First published in the American University Eagle on February 16, 2009
I am a gay Republican. I am not "self-hating." I am not confused.
I am comfortable enough with my sexuality to think of myself in terms of traits other than simply my sexual orientation. I believe that my attraction to the same sex should have no bearing to my thoughts on tax policy, trade, foreign affairs or abortion. I believe that my sexuality is merely an incidental part of my life and should not be a major factor in my decision-making.
I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right. I am aware that Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney hold the same positions on gay rights. I am aware that Bill Clinton signed into law the last major anti-gay piece of legislation passed by Congress - the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I am self-respecting enough to know that the words of the Democrats on gay rights are no substitute for their lack of action.
I believe that the virtues of classical liberalism - individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism - help gay men, just as they do all of mankind and are better exemplified by the Republican Party than by the Democratic Party. I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men's ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.
I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be "proud" of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they're just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.
I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay - their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person's sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.
I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is "supposed" to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.
I have come to understand on a very personal basis that the stereotypes and caricatures of the parties are no substitute for experiencing their members up close. I see that the "tolerance" and "compassion" of the left only extend as far as a person is willing to further their ideological worldview.
I am not Alex Knepper, the gay man. I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay. I believe that my chosen virtues and the actions that I take, not my unchosen sexual orientation, defines me as a person. I am a man who chooses to think for himself and shape his life on his own terms.
I don't think that makes me so radical.
Corvino, John
{ 133 comments }
← Previous Comments
A solid column. I’m a gay Republican as well, though my relationship with the party is far more tenuous than yours appears to be–McCain’s nomination was the only thing keeping me from changing my registration after the Bush administration. (Had any of the others gotten it, I’d almost certainly have bolted.)
Your writing goes a bit too far in places, I think, particularly when your language talks about “gay men”, when I assume that in reality you’re attacking a particular leftist concept of what it is that gay men are supposed to think. Even among gay Democrats, I would suspect that only a minority of them would adhere to the particular construct you’ve put forward.
Further, I think adding some criticism of the Republican Party would have helped balance the column. One of the key conflicts gay Republicans face is the fact that the most anti-gay folk tend to be, well, Republican. And these people frequently win the party’s nomination for various offices. Fortunately such a person did not win the presidential nomination for this past election, but my central fear with McCain’s loss is the direction that the party would choose to go in the next four years. I hope very sincerely that the party will resist the temptation to go the Huckabee route. (Huntsman for president, anyone?)
More broadly, one of the key points about the American party system is fact that both parties consist of diverse coalitions of competing interests. Most criticisms of gay Republicans falsely center on the conception of American political parties as being organizations that are centrally run and monolithic, rather than a broad coalition of intellectually diverse groups frequently in conflict. Indeed, American political parties are among the weakest party organizations in the world, with virtually no party discipline (e.g. the case of Joe Lieberman this past year) and with no central party control over who gets to be a candidate (in proportional representation countries, the central party chooses who is going to be on the party’s list, and even in Britain, for example, local MP candidates are generally chosen by the central office, not by American-style primaries). In such an open, free-wheeling political party system, criticism of gay Republicans merely for their party affiliation is universally unfair.
Lastly, a bit of advice: respond to comments here sparingly. Yes, it’s a bit painful when people take unfair potshots at you, and the temptation to respond can be hard to ignore. If you don’t, however, you’ll be spending all day on this forum (rather than paying attention to your studies!) and all it will do is rile you up and make you feel alienated. Internet commenters tend not to be particularly the most civil people in the world, and you would do well to leave misguided comments be.
Alex
BobN is right — you DO have a bright future in right-wing punditry.
“Do you do do you not think that something can both qualify as “torture” and be something that average television journalists willingly endure for audiences?”
Well, if “average” television journalists were IN FACT willingly enduring waterboarding for audiences, you might have a point. But I don’t see vast hordes of “average” journalists — television or otherwise — subjecting themselves to torture.
Yes, we have had a few brave (or just ratings seeking) journalists undergo controlled, voluntary and limited waterboarding to expose the lies surrounding the US illegal torture program. And every one of them has reported that it was in fact, torture.
Yet you, somehow fail to understand how being forcibly strapped down and waterboarded against your will, as part of a lengthy “interrogation”, for hours or days on end constitutes torture.
Your complete lack of empathy for your fellow man is astounding at best and depraved at worst.
Perhaps you might remove your “Club Gitmo” t-shirt just long enough to realize that there are many things that one might endure in one circumstance (medical necessity requiring the removal of teeth, for example) that would be torture when performed on someone against their will in a different setting.
And regardless of your own personal ethical failings, waterboarding is legally considered to be torture according to US and international law. A highly-placed sadist with a law degree doesn’t change that fact.
If you are still so convinced that waterboarding isn’t torture, I eagerly await the detailed report of your own experience with the process. Hey, it’s something that even “average” journalists are willing to do. And you seem so above average, Alex, that I am sure it would be easy-breezy for you!
I’ll check back later so you can tell us all about it.
Alex, I’ll leave the debate to others as to whether waterboarding is torture or not. But it is a world of difference for someone who is willing to take part of it, where I would assume, there is a mechanism to stop the action as soon as the participant feels their life is in danger, or even becomes overly uncomfortable. A prisoner, who undergoes waterboarding, does not have that luxury. That’s the part that could make waterboarding torture. And that’s the part that I’m fairly sure that Hitchens, or any other journalist, would not agree to.
