In a widely reprinted AP story, Laura Bush says of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:
"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. ... It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue-a lot of sensitivity."
But the same article quotes Sen. Bill Frist as claiming, once again, that "marriage is under attack in this country," and saying he will defend the amendment to Dick Cheney, who opposes it. I guess Frist thinks he has more influence with the veep than Cheney's own daughter. So much for family values!
Let's hope and work toward the day when more Republicans with stand with the first lady and vice president, not the president or, especially, foot-in-mouth Frist.
Update. HRC has a press release trying to play Laura against Frist. But it wasn't too long ago the HRC was criticizing Laura and taking issue with her call for a national discussion on gay marriage-which others righitly recognized as a hint she wasn't with the president on this one.
51 Comments for “Enlightening Republicans.”
posted by Anthony on
At the risk of being slapped around by the endless critics who post here, I will say that I admire Laura Bush for her candor and for admonishing the GOP to not use the marriage issue as a primary election tool this time around. I know a host of Republicans who would rather NOT talk about that in 2006, but want to focus on more pertinent issues like Iraq, tax cuts and national security in general. With Mary Cheney’s stand in her new book and subsequent television appearances and the First Lady’s statements now on record, it should be clear that not all Republicans are these hateful, bloodthirsty homophobes that our “friends” on the left so often depict them as. In an era when Howard Dean is kissing up to Pat Robertson while claiming to be pro-gay and other Democrats prance around claiming to be tolerant and progressive while actively seeking votes from the religious right, it should be no surprise that some Republicans are now making their feelings clear. Cheers to Laura Bush and to Mary Cheney. President Bush should listen to his wife.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony
Our strongest allies, in the sense that their voices would make a real difference in the national debate, would be moderate and conservative Republicans who are conservative along traditional lines rather than social conservatives.
We do not hear from them in our national debate, and the silence is deafening.
Few straight Republicans who could be our allies speak up against the party’s headlong rush to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, to ban/restrict GLBT adoption, to defeat laws restricting job and housing discrimination, and so on. On the rare occasions when straight Republicans speak up, party leaders, who know that pandering to the social conservative “base” is crticial to continued dominance by the party in national politics, ignore them.
The situation is not unlike the situation in the Democratic Party in the 1950’s, when party leadership was dominated by the Dixiecrats, the linear forebearers of modern social conservatives. The Democratic Party dominated the South and border states, but at a price — the party’s leadership had to make sure that no meaningful civil rights legislation made it through Congress.
Similarly, today, the Republican Party dominates the South and border states, but at a price — the party’s leadership has to “energize the base” by tossing red meat on gay/lesbian issue to the Christian Right.
The difference between the two eras, however, is significant. In the Democratic Party of the 1950’s, Democrats from the Northeast and Upper Midwest — sympathetic with civil rights — spoke up and provided a counterpart to the “leadership” of Lyndon Johnson, Russell Long, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, James Eastland, John Stennis and the others.
Counterpoint voices in the Republican Party are few and far between.
I think that the most remarkable fact about Laura Bush’s comments is that it becames national news that the First Lady suggested that Republicans should not make anti-gay drum beating an election issue.
Note that Mrs. Bush did not come out in favor of any aspect of GLBT rights; she suggested only that this should be a matter for reasonable, level-headed national discussion and not the equivalent of race baiting election politics of the 1950’s. Mrs. Bush did not, and has never, indicated that she believes in GLBT equality or differs from her husband’s stated views on the matter, which are in favor of sodomy laws and in opposition to GLBT rights in marriage, the workplace and in housing. The fact that the First Lady’s mild comment has become national news tells me how bad the situation is in the modern Republican Party.
And that brings me to the key question: Where are the straight Republican voices speaking out in favor of GLBT equality? The silence is deafening.
posted by MikeinAustin on
Very good points, Tom, especially about the silence of presumably pro-gay (Arnold? Giuliani?) Republicans. But there is also reason for hope in one of the 1950s figures you cite: Lyndon Johnson, who is generally thought to have been quietly pro-civil-rights but unable to say so as a Southern Democrat for most of his career, evolved into the President who pushed through the Civil Rights Act, among other groundbreaking legislation. Hopefully (yes, this may border on naivete) a similar glbt moment will occur in the future.
posted by Tim on
The GOP base is anti gay rights. It would be politcal suicide for the President or any Red-State Republican to publicly support GLBT rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Few straight Republicans who could be our allies speak up against the party’s headlong rush to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, to ban/restrict GLBT adoption, to defeat laws restricting job and housing discrimination, and so on.
The problem, Tom, is that you’re making of “gay rights” an option package, just like when you buy a car. You may not want the built-in garage door opener, but sorry, it’s required when you order leather seats.
This does two things: first, it lards up gay rights with unrelated issues like abortion, and second off, it creates an all-or-nothing — either you support gay marriage, or you don’t support gay rights at all, including nondiscrimination and the like.
Your own webpage and brochures, for example, are sabotaging you; the primary reason you want people to vote against this amendment, as you make clear, is so that Wisconsin can have gay marriage.
Again, the debate we need to be having at this point is why the amendment should be opposed now, which is NOT so that it clears the way for something a majority of Americans still oppose. If you want political support from moderate Republicans, quit asking them to endorse what many people see as moonbat positions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The GOP base is anti gay rights. It would be politcal suicide for the President or any Red-State Republican to publicly support GLBT rights.
Funny, that’s the same reason that Democrats give for their regular failure to support gay rights.
Does that mean that the Democratic “base” is anti-gay rights, or is this just another convenient reason to explain away why gays should continue to throw money at homophobic Democrats and the organizations that support them “because Republicans are worse”?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
North Dallas Thirty: “The problem, Tom, is that you’re making of “gay rights” an option package, just like when you buy a car. You may not want the built-in garage door opener, but sorry, it’s required when you order leather seats.”
I wrote a bit on my blog (http://purplescarf.blogspot.com/2005/01/gay-and-lesbian-equality-absolutely.html) some time back that looked at the issue of gay rights from a traditional conservative position and identified the “homosexual agenda” as including:
(1) Marriage – GBLTs want to be able to assume the responsibilities of marriage, and to provide the benefits and protections of marriage to their partners and children.
(2) Families – GBLTs want their families (particularly their children) to have access to the same benefits that families headed by straights are afforded under the law (for example, two-parent adoption, social security survivor benefits to children of GBLT couples), at both the federal and state levels, that may not flow from marriage or may not be available if marriage is not permitted.
