According to CNN's exit polling, 24% of self-identified gays cast their votes for Republicans on Tuesday. In 2004, 23% of the gay vote went for Bush. Log Cabin stands alone in trying to leverage the power of this vote with a religious-right dominated GOP. But to groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which now sees its mission as electing liberal Democrats, these voters don't even exist.
From a Log Cabin post-election release:
GOP leaders lost sight of what brought our Party to power in 1994. Limited government, lower spending, high ethical standards and accountability, and other unifying GOP principles attracted a broad coalition of support including fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, mainstream Republicans, libertarians, and independents. Now we've lost the U.S. House because Party leaders turned their backs on the GOP's core principles and catered only to social conservatives.
Hard to argue with that.
118 Comments for “Rock Ribbed (Gay) Republicans.”
posted by GoldFish on
I’d just like to point out that a lot of conservative organizations act like they don’t exist, either.
posted by Casey on
Yes, Goldfish – but a group like Log Cabin has reaching out to these groups as part of its mission. Everybody knows that even open-minded conservatives have, as part of their philosophy, a resistance to dramatic social changes, and in order to get a conservative to change their mind, somebody has to do the heavy lifting of persuading, and Log Cabin’s basically it. Sometimes it’s hard to get their attention, but that’s the nature of the beast today. By contrast, so-called “bipartisan” organization’s like HRC do not have the rejection of conservatives as part of their goals, and their rejection of conservative gays (who happen to be hoeing the toughest fields in gay rights today) is both counterproductive and juvenile. There’s really no comparing the two situations.
posted by dr on
So what have the Log Cabin Republicans done, exactly, other than being Republican? How have they done the heavy lifting of persuading? The only persuading that has happened is by the much maligned judicial strategy which has shown that gay marriages do not cause civilization to implode.
posted by kittynboi on
The only thing LCR does is makes gays who hate Democrats feel better about themselves.
posted by J.P. on
Under Joe Solmonese, HRC no longer describes itself as bipartisan (or nonpartisan).
posted by Randy R. on
LCR doesn’t consider itself bi-partisan at all. I was once a member of LCR, but NOT because I’m a repub, but because I believed that we need to make friends on both sides of the aisle if we want lasting civil rights.
However, what I saw was an organization that was more intent on enforcing groupthink and ideology than trying to get GOPers to back gay rights. Of course, they did try, but too often they accepted from their legislators the standard, gee I love gays and would vote for their rights in a second, but my consitutents back home would have a fit.
So they would say, well, okay, maybe next time, alright? And there never WAS a next time. They were completely ineffectual during the gay bashing that is the FMA.
Simply put, they refused to stand up for themselves, and encouraged everyone to vote republican because, hey, we need lower taxes and limited gov’t.
We can see how far their vision got them.
posted by Randy R. on
But back to the original post — if one-quarter of gay people are voting for the GOP, then why isn’t the LCR using that as leverage to at least stop the gay bashing by their party? Shouldn’t that mean that gays should be accorded some respect?
But in fact, no such respect was accorded to them. The GOP made a conscious decision to court the religious right, who are gay bashers, and since you can’t hate and love gays at the same time, the GOP opted for hating them. And it didn’t hurt them at all, since one-quarter of all gays still voted for them!
So the GOP strategy was brilliant. If you court the gays, you lose the religious right, but you will not pick up much more in the way of gays. But if you court the religious right, you the get the wingnuts AND the gay vote! Can’t argue with success, can you?
If I were the head of LCR, I would have demanded something, anything at all from the RNC in exchange for the gay vote. Apparently, they asked for *nothing!* And so they got nothing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So the GOP strategy was brilliant. If you court the gays, you lose the religious right, but you will not pick up much more in the way of gays. But if you court the religious right, you the get the wingnuts AND the gay vote! Can’t argue with success, can you?
Ironically, Randy R, what you are describing is far more the Democrats’ strategy than it is the Republicans.
Put bluntly, Democrats know that they will get three-quarters of the gay vote regardless of what they do; therefore, they court the religious right, as did their candidates like Harold Ford, Heath Shuler, Casey in Pennsylvania, and others, and thus get the majority of gay votes AND the wingnuts.
Of course, they did try, but too often they accepted from their legislators the standard, gee I love gays and would vote for their rights in a second, but my consitutents back home would have a fit.
In those cases, such as Bush in 2004, LCR said flatly, “Well, sorry, we can’t give you money and endorsements, then.”
In comparison, with Kerry in 2004, Stonewall and HRC said, “Sure! We’ll give you tens of millions of dollars, our endorsements, and our shouts of ‘pro-gay’ and ‘gay-supportive'”.
In short, LCR has demonstrated that, while they’re partisan, there are certain lines they simply won’t cross.
In contrast, HRC and Stonewall have demonstrated that, not only are they partisan, they will gladly support that which is completely opposite to which they allegedly believe, and in a big way.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So let’s see.
The Libertarian Party is derided as “irrelevant” despite capturing an average of almost 9% of the vote for all the elections within which it ran. Our concerns shouldn’t even be considered, we should be excluded from debates, and we should generally be ignored (or so the line goes).
But gay Republicans — who represent 1/4 of the 6% of voters who gays represent — or about 1.5% of the vote — are a crucial constituency which is underrepresented by various groups and which deserves equal time and special consideration.
Hmmm.
posted by Bobby on
LCR doesn’t do crap. Individual gays who are tired of progressives and their antics
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=117415&pubDate=11/7/2006
are voting republican.
But you know what? I’m glad the democrats won. Let them handle Iraq and every issue under the sun. Ever since Bush and his party got elected, the media has been blaiming us for everything, including the ever hateful European media.
Once democrats fail, once the American people see their taxes go up, they’ll vote republican again. Americans have a short attention spans, but with Nancy Pelosi spouting her San Francisco Values, they’ll will learn.
Like South Park says, “America, Fuck Yeah.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
God, I so tire of bullshit old-party cliches like “San Francisco values.” They’re just plain insulting, because they assume that people are too stupid to understand what the user is trying to do to them.
Anyway, instead of whining about how unrepresented you are in the Republican party, perhaps you could spend more time focusing on the fact that the religious right’s back has been broken.
For instance, this gay Republican won a decisive victory despite a religious-right attack. . . which proves that sexual orientation is only an issue, these days, for the religiously insane and closeted sorts who want to cater to the former.
posted by Randy R. on
Uh, Bobby, the only way the Dems could raise taxes with George Bush in the White House (and he will be there for two more very long years) is for Bush to NOT veto a tax increase. If he doesn’t veto the bill, who will you blame them?
As for Iraq, Bush is still the commander-in-chief, and it’s still his war to fight. If he couldn’t fight it well when he had all the poker chips, how well will he fight it now? Bottomline: It’s still his game.
ND40: Actually, I have to agree with you up to a point. Yes, the Dems take us for granted, and we don’t ask as much as we should. We do get more, I believe, than the LCR’ers do, but it’s not enough!
And that’s the crux of my hope: My hope was that LCRer’s and Dems could unite and force the politicians on both sides to pay attention to us, we aren’t going away, we are more loyal than the religious right or other special interests, and we demand to be treated with a certain amount of visibility and respect.
Unfortunately, I see neither LCRs or the Dem-sides reaching out to each other to do just that.
posted by dr on
“San Francisco Values”
You do realize every time a Republican says this, they really mean “being nice to the faggots,” right? There is a reason that they’re saying San Fransico values, and it has nothing to do with Pelosi’s home district.
“Ever since Bush and his party got elected, the media has been blaiming us for everything…”
How dare they hold the party in office to account for their failures! The audacity!
posted by dr on
Back on topic, I’d be interesting to see home any of these voters are casting ballots for Republicans in places like the North East who are vastly different from the national party.
posted by ETJB on
Ah more seneless HRC-bashing and blind love for the Log Cabin Republicans. Both groups are important and do some good and not so good things.
The day after the election (MN voter here), the Republican representative on public radio talked about how the party needs to appeal more to its base and move further to the right. Certainly not a reward for those 23% of gay voters.
Their is a real possiblity that both major political parties will move to the center. Most of the federal Democrats elected are more moderate or even conservative. Yet, if Republicans keep thinking that moving to the right is the solution, gay voters are foolish to support them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You do realize every time a Republican says this, they really mean “being nice to the faggots,” right? There is a reason that they’re saying San Fransico values, and it has nothing to do with Pelosi’s home district.
Or they could be pointing out how “San Francisco values” supports forcing businesses to provide automatic sick leave, forcing owners of buildings to pay thousands of dollars to evict tenants, banning JROTC from schools, and spouting about how the US doesn’t need a military, they can just send cops — particularly ironic when the City is on track to once again break its homicide record and when ten people are shot at the Castro Halloween celebration.
The overriding problem with San Francisco is that it exemplifies what happens when identity politics gets in the way of common sense — and that’s Pelosi in a nutshell.
And that sort of leads to this:
And that’s the crux of my hope: My hope was that LCRer’s and Dems could unite and force the politicians on both sides to pay attention to us, we aren’t going away, we are more loyal than the religious right or other special interests, and we demand to be treated with a certain amount of visibility and respect.
Loyalty does not win respect unless it involves a sizeable voting bloc, which gays are not. And the smaller the voting bloc, the more loyal it is, the more likely it is to be taken for granted.
And finally, you are asking that LCR and conservative gays like myself cooperate with gay Democrats.
Let’s see, they have sold us down the river to their own party, they have associated “gay” with every unpopular concept under the sun, including antireligious bigotry, unlimited abortion, drug legalization, anti-military rhetoric, and contempt for rural and suburban voters, and they have spent the last decade-plus calling people like me “Jewish Nazis” and insisting that, because we don’t vote Democrat, we’re “closeted” and “self-loathing”, even as they pump tens of milions of gay dollars away from defeating antigay ballot initiatives and into the coffers of homophobic Democrats.