So whether or not waterboarding is torture or not, we have to determine the following: 1) Is waterboarding an acceptible form of treatment for prisoners of war, even for one of our own soldiers who becomes a prisoner of war held by another nation or group? (By the way, I understand that sometimes, nations do not adhere to widely accepted international standards. I don’t want the U.S. to be one of those nations). 2) Is waterboarding actually effective in getting important information?
If the answer to either of the above is no, then we must decide waterboarding is out.
Richard, I challenge you again to name a single proposal that has come from Congressional Democrats in the name of fighting terrorism.
You have a point here, Alex, but this is totally different than saying the Democrats hoping that terrorism wins. The problem is we really do not have an effective way to combat terrorism yet other than gathering some intelligence and foiling many (but not all) of the terrorist plots. Some of the Republican legislation has been done in the name of combatting terrorism. But the question is are they effective? And at what cost to our freedom and liberty?
It’s the Democrats’ fault that we have DOMA in the first place. Clinton could have vetoed it; he instead signed it.
No, Alex, let’s put the blame exactly where it’s due. Yes, Clinton did sign it, and he certainly deserves a good share of the blame. But since Clinton has zero power of enacting the law without Congressional passing it, there’s more blame to go around. This includes the majority of Democrats that voted for it, and the almost unanimous Republicans that voted for it. Oh, Bush deserves blame to. During one of his State of the Union addresses, he could have proposed that Congress repeal it. Instead he chose to further it by pushing Congress to support FMA. Oh, yeah, he could have also pushed for civil unions too. But that didn’t happen either.
By the way, I have no problem with a gay person choosing to be Republican. I agree with you that being gay is not a choice, but one’s political affiliation is. I can certainly understand why you made that choice, because there are plenty of other issues. Even if the Democrats were perfect on gay rights, and all Republicans were always anti-gay, which is not the case. But I think that you fall into the same trap that you accuse gay liberals of, but generalizing your opponents.
I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is “supposed” to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.
I do not condone the mocking of Democrats for your choice. And I’m glad that you haven’t been mocked are shunned by fellow Republicans. I’m curious as to how much you engage some of the religious right Republicans regarding gay rights. But it still doesn’t surprise me that these people aren’t courteous to you. I have been in the presence of someone who abhors the choice of my partner, simply because I am a male. And he was very courteous to my face, as I was to him. And on issues that have nothing to do with sexuality, I have been mocked or shunned in a manner that, on its face, sounds very polite and classy. Many times, I would have preferred to be told directly, instead of the “classy” cheap shots. My point is, what if everything else was the same about the Republican Party, except that a significant percentage of them (not necessarily all) tell you to your face that they think the fact that you are gay is disgusting, counterproductive, immoral, and inferior. Would you still be Republican?
I am not completely sure why a person should be “proud” of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment.
I’m not sure if “proud” is the correct word. I think it’s more about acceptance. How many gay people grew up being told how wrong it is being gay, being shunned, mocked, excoriated, etc., including from their own family. Being gay is not the accomplishment, but accepting it despite many forces telling you that you should be ashamed of it, I think you would agree is quite an accomplishment.
I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they’re just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.
Sure there’s discord, but I think you are attributing it to the wrong source. While I’m sure there are exceptions, I think most gay people want to assimilate into mainstream society as much as any other culture. It’s easy for me now, because just about everyone I know is accepting of me and my sexuality. Not everyone has the luxury. And even where I live, how ready is mainstream society ready for homosexuality. How comfortable are they in seeing two men (or two women) holding hands, kiss in public, slow dance at a traditional wedding, talking about their relationship in the same way that a straight person would?
I envision a future in which a person’s sexual orientation will be an afterthought.
I couldn’t agree more. Right now, neither party’s actions, in their own way, are furthering that.
Dan,
McCain was a horrible choice, he was a maverick, beholden to no one. For years the liberal media loved him because he would attack republicans, fight with Bush, support anti-free speech campaign finance reform, promote gun control, seek amnesty for illegal aliens and do the usual RINO things. It was only after winning the nomination that he pretended to be a conservative.
During his candidacy he was weak, he chastised his fellow supporters when they attacked Obama, he called Obama a great man and a patriot. In other words, he didn’t do his job.
The republican party cannot afford moderates. They need a Jindal or a Pallin. Someone charming, with common sense, with gumption to do their own thing while ignoring opinion polls, an extreme conservative in economics, a hate of government waste (unless it’s military spending) and someone proud of his Christian faith so we can keep getting the 30 million born again christian vote.
The country can’t afford democrats in office. Obama is turning America into a thirld-world country. You know the latest outrage? He wants car drivers to pay a mile tax! That’s right, a tax for every mile they drive. And they called Bush stupid, seriously. Bush had more common sense in one finger than our idiot in chief in his entire body.
“You know the latest outrage? He wants car drivers to pay a mile tax! That’s right, a tax for every mile they drive.”
You pay too much attention to right wing nuts. The idea was floated by Ray Lahood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation and immediately shot down by Obama.
I’d rather drink the koolaid of the mythical gay urban stereotype of Knepper than drink the koolaid of the Republican right wing nuts. And if you haven’t noticed lately, that is all the GOP has left — the crazies.
“I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay.” You make the point and then fail to understand the implications. I was once the subject of a magazine article and the author described me as a Gay carpenter. I told him I was not a gay carpenter but a carpenter who happened to be gay. I tried to explain to him that I am gay and was a carpenter but one had nothing to do with the other. The Republicans do not understand this. They think being gay is a choice and have used gays as a way to divide for political reasons. There is something very sad in seeing someone align themselves with those who would have that someone treated as less than equal. I do not condone but can easily understand why other gays and democrats give you grief. You not only participate in your own lessening…which I suppose is your choice….but you participate in the lessening of others by not standing up to those you agree with politically. The democrats and gays folk are not your problem my friend. You are your own worst enemy and instead of facing that, you attack. Good luck with that.