(3) Immigration/Citizenship – GBLTs want to be able to petition for immigration of their partners, and for their partners to be able to obtain citizenship, on the same basis as straights.
(4) Military Service – GBLTs want to be able to serve in the military on the same basis as straights.
(5) Workplace Discrimination – GBLTs want to end legal protection afforded to employers who discriminate against GBLT workers.
(6) Hate Crimes – GBLTs want sexual orientation to be included in hate crimes legislation, at both a state and federal level.
Do you hear Republican voices favoring any items on this list?
posted by kittynboi on
Does that mean that the Democratic “base” is anti-gay rights, or is this just another convenient reason to explain away why gays should continue to throw money at homophobic Democrats and the organizations that support them “because Republicans are worse”?
The republicans do it because the GOP and their “base” is anti gay rights.
the Democrats do it because they’re just stupid enough to think the GOP base will embrace a socialist paradise of the left if the left just acts like wright wing theocrats on social issues.
In less incendiary terms, the left has long wanted to court the “working class whites”, the ones with those redneck flag sticks on their trucks that Howard Dean foolishly wanted to recruit, and they think that anti gay rhetoric and behavior is the way to do it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“The fact that the First Lady’s mild comment has become national news tells me how bad the situation is in the modern Republican Party.”
This is true, and it is our challenge. What we need to do, on a one-to-one basis with our straight GOP friends, is look them in the eye and ask them how they can live with themselves, having let things get so foul in their own party.
Where’s the outrage? Where’s the revulsion? “What the hell is the matter with you,” I have actually asked straight Republicans I know. In person, face-to-face, they can’t defend their party’s bigotry or the cowardice of their leaders.
We need to stop focusing all our energies on national figures. The more power people get, the less willing they are to do anything that might loosen their grip on it. That national political leaders are, for the most part, a pack of morally-degraded, spiritually-dead, soul-sold SOB’s is more than obvious.
John McCain, a man I once admired, now simply disgusts me. I look at him on TV, and I just think, “maybe he really has cracked.” Lord Acton was right: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you hear Republican voices favoring any items on this list?
Of course. There are Republicans who want to repeal DADT, there are Republicans who wouldn’t mind hate crimes legislation, there are Republicans who wouldn’t mind workplace protections, and there are Republicans who support civil unions.
But you’re not listening.
Where’s the outrage? Where’s the revulsion? “What the hell is the matter with you,” I have actually asked straight Republicans I know. In person, face-to-face, they can’t defend their party’s bigotry or the cowardice of their leaders.
Then they’re not very smart Republicans.
If I tried that on any of the ones I know, their answer would be simple: “Gay-rights organizations and gay Democrats say it’s ‘pro-gay’ and ‘gay-supportive’ for people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Tim Kaine to support antigay state and Federal legislation and constitutional amendments. Why are you holding Republicans to a different standard?”
posted by Les on
“Where’s the outrage? Where’s the revulsion? “What the hell is the matter with you,” I have actually asked straight Republicans I know.”
Give it a rest! Perhaps the reason you’re not “hearing” Republican voices saying the “correct” things is your attitude – do you really expect to have a productive conversation with someone by saying “what the hell is the matter with you”?! All this mock outrage may be emotionally satisfying to people who enjoy being “outraged” all the time, but in the end, it’s not very productive. Maybe if you tried having a non-confrontational and obnoxious conversation with a Republican, you’d be surprised at what some of them would have to say.
I agree with you that energy needs to be focused on regular, everyday individuals, not national figures. But by whipping yourself into a state of “revulsion” just for the sake of being revolted and outraged does not help anything but your own sense of self-satisfaction for having “spoken out”.
posted by Anthony on
I think ND30 is positively correct – we shouldn’t be so naive as to think that “gay issues” are what we must demand purity from elected officials on. As I have said before, my major concerns are far more focused on national security, the economy and other social issues, along with marriage, etc. Laura Bush seems to be a wonderful, caring, compassionate woman. The same is true for Mary Cheney. Just because they didn’t jump up and down waving rainbow flags and denouncing anti-gay forces as demonic doesn’t diminish their comments. Why that is such a problem for some on this site is beyond me. Good grief – think about what you’re demanding here!
posted by Les Longino on
Exactly, Anthony. That single-minded focus on gay issues is not a good way to go about things. Even Howard Dean isn’t strident enough anymore! Who will we be left with if we immediately cut off every single person who doesn’t meet stringent standards of purity regarding gay rights? Activists need to acknowledge the fact that for many of us who are neither far left nor far right, our votes are based on a collection of concerns, and we weigh those concerns when deciding who to support. Sometimes that means supporting someone who doesn’t meet every item on my checklist – there will NEVER be a politician like that (if only the politicians would stop trying to be like that, but that’s a whole nother issue). I find this forced stridency and demands for purity from politicians extremely frustrating, because it’s not helping us. Would I like progress to be quicker? Of course – but it’s not going to happen overnight. Sadly, many gays will spin Laura Bush’s comments into something purely negative, simply because she is a Bush. Were a Democrat to say the exact same thing, those same gays would hail the comment as a great step forward. It’s too bad more of us can’t put aside the constant need to be angry to find some hope in her comment instead of kneejerk negativity.
posted by kittynboi on
Activists need to acknowledge the fact that for many of us who are neither far left nor far right, our votes are based on a collection of concerns
I am neither left nor right and I don’t have a “collection” of concerns. Most of my concerns, including gay rights, can all be seen under the umbrella of fighting for absolute freedom from religion and tradition.
posted by Anthony on
Kittn, many of us who happen to be gay also happen to be Christians and believe in certain traditions like family, honesty and integrity. Fighting for “absolute freedom” from religion and tradition sounds to me like fighting for chaos and a lack of any order or accountability. No thanks – I’ll be content with my life in more defined terms. And good luck finding a politician who will embrace your point of view! I have said it before and I still believe it – people who shout from the roof tops that they are “independent” and aligned with one party or the other or a particular ideology aren’t being intellectually honest, in my view. It makes you “sound” somehow more attuned to the high ground but in actuality it’s an admission that you don’t have concrete values or beliefs. Am I wrong?
posted by kittynboi on
Fighting for “absolute freedom” from religion and tradition sounds to me like fighting for chaos and a lack of any order or accountability.