No thank you. If I want the respect of politicians, I’ll go earn it myself; what the gay leftists don’t like about that is that it will require me to demonstrate that I am smart, able to make up my own mind, a hard worker, supportive, respecting of others’ religious beliefs, and generally nice to be around — or, in short, getting positions and roles based on my merits, and not on my sexual orientation.
posted by dr on
ND30- I might buy that if every GOP campaign in recent years hadn’t been focused on what an utter threat gay marraige is to western civilization. In the public eye, San Fransico is associated with homosexuality, not with the positions of its city council and unknown beaurocrats. Nice try though.
You’re defending a party which considers the likes of Musgrave and Santorum to be its leadership. If anyone calls you self loathing, it is because you seemingly support a party that is actively hostile to you and, quite obviously, does not consider you welcome.
“If I want the respect of politicians, I’ll go earn it myself; what the gay leftists don’t like about that is that it will require me to demonstrate that I am smart, able to make up my own mind, a hard worker, supportive, respecting of others’ religious beliefs, and generally nice to be around — or, in short, getting positions and roles based on my merits, and not on my sexual orientation.”
I’m sure that Republicans have loads of respect for their gay staffers. That’s not stopping them from throwing them to the fundementalists every 2 years.
posted by kittynboi on
Its very appropriate to be seeing such discussion here since it jives well with whats being said in the other thread on here I’m taking someone to school in.
The thing that a lot of gay republicans don’t seem to realize is that some people, the majority of people behind anti gay movements, actually, hate us so extremely and their hate is rooted in such a way that no amount of ordinary argument, proving ourselves, or so forth will ever convince them of anything.
posted by Greg on
For a gay or lesbian to vote for Bush and his policies would be like a Jew voting for Hitler. Such a voter must hold a great self-loathing in their hearts.
Equal rights for ALL Americans will only come when the politicians and bashers stop selling fear. Bush & Co. are fear mongers. Bush speaks of “saving marriage for America” Hitler spoke of saving Germany. Both targeted a group to fear, initially with great success.
posted by ETJB on
“The Libertarian Party is derided as “irrelevant”.”
In our two-party electoral system third political parties are essentially irrelevant.
“despite capturing an average of almost 9% of the vote for all the elections within which it ran.”
Which I suspect were not very many or mostly non-partisan elections. I dont think that we had any Libertarians on the ballot in a MN partisan race.
“Our concerns shouldn’t even be considered, we should be excluded from debates, and we should generally be ignored.”
I would disagree. I have often spoken up about and worked to change how third political parties are treated.
Well, this is a de facto gay Republican web page, so it is going to give gay Republicans plently of press.
I have brought up the issue of how the IGF treats third political parties, but the issue quickly dies or gets ignored.
posted by SadandBLUE on
My goodness…. I knew there where a whole bunch of self loathing homosexuals . But who knew the demographic would be so high !!!The LGBT community should come to the conclusion that Republicans HATE us. I know the Democrats will through us under the bus if needed but at least they let us on the bus and occasionally will let us set in the front seat . As the old saying goes I know she’s/ he’s ugly but I came to the party with him/her I’m going home with him/her. I’ll take a date with an ugly Democrat over a beautiful Republican any day of the week !!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30- I might buy that if every GOP campaign in recent years hadn’t been focused on what an utter threat gay marraige is to western civilization. In the public eye, San Fransico is associated with homosexuality, not with the positions of its city council and unknown beaurocrats. Nice try though.
That is because, dr, in San Francisco, every decision made is associated with gays. Homosexuality is regularly invoked as a reason for anti-military, anti-religious, anti-business, anti-whatever you can think of measures, and is cited as a reason for people like Gavin Newsom to ignore state and Federal laws and do whatever they want, like marry gays and block law enforcement from arresting illegal immigrants.
Taken in that context, gay marriage IS a threat to Western civilization — because homosexuality equates to being anti-business, anti-military, anti-religious, anti-Second Amendment……
You’re defending a party which considers the likes of Musgrave and Santorum to be its leadership. If anyone calls you self loathing, it is because you seemingly support a party that is actively hostile to you and, quite obviously, does not consider you welcome.
I’d like a definition of “actively hostile” and “does not consider you welcome”, please.
It obviously doesn’t include supporting stripping gays of rights and calling it , on the state OR Federal level, or pandering to antireligious bigots and rewriting your platform on the fly. Indeed, all of this was deemed “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and worthy of immense infusions of gay dollars and endorsement in our last election cycle — tens of millions of dollars worth.
In the book Friday Night Lights, there is a girl who is so desperate to be popular that she is willing to carry the books of football players to class, do whatever degrading thing they ask of her — and she even offers some of them money to sleep with her. The players derisively refer to her as “the book bitch”.
That’s how I see the gay community vis-a-vis the Democratic Party. And thus, I would much rather deal with the likes of Musgrave and Santorum and their open hostility than be the “book bitch” for the Democrats.
The thing that a lot of gay republicans don’t seem to realize is that some people, the majority of people behind anti gay movements, actually, hate us so extremely and their hate is rooted in such a way that no amount of ordinary argument, proving ourselves, or so forth will ever convince them of anything.
It’s always amazing to me how much this kind of rhetoric resembles that of the abusive spouse trying to keep their partner from leaving — “you’re ugly, no one else will ever love you, I’m the best thing you’ll ever get, everyone hates you, you won’t be able to get a job, you’re too stupid”, etc.
As most people know, the key to breaking that sort of cycle is for the individual to assert themselves and recognize that what the abuser is saying isn’t true.
Of course, when that happens, the rhetoric usually ratchets up on the abuser’s part — mainly because the abused person asserting themselves is a loss of power and control on the part of the abuser. They themselves are deeply dependent on their ability to manipulate and command the abused, and being deprived of that would collapse them psychologically and force them to confront their own issues.
Hence, what we’re seeing in this thread — the insistence that “everyone hates you, they’ll always hate you, there’s nothing you can do”, and then the ever popular “Jewish Nazi, self-loathing, oreo, house nigger, Uncle Tom, Hitlerite” refrains.
It’s all an attempt to manipulate and control others — and, in the process, to avoid dealing with the reality of the homophobia, abuse, and hate that gay Democrats have excused and enabled for years.
posted by dr on
I’d like a definition of “actively hostile” and “does not consider you welcome”, please.
How many State Ammendments banning any unions between couples do you need? Yes, I know, Democrats support them too at times. But you’re a liar if you claim that the vast majority of their support, funding, and the drive that gets them passed comes from anyone but the Republicans.
Musgrave called gay marraige the biggest threat to our nation. Feeling welcome yet? You getting hitched is more of a danger then an atomic weapon being snuck in through one of our ports. Hostile enough for you?
“And thus, I would much rather deal with the likes of Musgrave and Santorum and their open hostility than be the “book bitch” for the Democrats.”
But you’re never dealing with them. That’s the problem with claiming to have any place in the Republican party. I’ve yet to see how it benefits gays in any way, shape, or form. I just see “liberals will destroy america” rhetoric. Tell me, how would you lessen the influence of these people in the GOP, when you’re a member of a voting block which you descibe as inconsequentially small? Yes, the Democrats are lousy in regards to gay rights. But I’ll bet we won’t see the FMA rear its head while they the House and the Senate.
“As most people know, the key to breaking that sort of cycle is for the individual to assert themselves and recognize that what the abuser is saying isn’t true. ”
Which we do by casting our lot with the overty hostile party? Continuing your (poor) analogy, that’s like the battered wife going from the guy who might slap her around after he comes home from the bar to the guy who locks her in the house and rapes her nightly.
posted by Bobby on
“For a gay or lesbian to vote for Bush and his policies would be like a Jew voting for Hitler”
—When Bush starts sending people like you to concentration camps, then go ahead and compare him to Hitler.
Liberals are funny, in their world, hanging Saddam Hussein is cruel, having a partial-birth abortion is reasonable, all Christians are evil, all illegal aliens are good, religion is the cause of all evil, science is always good even with eugenics, democrats are the solution to all the world’s problems and republicans the cause of all problems.
But of course, I’m the bad guy because I used the term “San Francisco Values” to describe the values of left-wing global citizens, or SP’s (Secular-Progressives) as O’reilly calls them.
posted by ETJB on
“Liberals are funny.”
Conservatives are evil. Do either such cliche help us?
“hanging Saddam Hussein is cruel.”
Some liberals and conservatives oppose the death penalty. I more worried about how we helped put Iraqi Islamofascists into power.
“having a partial-birth abortion is reasonable.”
They are actually very very rare.
“all Christians are evil”
I never seen a liberal suggest that all Christians are evil.
“all illegal aliens are good, religion is the cause of all evil.”
Again, both statements are little more then partisan slander.
“science is always good even with eugenics.”
Um no. Liberals would oppose eugenics.
“I’m the bad guy.”
I did not say it.
“I used the term “San Francisco Values””
It has a clear anti-gay innuendo to it and you should know it. The GOP leadership certainly knows it.
posted by kittynboi on
So, does Santorum comparing gay sex to fucking animals not count as hostile?
ND30, you have a breathtakingly yawn inducing talent at directing everything said to something else. You didn’t address a single thing I said and instead you just went off with some nonsense about wife beating
Bobby may be a world class moron, but when people asl him why he supports the GOP he at least says its because the right wing issues are more important to him than his own self interest, although he puts it differently. while I don’t think thats a GOOD answer, it is, at least, a real answer.
When people confront you with the issue of how you can support the GOP, assuming you even are gay and not just a troll, all you do is ask how can gays support democrats, and you never directly address what was asked off you.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“San Francisco values” supports forcing businesses to provide automatic sick leave
Gosh, seems those would be Colorado Springs values too, considering that the Republican Party supports all these sorts of initiatives and more.