Republicans brought us George Bush and the last 8 years. What else do you need to know? Republican gay people are the most odious people on earth. Get the fuck out of my subculture, asshole.
Hmm, when gay men and lesbians have rights equal to those held by heterosexuals perhaps gay men and lesbians can start living simply as men and women.
Of course, Alex appears to have no appreciation for the fact that rainbow flag wearing, gay subculture promoting, pride marching, “stereotypical” homosexuals created the world he now lives in — a world in which he can publish an article as a gay man and not fear for his safety or his future. That didn’t just happen, and it didn’t happen because heterosexual people suddenly, out of the goodness of their hearts, decided to play fair.
It happened because drag queens and gay activists and lots of other people Alex would look down his nose at refused to be victims anymore. And rather than sneer at them, Alex should learn to understand their perspective and say “thank you.”
Alex writes: “I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay ? their lives are gay.”
Stereotypes are wonderful, aren’t they? Yes, some people lived in the Castro or whatever neighborhood in NYC is trendy. But most of us faggots and dykes live in neighborhoods next door to straight folks and we shop at the local supermarket and some of us research local history or knit sweaters or taking cooking classes. But you know what, if some queer people want to live among other queer people, I’m glad they have that option. They are certainly many other ethnic, racial, political, retiree, or religious groups who do the same. Are they just as “bad” as you are implying the gays are?
You know, people may not be giving you a hard time because you are a Republican. Maybe they are giving you a hard time because you can’t acknowledge the fact that you can live openly as a gay male because of the hard work of other people, few of whom were Republican.
I would find Alex Knepper?s screed about why the Republicans are the better party more persuasive if he?d mentioned the anti-environmental jihad they?ve waged since Reagan put James Watt in office. As a gay man, I loathe the Republicans more for their environmental and health care policies then their stand on denying equal rights for gay men and lesbians. (And their supposed ?rich tradition for intellectualism? would be more believable if they hadn?t consistently supported an anti-science agenda.) The Republicans believe in small-minded government, which they?ve proved is worse than just about any form of big government.
I?m also surprised by Alex?s harsh judgment of gay subculture. As a Republican he should be in favor of the unregulated meat market of gay clubs. Although judging from the photos of Alex displayed on Facebook, I?m willing to bet he?d have a kinder view of gay subculture if he displayed some entrepreneurial zeal and joined a gym, got a good hair-cut (or at least combed his hair) and bought some contact lenses. Unfortunately for Alex, even gay Democrats believe that dating is a free-enterprise system and that gay men aren?t born bitter: it?s a choice.
“You pay too much attention to right wing nuts. The idea was floated by Ray Lahood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation and immediately shot down by Obama.”
Hey JVN, it’s not my fault that the New York Post broke the story, which claimed what I said, and then later Obama decided that the idea would be unpopular.
“I’d rather drink the koolaid of the mythical gay urban stereotype of Knepper than drink the koolaid of the Republican right wing nuts.”
—It’s the republican right-wing “nuts” that let the country know when government goes too far.
“Republican gay people are the most odious people on earth. Get the fuck out of my subculture, asshole.”
—I love it. That’s like the Klan calling blacks racist. You just gave a great example of progressive tolerance, Karyn. No wonder your kind wants to shut down talk radio, you can’t stand debate, can you?
Some great points made in this article. I think to often we equate ones sexuality with political affiliation or beleif, as a Gay man I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, mainly because I think both sides are completely nuts.
Having said that I think you make some great points Alex, I too believe that ones sexuality should not engulf their lives, it’s part of us, but not all of us.
We must stop segregating ourselves, those who hate us do that enough on their own!
“Waterboarding is harsh interrogation. Period.”
Jesus Fucking Christ. You are a real cretin, Alex. Only the most evil and/or idiotic people think waterboarding is not torture. This is a method that has been used by Nazi Germany and various other evil regimes, is clearly against the law and is immoral.
Shame on this site for publishing your revolting crap.
This is the absolute last straw for me. Goodbye Indegayforum.
This debate, like an aging drag queen, is tired. It resurfaces, time and again, rarely with any evolution in thinking. Can?t both sides agree to a few evident truths and talk about some real issues here?
Yes, Republicans have been actively trying to restrict gay rights. Aside from some deep blue state Republicans Alex mentions and few libertarian types (Alan Simpson), most GOP officeholders are publicly opposed to gay rights.
But Democrats have been cowards for years, afraid of alienating older or hesitant ?Heartland? voters. Gays (like African-Americans) were victims of Bill Clinton?s singular ability to publicly champion minority interests while simultaneously passing laws at odds with minority interest groups. Ah, the mystic powers of triangulation!
The truth is it?s not really politically advantageous for either party to be pushing the full menu of gay rights today. Demographically, in about ten years they?ll be a considerable majority of voters who will want to hear the pitch. The reality is we really are the ones we are waiting for. Gays and lesbian individuals living fearlessly and sharing their personal testimony will win this battle faster than the Human Rights Campaign can.
Which brings me to an important point. There?s a generational shift at work here. Despite the fact that Americans are more comfortable and accepting of homosexuality, gay culture has remained static, expecting young newcomers to accept old traditions as an immutable facet of gay identity. Swapping out Cher for Britney is not innovation folks.