I see it as fighting to keep religion from being legislated in to law.
And good luck finding a politician who will embrace your point of view!
I don’t expect too and I stopped looking a long time ago. I realized that when the most the left could offer was Barack Obama or Howard Dean, I should give up.
I have said it before and I still believe it – people who shout from the roof tops that they are “independent” and aligned with one party or the other or a particular ideology aren’t being intellectually honest, in my view.
Well, since I don’t align myself with either party anymore I guess the rest of that statement is irrelevant in regards to me.
It makes you “sound” somehow more attuned to the high ground but in actuality it’s an admission that you don’t have concrete values or beliefs. Am I wrong?
I have my own beliefs and ideology. It just happens to be unpalatable for most people, and I tend not to have as committed positions on certain issues as others would like me to have. I’m very committed to issues such as gay rights, seperation of chruch and state, freedom of speech, access to contraception, etc. I am not so concerned with gun rights, the immigrant issue, and so on.
Some issues, while I see as important on some level, I don’t think are that important; preservation of historic buildings, landmine issues, “free tibet”, etc.
Essentially, domestic personal liberty issues are most important to me, and everything else varies. Just because I don’t place the same importance on some things as you do, and just because I don’t think I should sacrifice my own well being for some kind of vague “common good” or for whats “good for society” does not mean I am some kind of anarchist with no ideology.
And as I’m getting kind of tired of pointing out, sacrificing ones own convictions, ideologies, and self interest for the “common good” or whatever, like some people keep insisting we do, is supposedly the antithesis of conservativism.
I guess some might consider me something of a libertarian on social issues, and on other issues, I’m nothing in paticular.
You don’t have to have an opinion on everyin single issues to have a political stance or ideology. I don’t, and I won’t try, because I realize that it may not be possible for me to develop an informed opinion on many issues. I’ll stick to what I know, and what concerns me.
I also have problems with this;
Christians and believe in certain traditions like family, honesty and integrity.
You don’t have to be christian to believe in those things, as I’m SURE I don’t have to point out, but I will to be thorough.
Secondly, the xian totalitarians have very twisted definitions of those things that I do not subscribe too. I believe in my own conception of those, and I refuse to bow to someone else’s jsut because they think I should.
posted by Randy R. on
Uh, sorry, but there are plenty of people in this world who are NOT Christians, who believe in honesty, integrity and family. I know of plenty of atheists, Buddhists, New Agers, pagans, wiccans, Jews, Muslims and so on who believe just as fervently and concretely as any Christian.
I am really really tired of all these self-professed “Christians’ who beleive that they are really better than everyone else on the planet. There are some Christians who are honest, some who are not. Some have integrity, some do not. It has little to do with your religion.
posted by Randy R. on
Furthermore, I do not see how being free of religion leads to choas. In general, most countries in Europe are pretty much free from religion. Many countries in Asia as well. Do you see chaos everywhere there? Nope. In fact, in many areas, they are doing better than we are! Abortions, murder rates, crime rates, spousal abuse are often lower, sometimes dramatically so, in those countries than in the US.
Furthermore, Anthony, there are in fact a great many Christians who believe that simply because you are gay, you hate God, are rebelling against him (dare I say her?) and have no believes or values. Who is right?
posted by Eva Young on
That previous press release was from Cheryl Jacques. This most recent press release from HRC is making the right points. For the first time, I’m impressed with Salmonese.
posted by Anthony on
Apparently I was mistaken about this being a place for libertarian-conservative gays to post their thoughts and comments. It has been bombarded with the endless thoughts of liberals and leftists in general. Get over yourselves. Enlightenment does NOT mean being able to toss all traditions and religious beliefs out the window in favor of some individualist fascination with whatever non-conformist ideal that pops up (and there are always people ready, willing and somewhat able to follow the trend). We all have various issues that are more important to us and that is a good thing. And Randy, if you find Europe and Asia such delicious alternatives, why spend so much time trying to belittle this country? Last time I checked air flights to those regions were relatively cheap. You could live free of any faith or any sense of values whatsoever. That’s not me thinking I’m better, that’s just fact, based on what you stated in the previous post. Oh, Randy, let me ask you about how those utopian European nations are dealing with their rising Muslim populations and the complete overreaction to the depiction of their religion’s great prophet in a cartoon a few months ago? Seems to me they haven’t handled it well at all. Gee, if only America could be more like those countries, you know, the ones we liberated in World War II? I don’t get it – the U.S. advances the cause of freedom and democracy and we’re the bad guys. If that’s the case, I’ll stick with being an imperialist, captialist and lest we forget privileged white male. After all, we’re all about categories and labels here, right?
posted by Anthony on
Abortion rights, labor unions, race and other categories are just that – categories used conveniently for the purpose of advancing some cause or another. Gays have been duped into thinking we somehow must link arms with the pro-choice crowd because we share their goals. WHAT? To end the lives of millions of unborn children year in and year out? This is truth, dear Randy and kitt, not opinion, look at the statistics. And gays should walk in lockstep with the so-called civil rights community (Jesse Jackson and company)? Right, and these folks are some of the most bigoted and homophobic in America. You can march with them if you like, not me. I have never understood why so many gay people believe we are linked with these other groups. And the more posts I read here convinces me that gays who believe our lives are directed by God (sorry Randy, I know that name offends you) and by our commitment to being individuals rather than members of a group have to remember that we are daring to think outside the collective self-vicitimization box. How arrogant of us. And let me clarify one other comment – in my post about people claiming to be independents I meant to say that they shun the notion of being aligned overall with one of the two major parties because they think it makes them look more intelligent and thoughtful. To me it makes them look foolish and incapable of taking a clear stand on anything other than their consistent inconsistencies! I’ve had my fill of this blather, it’s time to move along.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: “Do you hear Republican voices favoring any items on this list?”
North Dallas Thirty: “Of course. There are Republicans who want to repeal DADT, there are Republicans who wouldn’t mind hate crimes legislation, there are Republicans who wouldn’t mind workplace protections, and there are Republicans who support civil unions. But you’re not listening.”
I do, actually listen.
I listen primarily at the national level, and in Wisconsin, where I live, and Illinois, where I ran a business. So I don’t hear every whisper of support, by any means, but I do listen.
And when I hear a voice that is strong, such as the voice of Wisconsin state representative Gregg Underheim, the sole Republican in either house of the Wisconsin legislature to vote against the proposed Wisconsin amendment, I write to them and about them (http://purplescarf.blogspot.com/2006/02/profile-in-courage.html).