Lousy excuses.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
gay marriage IS a threat to Western civilization — because homosexuality equates to being anti-business, anti-military, anti-religious, anti-Second Amendment….
What a load of bullshit. No wonder why you guys lost to folks as clueless as Pelosi and Reid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How many State Ammendments banning any unions between couples do you need? Yes, I know, Democrats support them too at times. But you’re a liar if you claim that the vast majority of their support, funding, and the drive that gets them passed comes from anyone but the Republicans.
If you considered people who supported state constitutional amendments banning gay unions to be hostile, Dr, you wouldn’t have given tens of millions of dollars and endorsements to people who supported them.
Given that you do that, I hardly think it fair or intelligent to say that supporting constitutional amendments, state or Federal, makes one “hostile towards gays” — and indeed, someone who supports stripping gays of rights in this manner can even be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as so many organizations lauded Kerry for being.
Musgrave called gay marraige the biggest threat to our nation. Feeling welcome yet? You getting hitched is more of a danger then an atomic weapon being snuck in through one of our ports. Hostile enough for you?
Please. You’re talking to someone who regularly has people openly hoping he kills himself, comparing him to a “Jewish Nazi” or “black Klansman”, and regularly screaming he’s “self-loathing”. Musgrave is a rank amateur in comparison; besides, if you can handle John Kerry saying a ban on gay marriage is “do(ing) what’s right”, which implies that gay marriage is flatly wrong, I fail to see why you can’t get past her statement.
But you’re never dealing with them. That’s the problem with claiming to have any place in the Republican party. I’ve yet to see how it benefits gays in any way, shape, or form.
That’s because you assume that gays are defined solely by our sexual orientation, and only benefit from things directly related to that. Personally, I’m several things — a concerned citizen, anti-terrorist, pro-business, anti-tax, and the like — that I find incompatible with being a Democrat. Furthermore, Republican initiatives, such as the recently-passed pension reform bill, aren’t explicitly gay-oriented, but benefit gays by removing the tax penalty that used to be incurred when retirement benefits were willed anywhere other than to a spouse — and benefit gay-owned businesses by making it simpler to provide employees retirement benefits.
Democrats have gotten very good at using meaningless issues, i.e. hate-crimes legislation, to manipulate low-self-esteem minorities into supporting them. But the simple fact of the matter is that, if Democrats had gotten their way, you would still be taxed on willing your 401(k) to your partner. And, because gay leftists and Democrats arrogantly and stupidly torpedoed a reciprocal-benefits bill that even Focus on the Family supported in favor of trying to ram “civil unions” through an electorate that didn’t support it, gays in Colorado now have the dubious honor of having no civil unions, none of what the reciprocal-benefits agreement would have granted, AND a ban on gay marriage.
Which we do by casting our lot with the overty hostile party? Continuing your (poor) analogy, that’s like the battered wife going from the guy who might slap her around after he comes home from the bar to the guy who locks her in the house and rapes her nightly.
Indeed it is. Only in this case, the Republicans are the first and the Democrats are the second.
You sit there whining about how Republicans all hate us and want to put us in concentration camps, but you ignore and/or make excuses for the fact that, time after time after time, you give money and your undying support to the Democrats and they backstab you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, does Santorum comparing gay sex to fucking animals not count as hostile?
What Santorum said was this:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
And actually, he’s right. If governments have no power to regulate sex in private, then that theoretically applies to whatever act you want to commit in private. As I’ve said elsewhere, the “equal protection” argument invalidates ANY government restriction on sex.
The easy and simple way to deal with Santorum’s remarks would have been for gay groups to make a public announcement that they would support measures, most likely constitutional, that would clarify that not all sex acts performed in private are protected by the Constitution.
When people confront you with the issue of how you can support the GOP, assuming you even are gay and not just a troll, all you do is ask how can gays support democrats, and you never directly address what was asked off you.
I see the point is going right over your head.
Your argument is that supporting bans on gay marriage is overtly hostile towards gays and proves that anyone who does so is an antigay bigot — yet you then proceed to channel these bigots tens of millions of dollars, endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as long as they’re Democrats.
The rationale you give is that all Republicans hate gays.
Since I don’t believe the latter, I have very little reason to accept the former as such — and thus start asking questions as to how you can praise actions in one party that you oppose in the other.
What becomes obvious very quickly is that it’s not the antigay bigotry you oppose; it’s the fact that people are of the wrong political affiliation.
posted by MGinSD on
Just a couple of post-election facts in the hope that they’ll lead to a more informed debate, and maybe even change a few less-informed opinions.
Here in San Diego, gay GOPer Ralph Denney won a hotly-contested primary last June to become his district’s Assembly nominee. Afterwards, he faced a clueless write-in campaign mounted by some of the right-wing GOP losers. Despite their efforts to get local party recognition for their effort, they failed and better, one of these renegades, who had been appointed to the party by a sitting Assemblyman, was summarily removed from that appointment by that Assemblyman when he learned what was going on. Moreover, NONE of these wingnuts were reelected to our committee. And, despite an embittered rag against Ralph by the local wannabe doyenne of gay politics, Ralph won enough votes to exceed GOP registration in his district, thereby entitling HIM to make such appointments, both to the local and state party committees. Let’s see how many gay journals report that story, let alone consider its impact and implications.
In my own case, I sought and received the party’s endorsement for a college board race, over the objections of some of the same write-in’s supporters. It was pretty gratifying to hear the Chairman and other local leaders speak up on my behalf, and made my own eventual loss in the race much more palatable. And yes, for those who put stock in such things, I’ve been out as a gay GOPer for over a decade, both here and in SF, where I won my own contested primary to run against Nancy Pelosi back in 2002. I raised enough money in that race to have to report it, in all its bothersome detail, to the state and federal FECs and most of it came from straight GOPers. And, I’ve been elected by these same GOPers to county committees four times now. So much for the “all Republicans hate gays” mantra.
So consider singing a less-mean tune, kids, when it comes to gays in the GOP and consider putting less than all your eggs in one basket and more in a few others to carry home from market on election day.
posted by Randy R. on
I couldn’t agree more, MG, and I congratulate both you and Ralph on your successes. The trouble is that there are certain people who think that gays have had no greater friend than the GOP. While that may be true at certain local levels, it is not true at the federal level.
The GOP controlled congress since 1994, and has produced zero gay rights legislation: No repeal of DADT, no ENDA, no civil union or marriage rights, nothing. So for those to say that the Republicans are the only hope for gay rights is a little like marriage itself: the triumph of hope over reason. And it basically says that no progress will be made in this new congress that we will have for the next two years.
Me, I don’t want to give up on fighting for two years for gay rights for any reason at all.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What Santorum said was this:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.
And actually, he’s right.
OK, I’ve finally figured it out. ND30 is a Democratic troll, employed by the DNC to make the Republicans look ridiculous.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can’t speak for or about the Republican Party in California.
However, the fact remains that, in Wisconsin:
(1) the vote for putting the “nuclear option” marriage amendment on the ballot was a party-line vote, with all but one of the Republicans in the Assembly and Senate voting for the amendment, and all but one of the Democrats voting against it;
(2) the Wisconsin Republican Party platform endorsed the amendment, and the Wisconsin Democrat Party platform condemned the amendment;
(3) in the rural county where I live, the county Democrat organization cooperated with gay and lesbian organizations to try to defeat the amendment, and the county Republican organization would not even deign to speak to us about it.
It will be a long time before any Republican gets my vote in the future. Why? Because I will not vote for Republicans so long as the Republican Party continues to work against gay and lesbian interests.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, MG, you might also point out that, in California, there were no less than five gay Republican candidates for the Assembly this time around, Ralph included, all of whom were quite supportive of marriage equality.
Equality California, ostensibly the “bipartisan” and “gay rights” organization, endorsed the opponents of four of the five; in the fifth race, between a lesbian Republican and the homophobic black candidate, they chose not to endorse anyone.
Why?
Because the collar around Geoff Kors’s neck says, “If found, return to the Democratic Party”.
And again, to reiterate my point above, Randy R, because of the Republican Congress, if your partner dies and leaves you his retirement benefit, you can now take it without a crippling and immediate tax burden — a modification of law which Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership opposed. Republicans in Colorado offered gays a reciprocal benefits bill that would have granted immediate and quick access to several things that gays are deeming necessary; gay leftists shot it down in favor of a civil unions bill that had little to no chance of passage, and are now stuck with the trifecta — a ban on gay marriage, no civil unions, AND no reciprocal benefits.
Think what could actually happen if you set aside your bigoted notions about gay Republicans and let us do some of the talking, instead of buying into the Democrats’ abusive-spouse rhetoric.
And Tom, I can tell you very simply why the Wisconsin Republican Party takes the attitude they do; it’s because they see no point in wasting their time on pleasing or helping a group that is openly hostile and hateful towards them because of their political affiliation, and goes so far as to call its own members who might side with them “Jewish Nazis” and “self-loathing”.
posted by Casey on
Amazing how short some people’s memories are for politics. Wisconsin, for example, had a Republican congressman by the name of Steve Gunderson for many years, and for the last two of his terms, Gunderson was an out gay man, well-respected by his colleagues in the House, including the Speaker, one Newt Gingrich. Gunderson was viciously outed first by leftist gay extremists and later on the House floor, and yet his constituency saw fit to reelect him not once, but twice, to Congress, where he did a lot of good. I don’t see how those Republican voters would have put in office somebody they hated. Seems to me they realized that they knew this man, knew him a good representative and a well-rounded individual, and thus learned something about what it is to be a gay man. Seems to me there are a lot of people who need to learn that lesson among the current Republican party… and it seems to me that gay liberals aren’t going to ever put in that effort, and aren’t even willing to speak to conservatives whom they know, through shared orientation, aren’t antigay. Explain to me how, exactly, somebody who only sees gays as fighting them at every turn, irrational, wanting to turn everything upside-down but never explaining calmly why such change is needed or warranted, disagreeing with and demeaning everything a conservative holds dear… explain to me how this conservative ever changes his mind about gays?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Gunderson was viciously outed first by leftist gay extremists and later on the House floor
What revisionist history.