The circuit parties, drag shows, and bars that were a (much needed) social outlet for men who came out during the 80?s and 90?s seem foreign and irrelevant to a new crop that came out in high school, meets online, and shares pictures of their partners with their Facebook friends.
The partisans on both sides of this debate mention valid criticisms. But this debate isn?t really a fight over which political party gays and lesbian should belong too. It?s a fight over the meaning of sexual identity and the ways gay and lesbians want to establish themselves and be recognized in America. That?s an important conversation, one that?s far more necessary than fighting over who?s voting Republican or Democrat.
“Do you or do you not think that something can both qualify as “torture” and be something that average television journalists willingly endure for audiences? I think a good litmus test for what constitutes torture, at the very minimum, could be “something that journalists can’t be paid to do.” Can’t we at least agree on that?”
No. First of all, I’ve yet to hear of a single journalist, average or not, who has voluntarily turned himself over for water-boarding by a declared enemy. Granted, I suspect either Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann (sp?) would — for the right price — submit to water-boarding at the hands of the other. But they don’t count. O’Reilly, especially, has shown himself to be unbound by normal human morality.
If you choose the path of punditry, your goal — your REAL goal — should be to influence people with ideas. Not straw men. Not mind games. Real ideas. Preferably good ideas. Well explained. If you think today’s threats warrant torture, SAY SO. Explain why the old rules just don’t count anymore. And explain how we should apply the new rules and to what end.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s fine if you want to be a “conservative”, even a Republican. I think it’s wrongheaded but that’s OK. Gotcha “debate” and silly propaganda, on the other hand, are not OK. As those libruls at the United Negro College Fund say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Yeah, I know, I’m not paying your tuition, so who am I to nag.
I suppose people enjoy Alex Knepper the way others are drawn to kabuki or Beijing opera or any other severely ritualized performance. They don’t anticipate novelty or bravura, but delicate, subtle deviations from scripts long ago set in stone.
Like characters in kabuki and Beijing opera, gay Republicans inhabit a dreamy world of arcane high-drama far removed from the tedium of everyday civilian life, which I guess is part of their charm. They provide distraction and, reliably, comic relief.
Gay Republicans also set the mind in an Oriental mode because they so resemble in thought, manner, and deed, a stock character perennially central to traditional, conservative societies — the court eunuch.
Their performance is letter perfect. The reflexive subservience to politically powerful men and the social system which confers that power. The touchiness endemic to the awareness that powerful men tolerate eunuchs only because they pose no threat to wives, daughters, and mistresses, and then only to the degree that eunuchs are scrupulous in their subservience.
This subservience is of interest because its advantages are at best ambiguous. A sort of power through which its very wielding proves itself no real power at all. Whatever influence the eunuch exerts is on loan to him, granted or as easily withdrawn by a system and its elites whose interests are other than his own.
And this is why the time-honored role of the court eunuch is that of frantic fussbudget, the testy, defensive scold forever hyper-viligant of insult, forever at pains to ensure that protocol is at all costs observed, that others know their place, and that the traditional order is zealously maintained.
After all, a traditional order doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t favor some people over others. So the eunuch must therefore show an exaggerated hostility toward infertile concubines, dishonored princes, and other victims of the order he upholds. Were he not disdainful of victims, people might think he saw something of himself in them. And any suspicion at all of such sympathy could prove his undoing.
Court eunuchs may not have been happy, but they had the consolation of always being busy. A traditional order, like an old house, falls apart as much from external forces as from the wear and tear caused by those who live within. If you’re not careful with its upkeep and care, it could collapse around you or go up in smoke. And then where would you go?
Traditional order and the powerful are what give the emasculation of eunuchs its only possible meaning and purpose. Without traditional order, and powerful people to be protected by it, eunuchs would be revealed as being nothing more than what they are. Men without balls.
# # #
As you can see Alex, you have no chance of even making a dent in the Borg co-op. You will be assimilated or destroyed. They are not interested in your weak thoughts and poor reasoning skills. You are inferior. And worse yet, you are young and it is imperative that they pile-on in an attempt to convert you before?..well, it?s too late. They do not want you to live your life the way that you would like. You will only receive visible scorn and they will shun you at every opportunity.
Ironically, they have taught you to be compassionate and inclusive, and that you should have the upmost respect for others and their plight. If you happen to become homeless however, they will surely not assist and will blame your self-loathing behavior and attitude. They only assist deserving minorities who think appropriately. It?s only a matter of time before they will have complete and total control of the minds of everyone. I mean look at this morning?s news – A drag queen has just become the Homecoming Queen at George Mason. Yes, with these types of occurrences it is likely that everyone in America will finally succumb to the inevitable. Please, for your own good and safety, join the collective.
Alex Knepper wants his sexual orientation to be a “non-issue” with the Republican Party. And I can understand that intellectual position, because I once believed this was possible. The Republican Unity Coalition , which I formed, was chaired by Senator Alan Simpson, and President Gerald Ford served on our Advisory Board. President Ford believed our vision was possible and joined us on this basis. The mission of the RUC was “non-issue”, and “assimilationist” within that “rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality with the Republican Party that Alex imagines, because it once existed. That tradition is gone. The RUC failed in achieving this goal, because at every level of the GOP, from the White House down to members of Congress, the “non-issue” became “THE” issue whether fundamental rights were at stake– such as striking down sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas) which criminalize homosexual activity, to civil unions or military service or marriage equality. I will never forget when the RUC criticized Senator Santorum for defending sodomy laws (“man on dog”), how we were abandoned by our friends like Mary Matalin and Mary Cheney, who certainly came from that classical liberal tradition. Alex Knepper’s ability to even write openly about being gay, and potentially working in a federal job, or receiving a security clearance, or serving in government at any level, or adopting a child, or keeping one in a divorce —all of this was achieved at great personal cost and sacrifice by gay men and women who realized that “non-issue” assimilation was not an option, if one cares about civil equality.