But I stand by my statement, North Dallas, that “Few straight Republicans who could be our allies speak up against the party’s headlong rush to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, to ban/restrict GLBT adoption, to defeat laws restricting job and housing discrimination, and so on. On the rare occasions when straight Republicans speak up, party leaders, who know that pandering to the social conservative “base” is crticial to continued dominance by the party in national politics, ignore them.”
I think that statement is a matter of simple fact.
Moving on, I want to comment on another thing I am hearing in this thread.
I am an unreconstructed Goldwater conservative, and I absolutely reject the idea that the third principle of traditional conservatism — minimal government interference with individual liberty — is something any conservative can set aside in favor of pocketbook issues.
When basic, fundamental, human rights are at stake, it is no time for moderation. It is time to stand up and fight. Equality under the law is a basic right of our constitutional system, and I’m not willing to set it aside — in my case or any other.
GLBT equality under the law flows from conservative principles, and from basic constitutional principles. It is not something trivial. It goes to the heart of our system of government — the right of all citizens to be treated equally.
As Goldwater put it in 1994, “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.”
Obviously, I’m not disinterested personally, as Goldwater was, but I think that Goldwater was dead on as a matter of principle.
I respect the right of other GLBT folk to make their choices about this, but I am not on the boat with folks like Anthony, who said in a comment to the Reagan thread, “I guess I’m more loyal to my conservatism and my Republicanism than to my sexual orientation.” To me, that kind of thinking is a cop out.
If the modern Republican Party embodied either of the other two traditional conservative principles — small goverment and fiscal responsibility — maybe that position would at least be arguable. But the modern Republican Party has turned into a mockery of conservative principles, up and down the line.
A number of you who are remain loyal to the modern Republican Party complain about the “slavish devotion” of GLBT folk to the Democratic Party. I wonder if you might want to look in the mirror a bit, yourselves.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Maybe if you tried having a non-confrontational and obnoxious conversation with a Republican, you’d be surprised at what some of them would have to say.”
That’s good advice, Les. I’d suggest you try following it yourself.
Maybe if you tried not snipping a tiny portion out of one thing somebody says, then going berzerk with an entire, slobbering-Tazmanian Devil post about it, you’d better serve the dialogue.
I said that I had actually asked Republican individuals where the outrage was. There is nothing in that that would logically imply that every time, without exception, I speak with Republicans (I live in Arizona, where four out of every five people I encounter each day are Republicans), I scream at them for their lack of outrage. Somebody would have locked me up a long time ago if I had been that hysterical.
What I meant was that for many years, I simply sat there and politely said nothing while my Republican friends either rattled off their canned Rush Limbaugh rhetoric or else blamed their lack of personal action — on issues they themselves believed required change — on the fact that those in charge of the party would not face them. I no longer do that, and for finally speaking out (when the time seems right), I will apologize to nobody.
I agree with Tom that real Republicans would be the first to be outraged by some of what Bush & Company are doing. To try and caricature everybody who takes issue with Bush as a flaming, single-issue liberal is irrational and absurd.
If the GOP ever got its shit together, many who are not now Republicans would come to join the party. We are not living on some planet where this would mean the Republicans become more liberal — quite to the contrary, our standards would demand that it move back in a more libertarian/conservative direction.
posted by kittynboi on
and by our commitment to being individuals rather than members of a group
And you think being individuals means simply voting for the interests of a larger group? (The good of society, which you seem so concerned with?)
posted by Anthony on
Tom, thanks for labeling me a cop-out because of my stated beliefs about my conservatism and Republicanism being more important to me than my sexual orientation. It seems that many people who post here are far more in tune with their endless victimhood than with anything else. Case closed.
posted by kittynboi on
It seems that many people who post here are far more in tune with their endless victimhood than with anything else. Case closed.
Lies don’t close a case. Being more concerned with your own self interest than that of another is hardly “victimhood”. You have yet to convince me why I should even take your view and have offered up no arguments in its favor, nor have you clearly defined it beyond a few fuzzy warm politically correct buzzword such as family., tradition. etc.
So tell us. What makes your position and the position of the GOP superior to all others? Justify it with a coherent rational argument that includes reasons and comparisons and explanations of why these things stand on their own merit. Don’t just say “everything else is worse”. Explain why.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: “Tom, thanks for labeling me a cop-out because of my stated beliefs about my conservatism and Republicanism being more important to me than my sexual orientation.
The reason that I think statements like yours (“I guess I’m more loyal to my conservatism and my Republicanism than to my sexual orientation.“) are a cop out is because the dicotomy you set up (“conservatism” versus “sexual orientation”) is a false dicotomoy. I think that the dicotomy avoids the issue.
I’ve tried to make clear, in everything I’ve written, that GBLT equality flows from authentic, core, principles of constitutional conservatism — conservatism like Barry Goldwater’s. I don’t think that there is any doubt at all about it.
To suggest, as you seem to do, that GBLT equality is somehow inconsistent or at odds with “conservatism”, is to ignore and aovid that question. I don’t think that it is possible to both opt out of the fight for GLBT equality and be true to authentic, core, conservative principles at the same time.
I’m sorry you don’t like what I said, but that’s life. I’m sometimes not as polite as I should be, as indirect as I should be. I tend to be blunt. In my view, you are setting up a false dictomy between “conservatism” and the fight for GBLT equality, and by doing so, you are playing the game plan of the social conservatives.
This forum is for conservatives to talk to conservatives, with anyone else who has anything to say to join in as the spirit moves them.
And although I might be wrong about the application of conservative principles in the case of GLBT equality — after all, the Republican Party wrote off Goldwater as a has-been, age-adled, senile, nutcase by the end of his life, and I might be right there with him — I’m not going to stop saying what I think needs to be said. I’ll try to watch my manners, but I’m not going to diddle.
In my view, too many “conservatives” put party ahead of principle. To my mind, that’s why we are in the mess we are in — religious radicals who have little or no respect for core constitutional principles claim the mantle of “conservatism” and have intimidated the Republican leadership, and they get away with it. The reason they get away with it is that few conservatives and almost no Republican politicans call them out and call them down.
It is time for that to stop. And it isn’t going to stop as long as people who care about GLBT issues and/or constitutional principles allow social conservatives to argue that GLBT equality and “conservatism” are at odds.
