter to protest a noted bigot. In the melee, some crackers got spilled.
*gasp*
You’re not respecting the conservatives’ superstitions, you hater! That’s not just any cracker, it’s the Mystical Cracker Of Jesus!
Northeast Libertarian | July 28, 2006, 5:10am |
The true, out conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Guerriero were drummed out of the conservative movement long ago. Just look at the vitriol which supposed “gays” like ND30 and “Gay Patriot” direct towards those two men and their organizations.
The ridiculously-named “Gay Patriot” isn’t a conservative. He’s a Republican aparatchick. That should be apparent. He and his co-bloggers defend the Bush malAdministration, although that malAdministration is nothing more than borrow-and-spend liberals, and despite the fact that, on the social side, the Bushies are obviously anti-gay. Oh, and despite the fact that the Bushies have engaged in at least one senseless foreign adventure–which they (GP and his co-bloggers) cheer but aren’t interested in serving in. (The term “chicken-hawk” comes to mind.)
BTW, re “GayPatriot.net,” take a look at who is sponsoring the web site: “PajamasMedia.com”. Do a google search on Pajamas Media. You might be surprised at what you might find as to who is investing in and controlling that entity.
NDXXX is nothing more than a bloviator. Its leaps of logic and discourse are manifest, as has been noted here, at “Gaypatriot.net,” at Malcontent, and at PamSpaulding. It apparently loves to see itself post, but what it posts are easily shot down.
This commentary reminds me of the Gospel story where a couple of Jesus’ disciples come to him and complain that there are unbaptized men in some town who are casting out devils in Jesus’ name. The concern of the disciples is with the unbaptized part. Jesus responds by basically saying, “So what? As long as they’re casting out devils in my name, that’s what counts”.
I think it’s petty to criticize a particular group for espousing a cause to which the writer is presumably committed, just because they didn’t include political rivals. I thought the “about us” for this Forum stated that it’s composed of people of different political perspectives? What difference does it make if the Log Cabin Republicans weren’t included in an ad taken out by a group that disagrees with the larger political goals of the Log Cabiners? I hope my use of “larger political goals” isn’t too politically incorrect.
Knee-jerk Talibanical reaction against labor unions tends to come from misguided people that feel that working class people would be better off if big business was allowed to do whatever it wanted, whever it wanted.
It is funny to see the blinders that the IGF writers have when it comes to certain groups of gay people, i.e. class, Iraq, ballot access law.
When gay Republicans ‘work’ at moving the GOP forward and acomplish nothing, the IGF gives them praise. When gays from the working class work at moving major labor unions forward and are successful, the IGF attacks them…
LOL….but what seems funny, ETJB, is that gays give unions tons of money and time, but are still terrified to work on the assembly lines and in the union factories because of antigay sentiment and actions.
And thank you again, NL and Dalea; you have, once again, demonstrated the utter hollowness of words like Richard’s.
“gays give unions tons of money and time,”
really? any credible evidence to back this up?
“but are still terrified to work on the assembly lines and in the union factories because of antigay sentiment and actions.”
Being openly gay? Yes. Most states do not have decent civil rights/harassment laws. Thus a blue collar gay worker takes a bigger risk them a middle class gay Republican writer in SF.
LOL….but…but…but….the union says it supports gays and would never allow its workers to harass them.
WHOOPS!
As for money and time, try Googling “Harvey Milk LGBT Democrats” and “union”. You’ll be scared to death.
More silly union bashing from people using Taliban tactics. Will they ever grow up?
Most major unions will address issues of on the job harassment. However, that requires a blue collar gay person to actually ‘come out’ when they have little job protection.
I also do not believe everything that I read online.
LOL….but…but…but….the union says it supports gays and would never allow its workers to harass them.
WHOOPS!
As for money and time, try Googling “Harvey Milk LGBT Democrats” and “union”. You’ll be scared to death.
Most major unions will address issues of on the job harassment. However, that requires a blue collar gay person to actually ‘come out’ when they have little job protection.
LOL….good leftist puppet, defend your union lies.
The reason unions give for their existence is providing job protections for workers. Explain why your union masters who claim they support gays would support a worker being fired because they were gay in a union contract.
“Good leftist puppet, defend your union lies.”
Puppet? Me? LOL! I am not a member of a labor union. I have no personal interest in this topic, aside from telling the truth. This is in contrast to say, big business or our president. So, go shovel your pro-Taliban crap somewhere else.
Labor unions exist to represent employees and thus collectively bargain for decent working conditions. The major labor unions have come around to supporting gay rights in the workplace.
The problem is that gay workers often (1) reside in a state without any sexual orientation based anti-discrimination laws. (2) reside in a state that has diluted the power of the labor union in comparison to the employer.
Hence, under the doctrine of ‘at will’ employment, an employer has a right to fire a gay employee for being gay unles a law is on the books.
If the union master is affiliated with a union that supports equality in the workplace they would not support a worker being fired because they were gay, but their is little that can be done, absent of a state or federal law.
A union contract has to follow the rules and regulations of state and federal law.
← Previous Comments