I find it interesting that you so easily dismiss the issue with the FMA because it never had a chance of passing in the first place. What difference does that make? George Bush got on national television and told every American (especially his religious base) that gay people are nothing more than second-class citizens and should be treated as such. Of course everyone knew it wasn’t going to pass. But the message got out loud and clear: The Republican party hates gay people. How you can so easily make that affront to gay rights irrelevant, I find astonishing. I, for one, will never forget it or forgive it.
As for the role model of the Republican party, John McCain. He is hardly a spokesperson for gay equality. In fact, just the opposite:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanene-allison/mccain-on-gay-rights-no-m_b_130268.html
Isn’t that funny. It almost looks like he has gone out of his way to hide his positions on gay issues. But then again, I’m sure you’ll find a rational reason to overlook McCain’s anti-gay stance. I have faith in you.
For me, this pretty much sums up the Republican party:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=5644436
Senator Buttars spews out mind-boggling hate-speak about gay people, and the Senate President basically says that he agrees with him. But the public outcry was so loud that he had to do something to pacify everyone. Hearing Mr. Buttars words, and seeing the inaction taken makes me want to vomit. Ya know, I have a feeling if you were to die, Senator Buttars would be dancing on your grave. You might want to think about that. To align yourself with a political party that doesn’t give a crap about you is repugnant.
Here are excepts from two 2008 party platforms. You may dismiss these as just words that won’t be backed up by actions, but even if you accept that (and I don’t) I can’t imagine how any gay person could endorse a platform that contains the second excerpt.
We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,
and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive
bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all
attempts to use this issue to divide us.
Because our children?s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
“Isn’t that funny. It almost looks like he has gone out of his way to hide his positions on gay issues. ”
McCain did, indeed, go out of his way to hide his (all things relative) pro-gay positions.
So did Barack Obama.
In bashing McCain, you seem to forget that the Democrats are not a pro-gay alternative.
You also seem to forget that I am not a single-issue voter.
Steve, no one actually gives a shit about the party platforms, Democrat or Republican. You’re just looking for any reason — any at all! — to oppose the Republican Party.
Oh, never mind.
Alex,
Again you are wrong. Obama published his gay-related positions on his campaign website:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
The following website was also created:
http://www.lgbtforobama.com/
As to McCain’s pro-gay policies, they are few and far between. For one thing, he supported Arizona’s anti-gay-marriage ballot measure. Below I will paste a couple of paragraphs from a column of mine from last August.
McCain has benefited from a narrative portraying him as a steely former POW ready to defend our country in a dangerous world. This ignores his more comfortable post-POW lifestyle, as well as evidence that the Iraq war he championed has made us less safe. Meanwhile, over 12,000 servicemembers have been forced out of the military under the “Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell” policy that McCain supports, even as personnel shortages have led to stop-loss orders preventing soldiers from leaving when their tours end.
Mockery by some gay Republicans about the supposed naivet
Don’t despair Alex. Richard does not take any criticism of his views as legitimate and he always professes to be misrepresented. He alone is allowed to stereotype, certainly not anyone else. You’ll notice Alex, that Richard doesn’t allow anyone to comment on his wrtings here, and that should speak volumes to his openness and desire to hear the views of others. It is sad I know.
Hmm…
Personally Mr. Rosenthal gives me the impression sometimes of being a Democratic and/or liberal sycophant. If you don’t mind, Richard, I would rather not justify why I have had that impression, but I am a still little sore about one time you didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt, either.
There is, I believe, a litanus test on this site. If it does not make sense to some people why Mr. Knapper is being included and welcomed as a contributer, let’s have them cite it. There ARE gay rightests who would fail it.
(Well, actually I’m only aware of one. Most conservative gay person I’ve ever heard of. He is always attacking the gay subculture, and personally I’m glad he is. We need people who speak truth to power like that in this country, and if they’re wrong, well let them lose. But my God he is just drop-dead wrong sometimes. I mean people like him take social conservatism and they make it make sense.)
Jorge, I will allow the evidence above to speak for itself. I do find it odd, though, that some people consider any strong disagreement with their opinions, however well supported by evidence and argument, to constitute intolerance of dissent.
BTW, I think you meant “litmus,” not “litanus.”
I appreciate Charles Francis having weighed in.
Well, you learn something new every day. You know I once pronounced tombstone “tom-stone?”
Thanks for not letting me down
Okay, here goes nothing… I think the ‘single-issue voter’ mantra is just a convenient way to give yourself permission to take the easy path without any of the guilt. From the sound of it, you’ve put your sexual identity aside as long as the Republicans do A, B & C like you believe they should. Meanwhile, they’re also doing X, Y & Z to disenfranchise every gay person in this country. But since you’re not a single-issue voter it’s easy for you to look the other way. Like you said, being gay is an incidental part of your life. That’s very true. But when your state and government are legislating what you can and can’t do because of your sexuality, then it’s not so incidental. Perhaps you would be more concerned if you had a partner that was in the hospital, and you weren’t permitted to visit him or make decisions regarding his treatment. Things like this happen on a daily basis, and it does destroy people’s lives. If the thought of adopting a child has ever crossed your mind, your state (and your political party) might have some issues with your sexuality even if you don’t.