What is at odds are GLBT equality and political expediency. Goldwater didn’t mince words about GLBT equality. But Goldwater didn’t give a tinker’s damn about political expediency when principle was at stake. The modern Republican Party lives by expediency, and is more than willing — absolutely eager, in fact, if their words and actions are any indication — to cow-tow to social conservatives to stay in power.
In my view, conservative principles and issues of GLBT equality are not at odds, and to set up a dicotomy — to my mind a false dicotomy — between “conservatism” and GLBT equality avoids confronting the real issue — in my words, a “cop out”.
Anthony: “It seems that many people who post here are far more in tune with their endless victimhood than with anything else. Case closed.”
The only GLBT folk who are living in “victimhood”, in my view, are the GLBT folk who are not willing to stand up and fight for what is right. Nobody who fights for the right, body and soul, can ever be a “victim”.
Goldwater had words for GLBT folk who are unwilling to fight hard for equality — words for the GLBT folk who temporize and allow themselves to be victimized by social conservatives and the current Republican leadership:
““I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Goldwater got into a hell of a lot of trouble for that statement, but he was right.
posted by kittynboi on
This forum is for conservatives to talk to conservatives, with anyone else who has anything to say to join in as the spirit moves them.
I thought it was independent?
posted by Randy R. on
Well, looks like I struck a bit of a nerve with Anthony.
Anthony:
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Enlightenment does NOT mean being able to toss all traditions and religious beliefs out the window”
Nor does it mean clinging to “traditions and religious beliefs” for “tradition’s” sake. I view efforts to use government power to impose religious superstitions as particularly galling (yet embraced by the Demopublicans and Republicrats alike).
posted by Anthony on
I have finally figured out what this blog is really all about – a place for wannabes to wax poetic about their contrarian views, somehow believing that they have risen about the partisan rancor that “poisons” our political process and destroys the faith of people in their government. My experience here has been a wakeup call to the fact that far too many so-called conservative gays are anything but that. They’re merely masquerading as such. Take your high-minded thoughts and keep them in a close circle of an elitist society you’ve apparently created for yourselves. To listen to you all talk one would think the GOP is some great evil in need of destruction. Let’s face it – when folks like yourselves ruled the party it commanded less than 40 seats in the U.S. Senate and only about 150 or so House seats nationally. Translation: MINORITY STATUS. Do you honestly believe that you’re convincing those around you that you care about a host of issues and NOT just “gay” issues? Good grief. As for Barry Goldwater, he LOST the 1964 election in a huge landslide. I admired his tenacity and yes, I agree with much of what he said in his later years about the party’s direction. To suggest that gays who aren’t screaming and shouting for rights are somehow being victimized by the religious right is utterly ridiculous on its face. What I’ve seen in here is proof that too many so-called conservatives have adopted the self-oppression of the left. It is pathetic at best. I will have no more part of it.
posted by Randy R. on
Well, this November we’ll see if the pundits are right when they say that the Republicans will return to minority status.
When the Presidents’ approval ratings are at 29% and Congress is around that, it’s pretty difficult to argue that the Republican party represents a rousing success.
posted by dalea on
Hmmm, I thought this was a libertarian forum. Silly me. Or maybe it is for those who understand how tarnished the word ‘conservativism’ has become. So, present it as ‘libertarian’.
I support the right to choose an abortion because I do not think that a womb is a national resource. Rather it is the personal property of each individual woman, to use as she sees fit. Abortion is a totally private matter, IMO.
One reason for gays working with abortion rights groups: these groups have supported us for more than 35 years. They have beent there with us. The fetus people have not. In politics, you supports them as supports you. I am a libertarian with strong social democratic leanings, which probably means this is the wrong forum.
posted by kittynboi on
I have finally figured out what this blog is really all about – a place for wannabes to wax poetic about their contrarian views, somehow believing that they have risen about the partisan rancor that “poisons” our political process and destroys the faith of people in their government.
Well, I guess the “independent” part of this blogs name and URL were too subtle an indication that, if nothing else, this place is not about adhering to partisan politics.
My experience here has been a wakeup call to the fact that far too many so-called conservative gays are anything but that. They’re merely masquerading as such.
And just what are they? Liberal gays? Many on here decry big government, welfare, etc. Is that not conservative enough, or are issues pertaining to religion the only important ones for you?
To listen to you all talk one would think the GOP is some great evil in need of destruction. Let’s face it – when folks like yourselves ruled the party it commanded less than 40 seats in the U.S. Senate and only about 150 or so House seats nationally. Translation: MINORITY STATUS.
I have a hard time believing that, at any time in the GOP history, did people like the ones here run that party.
To suggest that gays who aren’t screaming and shouting for rights are somehow being victimized by the religious right is utterly ridiculous on its face.
I would suggesting that screaming and shouting for ones rights is hardly a vice.
posted by kittynboi on
I am a libertarian with strong social democratic leanings, which probably means this is the wrong forum.
No, it’s fine. Don’t let Anthonys shrillness make it look like he’s the norm here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: To listen to you all talk one would think the GOP is some great evil in need of destruction.
The Republican Party has abandoned core conservative principles for the sake of power, and is a serious threat to constitutional principles, the future of our economy and our individual liberty.
Let’s look at core principles of the conservative movement and see where we are:
(1) Small government.
The government grew significantly under the Reagan/Bush administrations.
Size matters, of course, but the Reagan/Bush policies compounded the growth by pushing federal power into areas historically reserved for the states. Attempts to federalize education — unthinkable for conservatives even thirty years ago — and marriage are but two examples of the ways in which the Reagan/Bush adminstrations expanded the scope and reach of federal power. I can go on and on, as can anyone who has been paying attention.
(2) Fiscal Responsibility.
The deficits run up by the Reagan/Bush administrations are staggering.
The Republicans are spending money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, and cutting the tax base right and left. The deficits run up by both administrations make Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam/Great Society spending sprees look like Kiwanis Club budgets.
We are going to pay the price for this, sooner or later. The government cannot keep this up too much longer before our debt load makes it impossible to run the government.
(3) Maximizing Liberty.
Two conservative principles interplay around this issue. The first is that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, unless it is necessary for the government to treat different citizens differently in order to maintain social order. The second is that all citizens should have the freedom to live their lives free from government restriction, unless it is necessary for the government to curtail freedom of action in order to maintain social order. In both cases, the government should interfere only when and to the extent necessary, and as minimally as possible.