Gunderson was outed by the Advocate magazine (hardly “leftist extremists”), but that was AFTER Republican stalwart “B1” Bob Dornan outed him on the House floor as a “degenerate homosexual.”
Incidentally, the Republican house caucus voted against censuring Dornan for insulting a colleague — a violation of the House rules — and Dornan revised the Congressional record of what he said (a common practice).
gay liberals aren’t going to ever put in that effort, and aren’t even willing to speak to conservatives whom they know
Of course they’re not going to — they’re one group of your political enemies. Then again, what are conservative gays doing to reach out to other people?
From my perspective, both conservative gay and liberal gay commentators (with a few notable exceptions) are corrosive, hateful, bigoted people. Just look at all the bile that folks like ND30 are spraying on these forums towards anyone with whom they disagree. To them, honest disagreement isn’t a variance in viewpoints, but rather, evidence of one’s evil and incompetence.
Have gay conservatives *once* reached out to their Democratic colleagues (or to Libertarians, Greens and independents)? No. They launch brutal, partisan, epithet-laced attacks (such as complaining about “left wing extremists”) while covering for their own party members, no matter how anti-gay.
When ND30 persistently complains about the hypocrisy of John Kerry and his supporters on gay issues, he’s 100% correct. John Kerry — and gay liberals who hold him, Hillary Clinton, and other anti-gay Democrats up as saviors of the gay ocmmunity — are hypocrites and pathetic. The only problem is, ND30 and conservative gays like him sabotage their credibility by then endorsing even more anti-gay politicians (and covering for extremists in their own camp like B-1 Bob by not referring to him in a direct mention).
And that simply destroys the conversation, because while they’re right on Kerry, they’re dramatically wrong on their own candidates — and thus any points they make are dismissed as partisan posturing. To make matters even worse, they then launch vicious assaults against EVERYONE (including people who are potentially natural allies or at least tactical ones) who happens to disagree with them on the Iraq War, or government spending hikes, or big government nation-building abroad, etc., etc., etc.
It’s a bit like a man who belches, farts and shouts abuse during dates wondering why all the other men in the club “oppress” him by staying away.
somebody who only sees gays as fighting them at every turn, irrational, wanting to turn everything upside-down but never explaining calmly why such change is needed or warranted, disagreeing with and demeaning everything a conservative holds dear… explain to me how this conservative ever changes his mind about gays?
Because it’s a stereotype he’s thinking of, and also because it’s not my responsibility to bring people into reality.
For all their posturing about being thoughtful, analyzing people, most American conservatives are feeling, reactionary people — much like their liberal “rivals.” They react to a perceived affront, scream abuse at all who are different from them, and then are “hurt and angry” when people rightly dismiss them as the lunatics that they are.
Fans of screaming heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, Ingraham, etc. are in no position to demand that other people help conservatives “understand them.” The fact they’d listen to, and lap up, such transparent crap means they aren’t interested in the facts anyway. Fantasy and demonization is what they “hold dear,” and logic “goes against everything they stand for.”
posted by Bobby on
“I never seen a liberal suggest that all Christians are evil.”
—Do you watch comedians? Almost all liberal comedians have said that statement with different words. You should watch Roseanne Barr’s comedy special on HBO, the way she talks about evangelicals, disgusting.
“Again, both statements are little more then partisan slander.”
—It’s how people like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosy, Bill Maher, Charles Rangel talk. Your leftwing friend Rangel recently called the vice president a son of a bitch.
“It has a clear anti-gay innuendo to it and you should know it. The GOP leadership certainly knows it”
—First of all, it’s stupid to see homophobia where there is none. There’s a lot of straight crazy liberals in San Francisco. Secondly, there’s a lot of gays who don’t like San Francisco or their culture. That’s the city that voted against military recruitment in schools, they also voted to ban the second amendment, and they’re against enforcing immigration laws against illegals.
It’s is a very liberal trait to see bigotry where there is not.
The GOP leadership is not interested in making every issue about gays. As a matter of fact, it’s easier to get people to vote for you because of fear of terrorism, fear of tax increases, fear of gun control, fear of crazy liberals, than fear of gays.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Casey, Steve Gunderson was one of three — three — elected or formerly elected Wisconsin Republicans at the state or federal level who came out against the anti-marriage amendment.
The other two were former Governor Lee Dreyfus and State Assemblyman Greg Underheim, who was the only Republican in the legislature to vote against the amendment.
Governor Dreyfus and Congressman Gunderson are from an earlier time in the Republican Party, a time before social conservatives took control of the party in this state. Greg Underheim chose not to run again this year, so he is no longer in the Assembly.
You claim I have a short memory. I don’t. I am old enough to have voted for Barry Goldwater and I am old enough to remember when the Republican Party didn’t pound the “faggot, faggot” drum for political advantage.
The party has changed. As Barry Goldwater put it, plainly as always, speaking in 1994 about gay rights: “I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter?and sexual orientation shouldn?t. Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn?t about granting special rights?it?s about protecting basic rights.”
I’m with Goldwater, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to vote for a party that no longer stands for Republican principles, just because it bears the name “Republican”.
I look at the Republican Party from a long perspective. I’ll be damned if I’m going to vote Republican just because the current party continues to bear the name “Republican” while it trashes core Republican principles.
You’ve got the short memory, Casey.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Your leftwing friend Rangel recently called the vice president a son of a bitch.
To which, I’m sure that the vice president, in his polite and cordial Christian style, replied by telling Rangel to “go fuck yourself,” as he encouraged another member of Rangel’s party not long ago.
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen.
Goldwater was right. He also predicted the crackup of the Republican Party which has begun now and that will, unless the GOP remakes itself, lead to the death of the Republican Party:
Like I said, libertarian Republicans, this moment is YOURS. What are you going to do with it?
If you walk away from the GOP, it will circle the drain for awhile before disappearing into the sewer of history, and the Libertarian Party will be left with the challenge of trying to become America’s second political party. I can think of worse things, but I doubt that your minds are turned in that direction.
If you continue to give the anti-libertarian elements in your party the support that they’ve never deserved, that they’ve never earned and that they’ve continually betrayed, you’ll go down with them. I sincerely hope you won’t do that. Your movement needs you more than you need your party.
The third alternative is to GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. There’s never been a more opportune time to do so. A libertarian takeover of leadership within the GOP is the only thing that can possibly save it. Yes, your party will take some more losses in 2008. That’s inevitable. But you can minimize those losses, hold the line in 2010, and lead a Republican resurgence in 2012 and beyond.
Mind you, I’m not talking about signing on with placeholders and fakes like Pence and Shadegg until the old “Play for K Street” crowd gets itself reorganized. I’m talking about a full-court press to take over the congressional minority leadership with the most libertarian Republicans you can find. House Minority Leader Ron Paul. House Minority Whip David Dreier. Senate Minority Leader Judd Gregg. Insert your own names, but make sure that you’re sponsoring a real revolution, not just new wallpaper.
In the past, libertarian Republicans have freely applied the carrot, but hardly ever the stick. You’ve stuck with a party that has betrayed you time and again. Sometimes you’ve kept your silence; sometimes you’ve even cooperated in the charade. On Tuesday, the American people — with a little help from the Libertarian Party in places — applied the stick, hard.
Lessons for the religious facists and their apologists (hi ND30 and Bobby!) to learn — if their over-the-top shrill hysteria isn’t working today to prevent a GOP defeat, it will be even less effective in the years to come. You guys had better retrain yourselves and learn a bit more about liberty and diversity, if you want your party to last another 20 or 30 years.
posted by dr on
NE L- That’s a great piece you posted. It summed up everything that has gone so very wrong with the GOP, and reminded my why I once supported that Party. Losing the theocrats might hurt in the short term, but it would be worth it if the GOP started catering to the “Leave us alone” crowd. The sooner the GOP realizes the folly of its paternalistic social policies and adherence to crony capitalism, the better it is for American democracy.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
Comedians tend to make fun of everyone. A good example would be something such as “South Park”, “American Dad!”, “Futurama” or “Simpsons.”
Yet, Comedians are not public policy makers.
“Your leftwing friend Rangel.”
He is hardly a friend of mine. Are you even willing to attempt a civil and bipartisan discussion or do you want to pat yourself on the back because you can quote talking points?
In the 1980’s Republicans called Democrats ‘SF Democrats’ and everyone knew what they meant. In the minds of most Americans SF = gays. The GOP is suggesting that not only do all gays act like the ‘SF Culture’ but are also calling Democrats ‘faggots’. To suggest otherwise is to be smoking the crack pipe.
“The GOP leadership is not interested in making every issue about gays.”
That was their focus in 2004 and the rumblings I hear from Republicans is that they want to do so again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What revisionist history.
Gunderson was outed by the Advocate magazine (hardly “leftist extremists”), but that was AFTER Republican stalwart “B1” Bob Dornan outed him on the House floor as a “degenerate homosexual.”
LOL….nice try.
Michael Crowley, writing this week in The New Republic Online says Gunderson was targeted for “outing” by AIDS activists.
One early victim was the closeted Wisconsin Republican Representative Steve Gunderson, whose voting record drew the aids activists’ ire. At a bar one night in 1991, Gunderson was confronted by the activist Michael Petrelis, who furiously demanded, “When are you going to come out?” Petrelis then dumped a Coke on Gunderson before being dragged away.