I can assure you, if you ever do become a ‘couple’ your sexuality won’t be incidental. Here is today’s real-life example: My partner and I just took our dogs to the dog park. There was a straight couple already there with a medium-size Collie. Before we arrived at the gate, the woman literally picked up her dog and walked over to the bench to get the leash. They exited at the other gate just as we walked in. Then they let their dog loose at the playground 50-feet away. This same scenario has happen to us a dozen times before. It wasn’t a coincidence. So I do get the ‘wanting to blend into mainstream society’ thing. It’s just not as easy as it sounds.
BTW… I completely understand not relating to the ‘gay lifestyle’ that some gay people live. My partner and I don’t live in a gay neighborhood. We don’t go to gay stores. We don’t hang a rainbow flag on our porch. We don’t frequent gay bars. We live our lives exactly like all of our straight neighbors, and we didn’t have to exclude our sexuality to do it. It’s extremely difficult at times, but in the end it’s worth it.
I don’t get the dog thing other than that you think they removed their dog because you and your partner showed up and you believe it’s because you are gay? I think there are probably several reasons they could have left each time as you entered. It appears to me to be a hypersensitivity and misinterpretation to events surrounding you. We are all guilty of that at times.
“I can assure you, if you ever do become a ‘couple’ your sexuality won’t be incidental. Here is today’s real-life example: My partner and I just took our dogs to the dog park. There was a straight couple already there with a medium-size Collie. Before we arrived at the gate, the woman literally picked up her dog and walked over to the bench to get the leash. They exited at the other gate just as we walked in. Then they let their dog loose at the playground 50-feet away. This same scenario has happen to us a dozen times before. It wasn’t a coincidence. So I do get the ‘wanting to blend into mainstream society’ thing. It’s just not as easy as it sounds.”
What does this have to do with being a Democrat or a Republican?
Individual bigots will always exist. Nothin’ you can do about it. Just gotta wait for the cultural tides to shift, unfortunately.
“Mockery by some gay Republicans about the supposed naivet
“Okay, here goes nothing… I think the ‘single-issue voter’ mantra is just a convenient way to give yourself permission to take the easy path without any of the guilt. From the sound of it, you’ve put your sexual identity aside as long as the Republicans do A, B & C like you believe they should. Meanwhile, they’re also doing X, Y & Z to disenfranchise every gay person in this country.”
Which Republican is trying to take away my right to vote?
And yes, I put my “sexual identity” (mostly) aside because I don’t really think it’s a big deal. When I see the candidates, I don’t immediately think “Okay, what does John McCain think about my sexuality?”
Your article’s rationale is shaky at best, and your logic relies on several flawed premises.
You first suggest that your sexuality has no bearing on your “political” decisions. There is no problem with this idea on its own as you could make a corollary statement, “I won’t allow my skin color to alter my political choices either.” But how is it possible to keep that same ideological purity when the “political” agenda is actively focused on your sexuality?
You strive to reduce and trivialize “gay” as a lifestyle choice; as something as insignificant as a hobby, as something that does not define you or give you direction. Despite your clever construct, society and policy does think your sexuality merits more consideration than that of a mere recreational activity.. Whether it’s adoption or visitation rights, the right of inheritance, or the myriad of other “benefits” afforded straight couples, it is abundantly clear that American society does think sexuality is more than “an incidental part of my life.”
“I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right.” This entire statement is incredibly broad with no evidence to support it. “Intellectualism” is a slippery term. Are you speaking of Socratic Intellectualism? Or are you referring to the generalized notion of an attitude of devotion or high regard for intellectual pursuits? Or is it possible you have mistaken intellectualism with rationalism?
In contrast to your opinion, I believe the Republican Party currently practices “anti-intellectualism”, with its populist heroes (Joe the Plumber), jingoistic politicking (Drill, Baby, Drill), and general disregard for science or math.
You would also be well served by providing support for your claim of the Republican Party’s secular beliefs. This past election was anything but a secular affair. How many times did Republican pundits recycle rumors of President Obama being a “secret muslim”? How many clips of Reverend Wright were aired on FOX news followed by the interviews of outraged Republicans? Abortion and gay rights are certainly not secular issues, and the Republican’s have gotten a lot of mileage and fundraising out of both topics. It got bad enough, that even Mitt Romney had to defend his Mormonism during the primaries and make a big speech about secularism in America.
On the equality front it’s even worse. For the record, The Republican Party is against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Marriage Equality, Federal Protection for Couples, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, the repeal of DOMA, and same-sex parenting rights. They’re also against anti-discrimination laws in the work-place and don’t even support equal pay laws.
You make a larger jump in fallacious logic when you conflate “individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism” with the modern day Republican Party. While the historical view of the Republican party and the larger conservative movement may jibe with that statement, the Republican party of the modern era is a far different beast. Indeed you offered that holy trinity of ideals as comparative evidence as a way of making a pejorative point about the Democratic Party, but it’s still just a generalized statement that has no fact to back it up. You would’ve been well served if you offered citations in order to back your initial claim.