The social conservatives seem determined both to discriminate without compelling need — the most striking example being opposition to GLBT rights, but that is not the only example — and to regulate the private lives of citizens, all in the name of “tradition” and biblical principles.
Leaving aside the issue of separation of church and state, the scope and direction of interference is, to my mind, unacceptable.
(4) Respect for the Constitution
Underlying all of this is a lack of respect for the constitution, driven by the “agenda” of social conservatives, which is to impose a particular moralism on the citizens of this country.
We have seen increased federalization of power by Republicans, at the expense of the “reserved powers” clause of the constitution, as noted above.
We have seen Repubican efforts to fund religious organizations through “faith-based intiatives”, which is nothing more or less than a bald-faced attempt to channel money to the Christian right without demanding that the services paid for be separated from religious evangelizing.
We have seen Republicans mount a sustained attack on an independant judiciary through the “Constitution Restoration Act” and Congressional control of court funding.
We have seen a serious expansion of federal monitoring of individual citizens through the Patriot Act and de-facto intrusions into the private lives of Americans — most recently the NSA boondoggle into telephone records — under the guise of “protecting” us.
And so on.
In terms of conservative principles, the modern Republican Party is a disaster. But more serious is the direction of the Republican onslaught under the domination of social conservatives. The government is expanding its reach into areas that threaten separation of church and state, separation of powers, federalism, judicial independence, protection of miniorities against the tyranny of the majority, and other basic constitutional principles.
Small government and fiscal responsibility are important — neither party is committed to those principles any longer — but the erosion of constitutional principles is more important, to my mind.
I don’t think that the modern Republican Party is “evil”, as you put it, but I do think that it is a serious threat to constitutional principles that should be fought back.
Anthony: Let’s face it – when folks like yourselves ruled the party it commanded less than 40 seats in the U.S. Senate and only about 150 or so House seats nationally. Translation: MINORITY STATUS.
Yeah, well, what can I say? A strong conservative minority serves as a check on the abuse of power by those who favor big government, national dominance, fiscal irresponsibility and tyranny of the majority. Better that, in my view, than joining a majority, like the one we have a present, that subverts conservative principles.
What do we gain by joining in the destruction conservative principles for the sake of majority status, other than the power to assist the process of destruction?
I don’t think that is a cause for celebration, myself.
Anthony: “To suggest that gays who aren’t screaming and shouting for rights are somehow being victimized by the religious right is utterly ridiculous on its face.
“Screaming and shouting” are prejorative words, words suggesting hysteria.
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about fighting the social conservatives, seriously taking them on in a long, hard fight for the constitution. It is going to take that — and probably about twenty years — to wrest political power away from them, and things will probably get worse rather than better before it is done.
But the alternative is to see our constitutional system of government twisted and betrayed.
Anthony, the only people who are victimized by the religious right are those who do not stand up to it, the people who stand by, frustrated and immobilized, while the Republican Party caves in to the religious right’s perversion of conservative principles and our constitution.
Those who enter the fray and fight for principle are not victimized. They might lose, but they’ve done what they can, and victims they are not. Victims stand by and let things happen to them. People who fight for principle aren’t victims.
Anthony: “Do you honestly believe that you’re convincing those around you that you care about a host of issues and NOT just “gay” issues? Good grief.”
I’m not out to convince anyone of anything. I’m focused on the issue of GLBT equality and I intend to stay focused until the fight is won.
The struggle for GLBT equality has brought serious constitutional issues into focus in our society in recent years. Gays and lesbians aren’t subverting our historic understanding of those issues; social conservatives are. A lot is at stake.
In my view, the battle for GLBT equality is a critical issue for our society — we are at a turning point which will determine whether separation of church and state means anything and whether our society is going to fall prey to the tyranny of the majority, and this are critical issues.
So I’m working on the issue and talking about it. You should be too, if you care about our constitution.
Anthony: “As for Barry Goldwater, he LOST the 1964 election in a huge landslide. I admired his tenacity and yes, I agree with much of what he said in his later years about the party’s direction.”
Well, if you agree with what he said about the direction that the modern party has taken, why don’t you join the fight to reverse that? You are a Republican. So get to work. Sitting on your ass and talking about how loyal you are to “conservatism” and “Republicanism” while the social conservatives continue to dominate the party isn’t going to change the party.
I suspect from your other posts that we are at different places in life, in different situations.
I’m retired, financially secure (so long as I die before the stock market collapses under the weight of the huge deficits we’ve been running up), and living on my family’s farm in rural Wisconsin, where my family has lived for generations. I don’t have anything to prove to anybody, and I’m accepted for who and what I am. I belong here and everyone knows it.
Given all that, I’m in a position to say what I want and do what I want without worrying about what anyone else thinks.
That’s a freedom that you might not have right now. Most of my gay and lesbian friends don’t have that freedom, even around this area, which is relatively GLBT-tolerant. Most of them have to watch how far they stick their necks out, or suffer real consequences.
From what I read between the lines, you might be closer to their situation than mine. So maybe I’m pushing you too hard.
And, of course, I live in Wisconsin, which has a history of progressive politics (LaFollette and all of that), so I don’t face the monolyth of right-thinking that you probably do.
So you might not be as free as I am to work on GLBT issues, and whatever efforts you make might have less chance of changing anything.
But at least do what you can do, whatever that is.