But the point is not the facts of the matter; the point is the reinforcement of NL’s bigotry and hatred towards conservatives and Republicans.
Those who read my blog know that I am more than willing to reach out and to accept people of different viewpoints. But because NL has fixed in his brain that bigotry and hatred towards Republicans and conservatives, every action I take is interpreted in that context. For example, I’ve even taken it upon myself to defend Mike Rogers when I thought he was being mistreated, yet NL says I “won’t reach out”.
Lessons for the religious facists and their apologists (hi ND30 and Bobby!) to learn — if their over-the-top shrill hysteria isn’t working today to prevent a GOP defeat, it will be even less effective in the years to come. You guys had better retrain yourselves and learn a bit more about liberty and diversity, if you want your party to last another 20 or 30 years.
Just to make sure no one misses it…..note the irony of someone ranting about “liberty” and “diversity”, but then claiming that people of faith are “religious fascists”.
Not that this is any surprise; after all, the “libertarian” contingent on this post is blowing a gasket because a bus company was able to accomodate a Christian employee’s request not to drive a bus with a gay advertisement on it by — horrors! — assigning her a different bus. Indeed, they’re demanding that the person who made the request be identified so that gays like them can urinate and vomit on her.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That was their focus in 2004 and the rumblings I hear from Republicans is that they want to do so again.
That’s because, ETJB, to you, every bit of opposition you get is because you’re gay.
When antireligious bigots like Northeast Libertarian and his ilk demand that bus drivers who request religious accomodation be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them, you think that people are reacting negatively to that because they’re antigay.
When gays like Gerardo Sandoval bash the US military, then arrogantly proclaim “Welcome to San Francisco” and “That’s the way a lot of people feel in San Francisco”, you think people rebuke and detest those remarks because they’re antigay.
Until you and your fellows stop construing every situation as a matter of “gay”, we will have no progress.
posted by Alex on
I don’t vote Republican not because of their percieved anti-gay stance (DeVos for Michigan Gov for instance) but rather because I do not believe, as the party seems to, that big business has my best interests or that of my communities (poitical and geographic) at heart. I hope to be able to at least reason with my Democratic representatives to pursue a balance between business and consumer / employee / neighbor interests.
posted by raj on
More blogarrhea of the fingers, constipation of the brain, by the known dissembler NDXXX
From the San Francisco Chronicle
STEVE GUNDERSON
The 53-year-old former Republican congressman from Wisconsin, who was publicly outed on the House floor by Dornan in 1994….
posted by LeBain on
My partner and I are both strong Republicans. He voted straight ticket Republican. I normally work my rear end off for local Rs. We live in a very ble city in a very blue state, so it didn\\’t make a difference anyway.
But this year the GOP made my life very easy! I left all the federal candidates blank on the ballot, and didn\\’t lift a finger for any local R this season.
Our R Senate candidate told me he thought the DADT \\”status quo\\” was fine, and would vote to \\”protect\\” marriage. My Rep. is a far-left D, but the next district over is R, where I\\’ve normally worked phone banks, door to door, and donated money. But he voted to prevent my partner and me from dedicating our lives to each other. I\\’m also the R precint officer for my neighborhood, and didn\\’t feel the slightest guilt over not organizing a single thing for the GOP this cycle.
I will still try to find good Rs to support, but any candidate that fails to support basic conservative values (and I don\\’t mean the theocratic values of the far right), or fails to see the value in my relationship will get no help.
posted by dr on
“religious fascists”
They refer to themselves as Dominionists. Look them up. They’re rather upfront about their desire to impliment biblical law in the United States, and they’re working through the Republican party to do so.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/vive_la_resista_3.html#trackback
posted by ETJB on
“That’s because, ETJB, to you, every bit of opposition you get is because you’re gay.”
Um, no, not really no. The 2004 Repubublican campaign against gay marriage and civil unions was a major focus of their campaign.
Until you continue to be blinded to the fact that the Republican Party leadership is clearly out of touch with most Americans, your party is doomed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
claiming that people of faith are “religious fascists”
People of faith are not religious fascists. People of faith who attempt to use the government to impose the tenets of their faith on others who are not believers *are* religious fascists. The Republican Party undoubtedly did this from 1994 onwards.
the “libertarian” contingent on this post is blowing a gasket because a bus company was able to accomodate a Christian employee’s request not to drive a bus with a gay advertisement on it by — horrors! — assigning her a different bus
Yet another BS summary of the argument. If you’ll note my initial response, I pointed out that I couldn’t care less if the bus company was a private firm. It’s not a bus company, it’s a government agency — and government agencies are governed, first and foremost by the constitution. You know, the document that your party was always complaining was getting in its way?
Northeast Libertarian and his ilk demand that bus drivers who request religious accomodation be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them
I never said any such thing. Either retract the comment (complete with a publicly-posted apology both here and on your blog), or be identified as the dissembling, mendacious shill that you are.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Yet another BS summary of the argument. “”””
Do you really expect anything else from him at this point?
posted by TinyBladder on
All the endless talk of Left and Right. False dualities, sad dichotomies, none of it real outside the poisoned mind. Very similiar to the insistence that people are gay or straight, when, far out there on the horizen where conflict no longer exists for conflict’s sake, we are all just human. I voted Republican for New York comptroller because the Democrat is a thief, and I don’t want to be ‘just like them’ – toeing a party line, supporting my comrades on the Left or Right for no other reason than that they agree with me. There’s a reason balance is found at the center.
posted by Bobby on
“The radical right has nearly ruined our party.”
—But of course, more of that centrist bullshit ideology. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone was a centrist, not! Without the radical right, the GOP would be the democrats and the democrats the communist party. The GOP is supposed to be the rightwing alternative to leftwing progressives.
“Yet, Comedians are not public policy makers.”
—Not entirely true. Comedians have huge audiences, they are very influential, specially with young people.
“He is hardly a friend of mine. Are you even willing to attempt a civil and bipartisan discussion or do you want to pat yourself on the back because you can quote talking points?”
—Since when are liberals civil and bipartisan? You insult me and expect roses in return? If you want to be civil, admit that Rangel’s calling the vice-president an SOB was wrong.
“In the 1980’s Republicans called Democrats ‘SF Democrats’ and everyone knew what they meant. In the minds of most Americans SF = gays.”
—These aren’t the 1980s anymore. And San Francisco has been getting kokier ever since. When republicans want to talk about gays, they just do, they don’t use weird words. Besides, most republicans (and democrats) don’t hate gays, they just hate same-sex marriage.
“That was their focus in 2004 and the rumblings I hear from Republicans is that they want to do so again.”
—Stopping same sex marriage was part of the agenda, not the entire agenda. Besides, most democrats are against same sex marriage. But don’t worry, nobody’s gonna pass a constitutional amendment because most Americans don’t want that.
posted by kittynboi on
Yeah, Barry Goldwater is just another stupid centrist. >_>
posted by dr on
“Besides, most republicans (and democrats) don’t hate gays, they just hate same-sex marriage.”
That’s like saying ‘We don’t hate blacks, we just don’t want them marrying white women.’
There are no good, rational reasons for anyone to hate same-sex marraige. The various states and countries with same sex marraige have proved that all the right-wing arguements against it were a load of horseshit. There are only smoke screens to cover that a person doesn’t like gay people.
“Yeah, Barry Goldwater is just another stupid centrist.”
Well, Goldwater didn’t get his rocks off telling people what to do in the bedroom, was against protectionist subsidies, and wanted to slash spending, not play shell games with it. So, yeah, it today’s climate he would be a centrist, if not outright liberal.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
More blogarrhea of the fingers, constipation of the brain, by the known dissembler NDXXX
Again, Raj, nice try:
Michael Crowley, writing this week in The New Republic Online says Gunderson was targeted for “outing” by AIDS activists.
One early victim was the closeted Wisconsin Republican Representative Steve Gunderson, whose voting record drew the aids activists’ ire. At a bar one night in 1991, Gunderson was confronted by the activist Michael Petrelis, who furiously demanded, “When are you going to come out?” Petrelis then dumped a Coke on Gunderson before being dragged away.
Notice two things in that, Raj; “Petrelis” and “1991”. These are substantially different from “Dornan” and “1994” in both space, time, and person. Furthermore, in the linear, non-bigoted universe, 1991 comes before 1994, no matter how much you wish it didn’t.
Northeast Libertarian and his ilk demand that bus drivers who request religious accomodation be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them
I never said any such thing. Either retract the comment (complete with a publicly-posted apology both here and on your blog), or be identified as the dissembling, mendacious shill that you are.
Again, nice try:
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it. But since this is the attitude that you aid and abet, you can take the consequences of it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, nice try:
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it, NL. But since this is the attitude that you aid and abet, you can take the consequences of it.
posted by J GRIFFIN on
I think there are really great discussions on here and I wish we could come together and work towards a common goal of prosperity and justice here in this country.
I also find these discussions so silly. For all your talk about equal partnership rights here in america and how we should work with religious groups to try and change minds..
I think this is a central issue, after all, it could and should be argued that the federal marriage act violates my first amaendment rights because being gay is my religion.
The push against gay marriage and you, the IFC, have been going on and on about stragety. I ask you to engage both the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton. These two men are strongly tied into the religious trends in this country and are both VOCAL supporters of gay rights and marriage equality. The best part about this would be that your social political views here at IGF are so divergent that it would truly be reaching to the otherside, forming a truly bi-partisan discussion in support of Gay Rights regardless of any and all personal political beliefs.