If we let recent history illustrate the Republican Party we get a different sense of what the current GOP is like. We saw how the McCain campaign merchandized the theme of “The Maverick”, all the while the candidate was capitulating his long time beliefs to the whims of the party overlords. The past eight years easily demonstrated that anyone with a dissenting voice within the GOP were quickly thrown under the bus or simply ignored. The GOP actively used both patriotism and fear tactics to squelch any that questioned their motives. From Cheney’s mushroom clouds to the Dixie Chicks getting death threats, the GOP talking points never stressed individualism nor full democratic participation. Instead, the party mantra was “you’re either with us or your against us.”
You are also not well served by combining cultural relativism and liberalism and then attributing both to Republican ideology. First off, cultural relativism is too often mixed with moral relativism and both are highly toxic topics in political arenas. We cannot live in a reasonable world if we subscribe to moral absolutism certainly. However, Republicans are very keen to be culture warriors waging in class warfare of their own creation. Whether its the ten commandments in the County Courthouse or Bill O’Reilly’s imagined war on Christmas. Face up to it; it is GOP strategy to foment wedge issues and then inject them into tight races in order to gin up their base, which (like it or not) is the Religious Right.
But you really jump the shark with this next gem, “I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men’s ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.” I challenge you to provide proof that other fundamentalist religions hold “gays” in higher esteem than that of radical Islam. But this statement is far more egregious than just it’s ignorant generality. Many gay people are aware of the death sentences handed down to Iranian youth. While that is certainly horrible, how should we respond when right here, in our enlightened and advanced country, we have gay children getting shot, being beaten, being abandoned and left for dead.
But its even worse than that. While you claim gay men are ambivalent towards radical islam, there are elected Republicans who claim that homosexuals are a greater threat to this country than radical islam or Al Queada. Rep. Sally Kern (R) is more concerned about gays than any terrorist out there and (R) Rep. Chris Buttars of Utah concurs, “”They’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.” GOP talking heads have blamed the gays for anything from 9/11 to Katrina, and yet we’re supposed to believe this is the party of Lincoln?
The rest of the piece is exhaustingly filled with more generalities and very little fact and analysis. You go on to paint gay men with broad brush strokes all the while asking that you do not be lumped in with them. You write off the Democratic party with a couple of talking points and expect us to accept your version of the Republican Party. The GOP you speak of may have existed, maybe back in the days of Goldwater, when William F. Buckley was an intellectual light in the post war GOP darkness. But, Buckley is dead and old style conservatism died with the Southern Strategy. Today the GOP is run by authoritarian nationalists and the religious right.
Between those 2 groups, there isn’t a whole lot of individualism, self-reliance, intellectualism, secularism or equality.
Good luck to you sir.
“Jesus Fucking Christ. You are a real cretin, Alex. Only the most evil and/or idiotic people think waterboarding is not torture.”
—Then you don’t know much about torture. Most regimes use electricity, beatings, cutting fingernails, etc. Waterboarding only makes the criminal feel like he’s drowning. What’s the big deal? Should we have another 9/11 because you didn’t want a terrorist to suffer?
This is exactly why many people vote republican, including gays! We don’t want to die in a burning building while the civil liberties of terrorists are preserved. We don’t want to lose our jobs while the government creates temporary blue collar jobs fixing bridges that aren’t broken, we don’t want nationalized banks, we don’t want more money for the arts, we don’t want billions of dollars for NASA and when the rest of America sees the consequences of voting for Obama, when they see the big automakers firing people AFTER getting government bailouts, when they see the economy NOT recovering after passing bailout after bailout, then your President will end up like Jimmy Carter, a one-term failure.
Something I’ll need to learn as I advance in punditry is to resist the urge to reply to every nonsensical person out there. There are a few people here that I’d love to reply to, but won’t bother with because their arguments are just so fallacious (Like this Charlie fellow above, who uses the “Take one crazy comment from one person and then say ‘See! This is what the party stands for!’” technique. That’s basically his entire argument!).
That’s a lame response.
“Just gotta wait for the cultural tides to shift, unfortunately.”
Translation = “Just gotta wait for the left to do the hard work, then we can ALL be Republicans!!!!”
Oh, one more thing. It’s been a while since I checked, but as for people LIVING with HIV in the U.S., men who have sex with men are, by far, the largest group based on mode of acquisition, still accounting for about half of those infected. In terms of new infections, we’re WORSE than we were just a few years ago, and now account for more than half of new cases, more than 2/3 of males cases.
If you, personally, “have nothing to do with HIV” and it has no effect on your life, you’re either celibate or stupid.
“Oh, one more thing. It’s been a while since I checked, but as for people LIVING with HIV in the U.S., men who have sex with men are, by far, the largest group based on mode of acquisition, still accounting for about half of those infected. In terms of new infections, we’re WORSE than we were just a few years ago, and now account for more than half of new cases, more than 2/3 of males cases.”
HIV, to me, is a personal responsibility issue, not a governmental issue, and I’m tired of people acting like I have some responsibility toward the infected because I have a biological attraction to men.
“If you, personally, ‘have nothing to do with HIV’ and it has no effect on your life, you’re either celibate or stupid.”
Or responsible.
Something I’ll need to learn as I advance in punditry is to resist the urge to reply to every nonsensical person out there.
For punditry I think you should just reply to the ideas and stand on them. They tend to repeat themselves. For people I think are nutjobs I sometimes just hang them, sometimes deliberately say something reasonable that I know will provoke them.
I am a gay Republican. But I don’t vote for any Republican candidate who doesn’t support gay equality. When I am treated as equal uder hte law, and my marriage is treated as equalunder the law, then I will be free to vote for the philosophies of governance which I think are important. But while I think that traditional conservative political principles (i.e. calssical liberalism with a conservative respect for restraint and tradition) provide the best way to govern, the fundamental inherent human principles of liberty and equality are nonnegotiable – they are more than a mere governing style and cannot be abrogated by a civilized society.