posted by Anthony on
I stand corrected. I need to get back to living my life and stop wasting words and time in here, to be quite blunt and not because I think folks on this blog are blow-hards or anything close to it, for I have learned a great deal from these discussions and see that I have been too willing to merely accept things I feel are very hard to change. Tom, we are in different places in our lives. I am 38 years old, my partner is 44 (about to be 45). We are renovating an older home, working in our careers and I am finishing my degree at long last. I suppose we are a bit stressed and busy these days. And that is why taking up the mantle of gay rights is so exhausing to even think about at this point. I admittedly struggle with being a lifelong Republican and an openly gay man and figuring out what to do about it. There have been plenty of times in recent years when I’ve seriously thought about leaving the GOP. I’ve considered becoming a Democrat, believe it or not, because they’re basically conservative in this state. The problem is they’re wed to the welfare-state, class-warfare, tax-and-spend, race-baiting mantra that I stridently oppose. I just believe that one should chart their own course in life, free from government. I look at things from that point of view. Yet I cannot deny what is going on around me – REPUBLICANS pressing all these bans on same-sex marriage around the country to get the far-right fired up and out to vote, REPUBLICANS opposing even civil unions or legal contracts between consenting adults in loving, committed relationships, REPUBLICANS spending money at the federal level like, as you put it “drunken sailors,” REPUBLICANS obsessing about Terri Shcaivo’s feeding tube last year, REPUBLICANS (or at least many of them) treating those working in this country without documentation like terrorists, REPUBLICANS allowing ethics to be trumped by favors to high-powered lobbyists. I could go on and on and on. All the while I consider the fact that my partner cannot be covered by my employer’s insurance plan for no good reason other than the fact that we’re gay, the fact that we’d have to fight to be in the room with one another should one of us be hospitalized, etc., etc. Our former church banished us for being together. Our current church is about to be led by a fundamentalist pastor bent on making us a great deal more “traditional” in our practices. We are Methodists, by the way. Does anyone know about the Confessing Movement inside our denomination? That’s the group intent on silencing gays in our church. So Tom and everyone else here that I may have offended, let me apologize. I am at a crossroads in my life in terms of my faith and politcal beliefs. Do I stay and fight inside both the Methodist Church and the GOP or do I take up the battle without them and try to make a difference elsewhere? Seriously, I am at a loss to know how to proceed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony
You are articulate, indeed. And you see the same things I do in the Republican Party.
You sound just about as disgusted with them as I am. I hope that other Americans — not just those of us who are in the target-scopes of the social conservatives, but ordinary, reasonable, moderates — are beginning to see what we see.
I’ve left the Republican Party. I’ve not joined the Democrats by any means, but I’ve been working with them in the county to fight back the amendment, simply because they will work to fight back the amendment, and I vote a split ticket.
I won’t vote for a fag-baiting social conservative, no matter what. I’d vote for a yellow dog, first.
But beyond that, in local and county elections, I tend to look at farm issues, economic issues and education issues, all of which are serious issues in this area. I don’t demand purity, by any means.
Statewide, I voted Libertarian — Ed Thompson, Tommy’s brother — in 2004. Ed got a third of the vote in 2004, and I hope he runs again.
I’m not voting Republican statewide this November, because the candidates that the party is putting up for statewide offices is beyond horrible, as far as GLBT issues go.
If Ed Thompson doesn’t run again with a reasonably strong ticket, I’ll vote Democratic. The Democrats in this state have fought the social conservatives up and down the line, which is something I want to support, and the legislature is controlled by Republicans, so there’s not much opportunity for the Democrats to go wild on us.
Nationally, its no question. Tammy Baldwin, my congresswoman, is a moderate, as Democrats go, and she’s responsive to farm issues. She’s the kind of Democrat I can support, easily. In a few years, when Russ Feingold comes up for reelection, I’m not only going to vote for him, but I’m going to work on his campaign. He’s got a pair of balls, that guy, and he’s earned my vote ten times over. When Herb Kohl comes up, I’ll take a look at who’s running.
I know a lot of folk in your position vis a vis the church. I don’t have anything much to say about it.
My partner and I are Catholic, and we’ve decided to be done with it. We have other, more fulfilling, outlets for our spiritual lives. We were talking last weekend about how little we missed it all, and Michael is a former priest who spent 25 years in a religious order. Friends of ours have remained, taking the attitude that “they can pry the host out of my cold, dead hand …”, taking succor from the local parish, ignoring the Pope and the bishops.
The active Protestants in this area seem to be gravitating toward a UCC congregation down in Baraboo, which is gay-supportive, the local Episcopal congregation in Dells/Delton, which is gay-welcoming, and the local Methodist congregation in Reedsburg, which seems to operate under a religious form of “your’re most welcome, but don’t scare the horses too much”.
Building a workable religious life is a serious issue for many GLBT folk, I know, and a lot of people haven’t resolved the question satisfactorily, from what I hear.
At the end of your post, you pose a question: “Do I stay and fight inside both the Methodist Church and the GOP or do I take up the battle without them and try to make a difference elsewhere? Seriously, I am at a loss to know how to proceed.”
I don’t think that there is a clear answer. I’ve decided, in the case of both politics and religion, to fight the GOP and the Catholic Church hammer and tong from the outside. I know others who are fighting from the inside in one or the other, or both. And I know people who have just retreated into themselves, electing not to fight at all.
It seems to me that either of the first two courses moves the ball, and which each person should choose is individual matter of temperment and circumstances.
The third option doesn’t strike me as a good idea, given the seriousness of the issues involved for the future of our country. We need everyone who is in a position to fight to do so, to join the fight whereever they can and to the extent that they can.
posted by Anthony on
Tom, I appreciate your comments and will take them and digest them. My partner, MG, is far more grounded in his assessment of church and politics as it relates to us as a gay couple. He is strongly pro-life and believes in more traditional values on many fronts, which I often find in opposition to what I know to be true of my own life experiences. Still, he’s a wonderful man with so much love to give. Politically, he’s a lifelong Republican like me and grows weary of my ranting about possibly walking away from the party. I’ve had many discussions with people inside the GOP, including a sitting congressman’s son who tells me that gays can only be a good thing for the party. I’ve had others be less supportive but still encourage myself and other gays to remain involved. The one common thread, though, is they say they don’t favor “special rights” for gays. I don’t either, just equality under the law. And that is where my paradox originates from – sticking to my convictions and also sticking to my life’s realities and the reactions to them. I wonder sometimes why it has to be such a struggle. As I stated in a different post, I have considered getting involved with Log Cabin, but that’s a time consuming matter and involves raising money and the like, which I’m not good at. I just want to do something to contribute. I am a journalist by way of my career so perhaps I should pursue something along those lines. I don’t know.
posted by Slobbering Tazmanian Devil on
Sorry Lori, I didn’t mean to cause such offense. But your initial post came across with that strident tone that I’ve run into amongst a lot of people I know, and I find it to be an unproductive attitude. I’m guessing we’re not going to find much to agree about, and that’s fine.
posted by Lori Heine on
The reason I find libertarianism so attractive is that it deals with each person as an individual, assigning ultimate “the buck stops here” responsibility to you and me. Personal responsibility and individual accountability are the forces that can move the world as no mere political power can. As a matter of fact, all political power derives from it.
There can be libertarian Republicans and libertarian Democrats; I understand why some prefer not to leave their major-party affiliation in order to work for a better world.