I will be presumptious enough to say, “I can guess what you all think of these two men,” meaning, i doubt you care for their politics very much(should i be way off, i apoloigize) but I like them very much. My guess is that if you were to give either one a call, they would be interested in where this colaboration could lead mostly because it would be such a true caucus of divergent political groups joining for the sake of democracy and the continued health of the Republic.
Think on it…if we can’t come together as adversaries, then have we truly earned the advanced citizenship that is to be American?
posted by Bobby on
“That’s like saying ‘We don’t hate blacks, we just don’t want them marrying white women.'”
—No, that’s having a philosophical point of view. If blacks could ban the confederate flag, they would. Are they evil for doing so? I don’t think so. They’re not different than the people who support gun control or censorship, philosophical fools but people nevertheless.
“There are no good, rational reasons for anyone to hate same-sex marraige. The various states and countries with same sex marraige have proved that all the right-wing arguements against it were a load of horseshit. There are only smoke screens to cover that a person doesn’t like gay people.”
—You speak like a typical leftwinger, any point of view you disagree with, it’s “right-wing…horseshit.” Fine, whatever. Go ahead and read only websites that agree with your views.
By the way, there are gays who hate same-sex marriage, they think gays who get those weddings are nothing more than wannabe heterosexuals.
If you believe so much in diversity, why don’t you practice it?
Maybe the reason many people hate same-sex marriage is because they hate liberals so much that they want to piss them off with at least one issue. And for some people, that’s a very good reason.
“Yeah, Barry Goldwater is just another stupid centrist.”
—Actually, Goldwater wanted to drop nuclear weapons in North Vietnam, and while he desegregated his own stores, he didn’t want the federal government to force anyone to do the same. Goldwater got a lot of heat from civil rights fanatics.
Of course, liberals love rewriting history, that’s why there’s a documentary in HBO portraying Goldwater as a centrist republican.
Hey Griffin, now do you see why we can’t come together?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Are they evil for doing so? I don’t think so. They’re not different than the people who support gun control or censorship, philosophical fools but people nevertheless.””””
Not evil, just stupid.
“”””By the way, there are gays who hate same-sex marriage, they think gays who get those weddings are nothing more than wannabe heterosexuals.””””
So do you support anti-assimilationist gays?
“”””Maybe the reason many people hate same-sex marriage is because they hate liberals so much that they want to piss them off with at least one issue. And for some people, that’s a very good reason.””””
Opposing something just to make someone else mad? That doesn’t seem to rational to me.
“”””Actually, Goldwater wanted to drop nuclear weapons in North Vietnam, and while he desegregated his own stores, he didn’t want the federal government to force anyone to do the same. Goldwater got a lot of heat from civil rights fanatics.
Of course, liberals love rewriting history, that’s why there’s a documentary in HBO portraying Goldwater as a centrist republican.””””
Hey, you’re the one who called his own statement centrist.
posted by kittynboi on
Griffin, you can’t come together with bobby because bobby has a chip on his shoulder.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it, NL
You associated that statement with me, when I did not make it.
You are a blatant liar.
posted by kittynboi on
He’s right, you are a liar;
“”””dalea | November 2, 2006, 12:51am | #
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
Works both ways guys. No anonimity for homophobes.””””
Daelea said it, not NEL.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | November 10, 2006, 5:28pm |
Again, Raj, nice try
Checkmate. Most people for whom English is their Muttersprache–sorry, “native tongue”–know that “When are you going to come out?” is in the future tense. To put it simply enough that even the feeble minded might understand, the speaker, Michael Petrelis, was acknowledging that Gunderson had not yet come out when he–Petrelis–made the statement in 1991. So much for your assertion that Gunderson was out in 1991.
The earliest report indicating the outing of Gunderson (in contrast to Gunderson outing himself) was by B1 Bob Dornan in 1994, as indicated in the SF Chronical article that I linked to above. It was after that , that Gunderson publicly acknowledged his homosexuality. Choose whichever you which as the outing of Gunderson, B1 Bob’s public proclamation on the floor of the House in 1994, or Gunderson’s public acknowledgement of his homosexuality as his “coming out,” but it is clear that NDXXX has presented no evidence that Gunderson was outed or outed himself prior to 1994.
I do understand that NDXXX has trouble providing evidence to support his assertions of fact. I have yet to run across one of his assertions that has been shown to be true. It’s amazing that I even bothered reading his link before he posted the comment to which I am responding here.
posted by raj on
It’s been a while, but–on the subject matter of the post
From a Log Cabin post-election release:
>>>>GOP leaders lost sight of what brought our Party to power in 1994. Limited government, lower spending, high ethical standards and accountability…
Those of us who have been sentient and been following the Republican party for the last 35 or so years know that the national GOP has never been interested in limited government, lower spending, high ethical standards (remember Nixon’s “plumbers’ unit” and Reagan’s Iran Contra affair–the latter of which, interestingly enough, involved Robert Gates, Bush II’s current nominee as DefSec), or accountability.
The LCR must really be naive if they believe the Republican party’s press releases.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Checkmate. Most people for whom English is their Muttersprache–sorry, “native tongue”–know that “When are you going to come out?” is in the future tense. To put it simply enough that even the feeble minded might understand, the speaker, Michael Petrelis, was acknowledging that Gunderson had not yet come out when he–Petrelis–made the statement in 1991. So much for your assertion that Gunderson was out in 1991.
So Petrelis making a public statement to the effect that Gunderson was a gay man in 1991 does not count.
Even for you, Raj, that’s a stretch.
If Gunderson was closeted, Petrelis wouldn’t have known, and he certainly wouldn’t be shouting and confronting Gunderson about it in a public place, which is what a bar happens to be.
You simply are such an unhinged partisan that you can’t acknowledge that a leftist hatemongering gay like yourself was running around screaming and making disparaging statements about Gunderson being gay in a public place three years before Dornan saying word one about it.
You associated that statement with me, when I did not make it.
You are a blatant liar.
You are right that I associated it with you. And I am going to continue to associate it with you until you clearly repudiate it. And it will continue to be entertaining to watch as you attempt every spin and diatribe in the book to avoid repudiating it, because doing so would involve admitting that individuals of your ideology make such pathetic statements.
posted by kittynboi on
He did not say it.
“”””When antireligious bigots like Northeast Libertarian and his ilk demand that bus drivers who request religious accomodation be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them, you think that people are reacting negatively to that because they’re antigay.
“”””
He never demanded any such thing. Someone else, Daelea, wrote that. He had nothing to do with it. Did you not see my post about it?
Everyone can go to the back of the bus thread and read for themselves that NEL did not say it and make their own decisions about your dubious linkage of him to the comment.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“If I want the respect of politicians, I’ll go earn it myself…”
So, in your opinion, gay people have to make themselves acceptable before being able to enjoy the rights to which they are legitimately entitled as law-abiding, tax-paying, community-involved citizens. I’m sorry but there is a little thing that prevents me from adhering to this position. It’s called dignity.
I couldn’t possibly care less if the policitians you are referring to suddenly see the light and accept gay people in their midst. I don’t seek their approval to somewhat validate my existence and self-worth. I am aware of my own individual accomplishments, and even more aware of the collective contribution of homosexuals. As a consequence, I don’t feel the desperate need to fit in, and I don’t beg for acceptance. I prefer to live my life as an adult, and not as a child desperate to win tolerance in some absurd and pathetic popularity contest.
“…it will require me to demonstrate that I am smart, able to make up my own mind, a hard worker, supportive, respecting of others’ religious beliefs…”
As you pointed out yourself, respect is earned, not owed. Why would one be required to express respect for others’ opinions, especially when they have no rational basis? A religion is just a set of beliefs and, as such, is not immune to challenge and criticism.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I am going to continue to associate it with you until you clearly repudiate it.
Then I am going to associate you with politicians making sexual advances on teenage pages until you repudiate the Republican Party.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, in your opinion, gay people have to make themselves acceptable before being able to enjoy the rights to which they are legitimately entitled as law-abiding, tax-paying, community-involved citizens.
Yup. Especially when they advocate this:
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
and then use this as a reason for doing so:
Why would one be required to express respect for others’ opinions, especially when they have no rational basis?
Simply put, since you can’t respect the rights and opinions of others, you are not entitled to respect for your own. And, since gays advocate harassment of and discrimination against Christians because of their beliefs, gays are not entitled to protections against such.
I don’t seek their approval to somewhat validate my existence and self-worth. I am aware of my own individual accomplishments, and even more aware of the collective contribution of homosexuals. As a consequence, I don’t feel the desperate need to fit in, and I don’t beg for acceptance. I prefer to live my life as an adult, and not as a child desperate to win tolerance in some absurd and pathetic popularity contest.
So, in short, you are arguing that you should NOT have to follow the rules and that people should just tolerate you anyway.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I wouldn’t worry too much about ND30’s opinions. He and his ilk are outspoken advocates of members of Congress seducing young teenage boys.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Then I am going to associate you with politicians making sexual advances on teenage pages until you repudiate the Republican Party.
LOL….I will gladly and loudly repudiate the behavior of Mark Foley. What he did was absolutely disgusting, and his attempts to blame it on alcoholism and child sexual abuse were even worse by far. Those who use their position of power to prey on minors, even if they are above the age of consent, are absolutely contemptible and should be delivered to the worst of public vengeance.
In your challenge, though, NL, we see your problem; namely, you cannot repudiate those of your own ideology who make foolish statements because you believe that requires you to repudiate your whole ideology.
I am not bound by such constraints.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Not Mark Foley — you must repudiate the entire Republican Party.
After all, that’s my demagogue’s position, ala your position with me — demanding I denounce an entire group of people, not the individual actions of a couple of people.
Until you denounce the entire Republican Party, as you demand I denounce every libertarian and liberal, I will continue to observe that you support the predatory activities of Republicans who seduce teenaged boys.