Like it or not, the Democtratic party is fronting candidates who understand the equality issue and are more likely to set things right sooner.
My husband and I could get along fine with our Canadian marriage, it’s true. In a social sense, everyone treats us just like every other married couple present. But it’s not right. And legal equality needs to catch up with social equality. And now that we have a baby coming in a few months, I am working twice as hard to make sure that our little girl, who will be certain to face some social cruelty at some point from prejudiced people, isn’t part of a family that also suffers from an unfair legal disability.
Alex, I said that the Democrats are better on gay issues than the Republicans, not that they are perfect, or that you care about gay issues, or that there are not legitimate policy differences on things like hate crimes. I have specifically said that the Democrats have their faults. And I myself am skeptical about hate crimes, especially the rationales that groups like HRC give for touting them (citing specific hate crimes for which suspects were arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned, as if those cases were crying out for federal intervention despite the states involved having handled them well). But the Democrats are demonstrably and significantly better than the Republicans on gay issues. Your determination to be completely dismissive on every front, in flagrant disregard of the evidence, may cause some people to think you are clever. Enjoy their company.
@alex k
“Take one crazy comment from one person and then say ‘See! This is what the party stands for!’”
Alex, your schoolyard taunting response to Charlie might carry more weight if you weren’t the one person making the crazy comments.
The reason gay leftists like Richard Rosendall and the others on this board are ridiculed and rightly mocked is because they believe and make statements like this.
You seem to fail to take into account that the Republican party wants you — AS A GAY MAN — to cease to exist. Period. End of argument. Nothing else matters. They want you gone. Dead. Erased from the face of the earth.
Are you been paying attention?
Claiming to be a gay Republican because of tax policy is rather akin to being a Jewish Nazi because you believe in strong national defense.
Notice how none of the liberals here said a single word against that. Not one. Not even Rosendall. Not even the vaunted “Charles Francis”, whose independence doesn’t seem to preclude him kowtowing to the gay party line that Republicans all want to exterminate gays.
That’s because Rosendall and the rest of the bigot left that he represents need that caricature, those lies, those smears, to maintain their culture of perpetual victimhood that insulates them from having to take any responsibility whatsoever for their behavior.
“Or responsible”
Well, here’s what you said:
“I’m a bit tired of people talking about HIV as a “gay issue.” The vast majority of gay people have nothing to do with HIV, and most people with HIV are not gay. Yes, it affects gays disproportionately, but AIDS is not “one of my issues” just because I’m gay.”
Take some “personal responsibility” and acknowledge that your comment contains at least one outright untruth. Or was it the classic avoidance on “most people”?
As you get older, your circle of friends and people you care about will come to include a greater than average number of people living with HIV compared to most Americans. As time goes on, it will include a greater than average number of people no longer living due to AIDS. If it doesn’t become “one of your issues” somewhere along the line, then you do, truly, have a bright future in right-wing punditry.
“As you get older, your circle of friends and people you care about will come to include a greater than average number of people living with HIV compared to most Americans. As time goes on, it will include a greater than average number of people no longer living due to AIDS. If it doesn’t become “one of your issues” somewhere along the line, then you do, truly, have a bright future in right-wing punditry.”
HIV will never be one of my issues even if your silly prediction does come true, because I don’t believe that the government has any role to play in it. Again: it’s a personal responsibility issue. In this day and age, with all of the information and protection available, if you get HIV through sexual contact, it’s your own damn fault.
Richard is willfully ignoring the fact that I have stated about ten billion times that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on gay issues.
That doesn’t mean that I think that the Democrats are good on gay issues, though, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I’m willing to abandon capitalism and the war against Islamofascism (as well as smaller issues like gun control, originalist judges, and others) to jump ship to them.
“originalist judges”
Alex, would those be the same judges that didn’t think that black people were actually, you know, PEOPLE?
“Again: it’s a personal responsibility issue. In this day and age, with all of the information and protection available, if you get HIV through sexual contact, it’s your own damn fault.”
Among so many ignorant and stupid comments I’ve seen, this, in particular, takes the cake.
So it’s my old roommate’s fault he got HIV from a relationship that was supposed to be honest and monogamous?
Clearly you’re single, and your comments make it clear that you intend to continue that way.
It’s a myth that anyone who gets HIV these days (especially through sexual contact) can only blame themselves. They can also thank all those abstinence programs that took the tools to make responsible decisions out of the hands of students.
Don’t kid yourself, responsible people get HIV every day. And they weren’t implying that you would contract HIV, they were stating that eventually you’d have a friend with HIV. Course that would involve two extraordinary events to happen, 1) you’d have to actually stop vomiting and judging people long enough to talk to a gay person and 2) you’d have to actually interact with more than a few of them long enough to become friends with them. Somehow, I don’t see that happening. Again, no surprise that you’re single…. people, compassion, empathy, don’t seem to be your strong suits.
I don’t think people are rude and discriminatory because you’re a republican, I think the fact that your an asshole is a far bigger factor. There are asshole democrats and independents, they just don’t hide behind their party like you do.
The gay subculture you speak of? Well, I’ve lived in Chicago for 8 years, 3 of those years spent in the gay neighborhoods of Andersonville and Wrigleyville, and I have yet to meet anyone who fits the description you put forth. I’m sure they exist, I just must not have bumped into them. Maybe I’ll meet them after another 8 years?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.