I believe in changing one heart and mind at a time, so I primarily focus on writing as a means of working for what’s right. Political activism tends to see people as large, faceless groups instead of individuals. I have to live with the way you vote, but you have to live with yourself — and, as many of us believe, you must one day answer to God.
Enough of “settling for lesser evils” and the like. Political pragmatism can really warp people’s sense of responsibility for helping make the world a better place.
Sometimes looking somebody smack in the eye and asking them why they are hiding their light under a bushel-basket, and making their lives count for next to nothing because of their apathy, is the most loving thing I can do for them. I don’t want to come to the end of my life, knowing that a meeting with my Maker is right around the corner, and be able to say nothing more positive for myself than “I always picked the lesser evil.”
The lesser evil is still evil. Finding the right church is important — it took me nearly a decade to find the welcoming Lutheran congregation I now call my spiritual home. But how you use the life God gives you is pretty important, too.
It’s going to be slow, and it’s going to be frustrating. Each of us can only do what we can do. But that’s so much more than what thousands of other people are doing. Just exchanging concerns, in a forum like this one, is a good start.
posted by Randy R. on
Thanks, Anthony, for a nice post. We should all understand what what unites us is stronger than what divides. Perhaps I misread some of your posts, — whatever: I didn’t mean to attack you.
Anyway, I too hate that bizness about “special rights.” Remind anyone who brings that up that this is red herring. First, get them to commit to equal rights, not special rights. Then, ask them specifically what rights have ANY gay person asked for that straight people don’t already have. Right to marry? To not get fired from a job based on sexual orientation? Eviction from an apartment? Right to make medical decisions for a spouse? Put the burden on THEM to identify these so-called special rights. If they say that someone wants quotas in the job market, ask them to identify ANY legislation proposed anywhere that would require quotas. (That usually being the only one they can come up with).
After they admit they can’t think of any, assure them that you don’t want any either. We just want all those same rights. Since they committed to equal rights, you have them nailed.
let us know how it goes!
posted by Randy R. on
As for the church issue, I can’t tell you what to do. I used to be a catholic, but then when I realized I am not welcome, I simply stopped going. Then I did more research on the church and its history, only to learn how hypocritical it is, and sex-obsessed it is.
Church should be the one place you feel safe and welcome. If you don’t feel that, you might consider finding another place to worship. There are plenty to go around.
However, sometimes this means that you have to switch religions, which I know is difficult for some people. Others, therefore, prefer to stay and make an example of themselves. They hope that they can try to change minds. If you are up to it, then do that. If not, you may wish to meet with your pastor and explain to him why you are leaving — because you take seriously the doctrines of the church and Jesus. Don’t be afraid of quoting the Bible to him — you have as much a right to read and understand it as any pastor. If you do this, make sure he understands that you are being driven from the church that you love and have found another place of acceptance and happiness, and that when this pastor finally understands the love that he supposedly preaches, you will be ready to return.
posted by Anthony on
Gosh, I remember coming back from attending the 1992 Republican National Convention (you know – the one where the lovely and talented Pat Buchanan declared a ‘culture war’ in America pitting gays and other ‘freaks’ against normal people?)with an arm load of shirts, buttons and campaign signs. Yes, I voted for Bush-Quayle in spite of living in Little Rock at the time, the heart of Billaryville! I had a sign that read, “Family Rights Forever, Gay Rights Never!” My ex-wife thought that was a bit crass, even though she’s pretty conservative herself. I’ll venture into the whole “I’m gay but got married anyway” gig some other post. What strikes me about that sign now is that I actually possessed it. I had convinced myself that I was not gay, just that I was attracted to men sexually. Of course, I always developed crushes on my closest male friends and longed for the day when a good man would come along and take me away from the world I wasn’t so crazy about living in. Well, now I have that man and I’m going through a metamorphosis these days. I’m learning how to be actively in support of equal rights for myself and other gays while also remaining faithful to my conservatism in other respects. It’s quite a journey and I thank you all for being patient and letting me rant at times. I’m battling some old demons here . . .
posted by Anthony on
Randy, thanks so much for the supportive post. I have been grappling with what to do about my church affiliation for weeks now, since our wonderful senior pastor was reassigned. The guy coming in is part of a fundamentalist movement afoot in the Methodist denomination that is of great concern to MG (my partner) and myself. We are going to sit down with him shortly after his arrival to glean what we can from him about his views. I have decided that if he espouses the typical rhetoric I am going to withhold my tithing until the attitude changes.
posted by dalea on
Here are two sites you may find useful.
http://www.gaychristian.net/
http://www.streetprophets.com/
There is a third, Bridges Across the Divide which I don’t have a url for. This is a private site for conversations between very conservative and extremely conservative people.
posted by J. Peron on
I was once a sympathizer for the GOP, hoping that they would win against the Democrats (while voting Libertarian) most of the time. Not anymore. Four years ago I started cheering for the Democrats (thank George for that if you don’t like it). What is left of the Republican Party is a collection of vile authoritarians and opportunists. Almost none of them cling to the Goldwater/Reagan principles of the past.
As for Laura’s comments. No surprise really. This is a tactic that hass been used often. If the president takes a hard line on one issue to placate a base have his wife say something in the opposite direction to appeal to those on the other side of the isssue. Have her present a “softer” side to the public giving those who wish to cling to the fantasy that the Republicans can become tolerant some hope and keep them in the fold.
posted by Randy R. on
Anthony: Thanks for the insight!
(big sigh). I just wonder how many so-called anti-gay people out there are struggling just like you did. I’ve long suspected that those who are most against gays are in fact at least somewhat gay themselves, and your post supports that.
So much pain — for what?
posted by Ed Brown on
I am Jewish, I find much of what the institutional Church says and does to be rather silly.
I hate to be too cynical, but I suspect that Laura is playing the “good cop” while Sen Frist and his buddies push for the marriage amendment play the “bad cop”.
Hence, its election year bait and switch games whereby the religious-right has the power, but a well placed wink or nod comforts the center.
posted by Anthony on
Randy, perhaps you have misunderstood me. I AM openly gay and in a committed relationship. Your mocking of my previous post displays a lack of maturity, or perhaps I’m misreading you?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Four years ago I started cheering for the Democrats (thank George for that if you don’t like it).”
When get the Democrat-du-jour ala Hillary or Obama who easily slips into Bush’s authoritarian cockpit, I hope you’re not surprised.