Just playing by your rules, “ND.”
I will continue to make the point until you give me exactly the answer I am demanding — just like you’re doing to me. It’s only fair. Besides, it’s high time you and your fellow conservatards got a dose of your own medicine.
With any luck, other libertarians, liberals and moderates will take up the position too.
So again, ND30, why are you an outspoken advocate of Congressmen seducing teenaged boys?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..poor, dear NL.
If you’ll recall, these are the conditions I gave you:
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it, NL. But since this is the attitude that you aid and abet, you can take the consequences of it.
Somehow, you transmuted that into this:
After all, that’s my demagogue’s position, ala your position with me — demanding I denounce an entire group of people, not the individual actions of a couple of people.
To my last post, that’s your problem, NL; you believe that repudiating the statement made by your ideological fellow would somehow require that you denounce the whole of libertarianism, shave your head, and put on sackcloth.
It’s not nearly that difficult. All you need do, as I have said before, is repudiate that statement. Trust me, even though it is a vastly-underutilized skill among gays to criticize the actions of one of our own, it causes little to no damage on your part — and indeed, goes a long way towards enhancing one’s self esteem and the public image of gays. 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertariam on
Why would I care about the rhetorical conditions imposed by individuals such as you and your ilk who ardently defend Congressional predators targeting our teenaged boys?
posted by kittynboi on
ND30, you still haven’t answered me about why you associate that statement about vomit with NEL when he didn’t make it.
posted by dalea on
Since I did make that statement, perhaps I should expand on it. This is an ACTUP strategy. You really don’t have to do it; just say you will. It is my direct observation that ACTUP advanced the cause of gay people more than any other action we have ever taken. It may have been distasteful to some, lots of the people here, but it did work. Also, ACTUP opened up the FDA approval practice in ways that Libertarians had advocted for years. With absolutely no help from the Libertarians.
I am against this practice of using anonymous complaints to discriminate against gay people. If the person who won’t drive a bus with a gay framed ad on it can’t make a public issue complete with name, why shouldn’t the whole matter be dropped. How many bus drivers have had to tell passengers that it was not them who did this? Let the phobes come out publically and make their wild charges and crazy insinuations. Let them do so in the light of day.
In short, we should make it clear that there is a cost to being publically homophobic. No free lunch for haters. People who want to go that route need to see the consequences of their actions. And realize that others will ‘actback’ to them.
Am I clear?
posted by kittynboi on
No, you aren’t clear because no amount of clarity is going to convince ND30 that NEL didn’t make that statement, because ND30 is loathe to admit that he is wrong.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ACTUP opened up the FDA approval practice in ways that Libertarians had advocted for years. With absolutely no help from the Libertarians.
ACT-UP was a mostly socialist organization, and wouldn’t have gotten along with the LP anyway.
no amount of clarity is going to convince ND30 that NEL didn’t make that statement
But why worry about convincing ND30? He is an ardent advocate of Congressional Republicans sexually abusing teenage page-boys, after all.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty
November 11, 2006, 11:52am
Simply put, since you can’t respect the rights and opinions of others, you are not entitled to respect for your own.
Even more simply put, you are never entitled to respect for your opinions. Whether you respect others’ opinions or not is irrelevant.
“And, since gays advocate harassment of and discrimination against Christians because of their beliefs, gays are not entitled to protections against such.”
Why is that? To my knowledge, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a “belief”. On the other hand, given Christianity’s dreadful track record of massacres, persecutions and destructions over the centuries, a case could certainly be made that society has a legitimate interest in the eradication of such a noxious ideology.
“So, in short, you are arguing that you should NOT have to follow the rules and that people should just tolerate you anyway.”
I have no idea what rules you are referring to. I certainly abide by the laws in force, and pay all the taxes owed. That’s why people have to tolerate me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First, to NL.
Next, to dalea, the answer is simple; if you wish to vomit and urinate on Christians, I will gladly support a full license for Christians to do as they wish with gays. If that is the case, gays should be forced to publicly identify themselves, and Christians should be allowed to vomit and urinate on them as they please, with no repercussions.
Since you, NL, Thomas, and others seem bent on provoking a religious war, I think Christians should be allowed to give you one. It’s annoying, but once those of you to whom the mere existence of Christians is “noxious” are eliminated, the rest of us who understand the virtues of tolerance and accomodation will have a much easier time of it.
posted by Bobby on
“So do you support anti-assimilationist gays?”
—Did I say I supported them? I only support the right of people to be for or against same-sex marriage, without people telling them how they have to think or else. The anti-assimilationists are as bad as ACT-UP. Both groups try to get people to think and act the same.
“Opposing something just to make someone else mad? That doesn’t seem to rational to me.”
—Neither does gun control, but who cares? America is all about shifting majorities, get enough people to think like you and you can make social change. Get the judges to do the job for you, and you’ll get resentment. Remember busing? People are more likely to be tolerant if they’re given a choice.
“Hey, you’re the one who called his own statement centrist.”
–No, I said HBO called him a centrist. Jesus, do you even read what I write? Can you try to agree with something once in a while?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Since you, NL, Thomas, and others seem bent on provoking a religious war…
You are certainly free to disregard the lessons of history if they make you feel uncomfortable but the fact remains that Christian beliefs are not innocuous fairy tales. Christianity is intrinsically a dangerous ideology because it is a revealed religion, and revealed religions naturally breed intolerance, fanaticism, and ultimately violence. When men believe that God has spoken to them, as Christians do, there is no place for tolerance. Dissent becomes blasphemy because there can be no contradiction to the so-called “Word of God.” And persecutions and massacres invariably ensue.
Fortunately, there is no need for a religious war as you assume. Christianity has no future, at least in developed countries. It’s already on the way to eradication in Europe. The better educated people are, the less likely they are to become Christians. No war is necessary, just patience.
posted by kittynboi on
Bobby, you called Goldwaters statement centrist;
“”””
“The radical right has nearly ruined our party.”
—But of course, more of that centrist bullshit ideology. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone was a centrist, not! Without the radical right, the GOP would be the democrats and the democrats the communist party. The GOP is supposed to be the rightwing alternative to leftwing progressives.
“”””
The statement that you are calling centrist is something Goldwater himself said. Do you still deny calling him or at least his statement centrist?
NExt, to ND30;
“”””Next, to dalea, the answer is simple; if you wish to vomit and urinate on Christians, I will gladly support a full license for Christians to do as they wish with gays.””””
So, you support the right of xians to do ANYTHING to gays, all gays, because of Daeleas opinion, and Daleas alone?
Even if, assuming you are gay at all, that includes you?
posted by dalea on
North Dallas, I never said anything about christians in general. I was speaking about only one sole single employee of a publically funded entity. Get a grip, and learn to read. All I said was this bus driver should identify him/herself as the one who complained. In which case I would suspect that gay and friendly people would feel free to respond in colorful and effective manners. Why do you keep supporting letting bigots hide?
Quote:Christians should be allowed to vomit and urinate on them as they please, with no repercussions.
Christians do that all the time anyway. So, you advocate no change in the situation? Just more of the same. Amazing how christians can dish it out but not take it. All I asked was for the objector to be known. And to take what comes from his/her objection. ND40, why are you against personal responsiblity?
posted by dalea on
NELibertarian says:’ACT-UP was a mostly socialist organization, and wouldn’t have gotten along with the LP anyway.’
This is not the issue; the issue is that ACTUP was activly advancing something that libertarians claimed to support. And winning a battle for goals the LP claimed to support. To not join in, because the people advancing your own goals do not agree with every jot and subtitle of the LP platform strikes me as beyond stupid. Or even beyond fucking stupid. This finally convinced me that the LP is the party of navel gazers, interested only in groveling before the right.
Here was the golden opportunity for the LP. To join with leftists, which would have shown that the LP is neither right nor left. And would have allowed the LP to reach out to a constituency previously beyond its reach. So what happened? The LP decided to remain safely within its right wing orbit cocoon. Which cements the view that the LP is a strictly right wing loon organization.
Golden opportunity thrown away. Not to mention that this shows the LP is not really committed to the things it claims to advocate. When I saw this issue, I realized that the LP had abandoned Classical Liberalism for the chance of being a Buckleyite stooge.
This pathetic groveling before the right wing powers that be shows why more gay people do not join. The chance was there, the opportunity to stand up for what you claim to believe, along with ACTUP. Who cares what fellow supporters believe? It never matters when they are right wing, doe it? And the decision was made to be a right wing stooge outfit.
The LP is a right wing stooge outfit. End of discussion; it can not be a viable vehicle for out gay people. That is all it has ever been, and all it ever intends to be. When opportunity came a knocking, the LP hid in the closet.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | November 11, 2006, 12:08am |
Poor dear. Some of us actually know how to read. As I said up stream, Petrelis’s comment indicated that he believed that Gunderson himself was not out. Who are you to suggest otherwise?
Believe whatever fantasies you wish to believe. It would be nice, though, if you would be able to support your fantasies with fact, when you are commenting. You still haven’t been able to reconcile the WSJ article that you claimed to be quoting from regarding CEO compensation a few months ago with the report of the study on which the article was supposedly based. Nor have you been able to reconcile a web page that you put forward indicating the number of federal employees with another page that indicated that the number of people in the US military was larger than the number on the first page.
posted by raj on
dalea | November 11, 2006, 11:25pm |
NELibertarian says:’ACT-UP was a mostly socialist organization, and wouldn’t have gotten along with the LP anyway.’
As far as I can tell, ACT-UP was an organization that was pushing for federal funding for HIV/AIDS, little more, little less. If that makes ACT-UP socialist, then virtually everybody, every corporation, every organization, and so forth ad infinitum, is “socialist.”
The problem with libertarians and Libertarians (the latter being Libertarian party types) is that none of them can agree on what constitutes libertarian philosophy. There are the “right” libertarians of the “Murray Rothbard” “natural law” wing, and the “left” libertarians of the LP wing. I’ve chatted with self-described libertarians (small-l) on various message boards, and, quite frankly, more than a few of them can be easily brought to reductio ab adsurdum pronouncements regarding libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism sounds cute, but it won’t work in practice, and, to try to shoehorn it into a semblence of sanity, more than a few of the libertarians make “special exceptions” for libertarianism to try to say something that is not silly.
One last point regarding Libertarians. In 1988 (I believe it was), I voted for Ron Paul on the Libertarian party for president. It was a protest vote, of course–I couldn’t stand either major party candidate. A few years later, we received a letter from Ron Paul. We discovered that he was a Representative in the US House from Texas. And the letter was soliciting funds for the re-election of–for all people–Jesse Helms, the far right wing nutcase from North Carolina. It was at that point that put the final nail in our belief that libertarianism and the Libertarian party had anything to do with reality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Poor dear. Some of us actually know how to read. As I said up stream, Petrelis’s comment indicated that he believed that Gunderson himself was not out. Who are you to suggest otherwise?
Because common sense says that someone who is publicly identified as gay in a bar has been outed. Petrelis apparently knew Gunderson was gay and outed him.
Meanwhile, Raj, while your charges amuse me, they are easily refuted with evidence. You and Northeast Libertarian claimed that the Federal workforce had grown by “over 4 MILLION” people; I demonstrated that that was an impossibility, using referenced sources. Even when you blubbered and tried to spin that that included the military, I laid out, based on referenced statistics from the Clinton era, that such was a mathematical impossibility. What you finally ended up doing was trying to argue that “Federal employees” included people who worked for private companies with Federal contracts — a statistic which even its own author concedes is not an accurate one. Meanwhile, NL, who has one smaller shred of intellectual honesty more than you, admitted that he “didn’t have the evidence” for his claim.
I notice that you failed to link to your accusations. Perhaps that’s because you know that the truth comes out when you provide sources, as I did — and your entire modus operandi is to attempt to gain approval by attacking unpopular people.
Furthermore, given that you’re trying to be NL’s ally, that makes his feigned outrage over Congresspersons who have sex with pages even more ironic. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are certainly free to disregard the lessons of history if they make you feel uncomfortable but the fact remains that Christian beliefs are not innocuous fairy tales. Christianity is intrinsically a dangerous ideology because it is a revealed religion, and revealed religions naturally breed intolerance, fanaticism, and ultimately violence. When men believe that God has spoken to them, as Christians do, there is no place for tolerance. Dissent becomes blasphemy because there can be no contradiction to the so-called “Word of God.” And persecutions and massacres invariably ensue.
Unfortunately, Thomas, the same dark picture can be created of democracy, of capitalism, and of numerous other systems of belief and philosophy, all for one simple reason; people are not perfect, and they make mistakes.
For someone like yourself, who is antireligious and has a strong need for acceptance of his antireligious beliefs, it is easy to paint a dark picture, and there are indeed several salient examples of Christianity being used to justify the most horrible abuses. Yet, at the same time, there are numerous examples of Christianity being used to right some of the most horrible abuses that have taken place in society. Would you, for instance, throw out the abolitionist and black civil rights movements because many of them centered around Christianity and Christian beliefs?
Furthermore, Thomas, the same logic is easily used in reverse. Gays are a scourge to society. They invariably associate themselves with drug use and lewd behavior; they spread disease among themselves; and gays have advocated sex with children. It would only seem logical that gays should have no legal rights or protections.
I view those sort of statements in the same view as I do your antireligious ones — written to advance a personal ideology, and irrelevant to the facts or reality as a whole.
Now, to dalea:
All I asked was for the objector to be known. And to take what comes from his/her objection. ND40, why are you against personal responsiblity?
Actually, I should be asking you that question, given your previous statements.
That actually makes your position very simple. For some reason, you didn’t feel the need to publicize, nor did the manager, the fact that an employee was moved because of her irrational fears concerning a microwave.
That was a wise decision.
But now you want OTHER peoples’ accomodations to be publicized so that you can shame them and publicly humilate them — while you’re covering up for this other person, whose desk move likely had a real and inconvenient effect on others, but who isn’t being forced to take “personal responsibility” for demanding “accomodation” for her own “irrational beliefs”.
So it’s not the accomodation that bothers you; it’s the fact that a Christian was given it. And that’s what makes you a hate-filled bigot.
Christians do that all the time anyway. So, you advocate no change in the situation? Just more of the same.
For antireligious bigots like you and NL, dalea, who try to use the fact that they’re gay as an excuse for it, I think they should be allowed to retaliate against you in kind.
For some reason, Christians are much kinder towards those of us who, even if we aren’t Christian, refuse to use the fact that we’re gay to be intolerant of their beliefs.
posted by dalea on
Actually there was a major difference. The microwave lady, who is a charming and lovely person but a bit goofy about microwaves, was not doing a customer related job. She was strictly clerical. And there was no inconvenience. She simply moved into the office of someone who had retired. No problem, just a little space rearranging. And nothing was ever said.
A bus driver does deal directly with the public. Had the matter remained quietly under wraps, which is what I would have done, there would be no problem. Once it becomes public knowlege, then the person needs to step forward and state their reasons. Do you see all the distinctions here?
Employers need to accomodate all sorts of whimseys that good employees come up. The operative word here is ‘discreet’. The bus company should have agreed to her request. It is not clearly crazy, and can be readily handled. With the caveat that the matter never comes out, never becomes public. Once that happens, s/he is on his/her own.
Are you following the reasoning here? Employers can be very accomodating but can not deal with bad customer relations when the accomodations become known. That is when the employee must step up and take responsibility.
posted by dalea on
For some reason, Christians are much kinder towards those of us who, even if we aren’t Christian, refuse to use the fact that we’re gay to be intolerant of their beliefs.
They already have retaliated, in fact initiate these attacks. At a time when I was caring for my dying partner.In my own up front, personal, private life. I even tried for some years at Bridges Across to dialog with conservative christians. And finally concluded that this is impossible.
Why am I antireligious? I can cheerfully without reservation endorse and reccomend all sorts of churches and spirituality affiliations. United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Unitarian Universalist, much of Methodism and Presbyterianism, Wicca, New Age, Shamanism, Buddhist and Religious Science are all great places for spiritually questioning gay folks. My experience has been that other faith paths have major league drawbacks for gay people. And conservative Christianity in general is toxic.
This comes from my own life journey. I feel that part of our problem is that conservative Christians rarely ever get any pushback from gays. They live in an isolated cocoon where gay voices and experiences are heavily filtered. So, when the bus driver came up with this notiont about the ad, and then made an issue of it; s/he should feel the full brunt of what s/he had done. Why is this a problem?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ACT-UP was an organization that was pushing for federal funding for HIV/AIDS, little more, little less. If that makes ACT-UP socialist, then virtually everybody, every corporation, every organization, and so forth ad infinitum, is “socialist.”
Socialized medicine is socialist.
Christians are much kinder towards those of us who, even if we aren’t Christian, refuse to use the fact that we’re gay to be intolerant of their beliefs
What is this “we” stuff, “North Dallas?”
And another question — why do you and your fellow bigots ardently support Congressional predation of teenaged male pages?
posted by dalea on
ACTUP was also an organization that worked tirelessly to eliminate the bureaucratic blocks that stood in the way of bringing new treatments to market. They worked to simplify and streamline the drug approval process. Their efforts were along the lines, and incorporated the insights and analyses, of conservative economists. If opening up markets, letting consumers make decisions, removing bureaucratic obstacles to innovation, allowing the market to work are not libertarian efforts, then I am afraid I do not know what libertarian means.
I do know, however, that the LP will never ever work with any group who has the slightist hint of ‘liberal’ about it. Even when it is in the promotion of goals the LP claims to want. And I also know that the LP will bend over backwards to accomodate any and all statist authoritarian conservatives. These has been going on for 34 years now.
Soooo, my considered opinion is that the LP is a right wing operation. One that has shown itself over and over again to put its cooperation with the right wing over its own stated goals.
NE, would you please respond to this? Just because you can not support all of a groups action, why can’t the LP work with leftists on the projects it agrees with? The LP generally is conspicuous by its absence from most free speech efforts. Why is this?
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | November 12, 2006, 3:37pm |
Socialized medicine is socialist
ACT-UP hardly pioneered “socialized medicine” in the US. Aside from various forms of direct federal and state programs providing medical care (I’m primarily referring to Medicare and Medicaid, but there are other federal and state programs, the most obvious of which are run by the Veterans Administration), there is also federal and state income tax advantages to certain forms of employer-provided medical insurance (which tax advantages are not available to individuals who purchase medical insurance and medical care not covered by insurance on their own). In addition, much of the medical research in the US is and for a long time has been funded by government, and will continue to be for a long time.
The “libertarian” rather silly mantra “socialist” is one reason why self-described libertarians are held in such disdain.
posted by raj on
dalea | November 12, 2006, 3:55pm |
Soooo, my considered opinion is that the LP is a right wing operation.
A lot of us came to that conclusion a long time ago–not only about the LP, but also about libertarians in general. Libertarians have been referred to as being Republicans who want the right to smoke marijuana.
There are people who claim to be libertarians, but who would not be comfortable in the LP. I don’t know whether you were here when IGF had its blog, but, if you were, perhaps you recall when Justin Raimondo came here to discuss his then-latest missive on gay marriage that he wrote for the American Enterprise Institute. Raimondo is now best known for being associated with antiwar.com, but before then he was writing pieces for the wacky right-wing AEI and the rather silly von Mises institute. In his AEI piece, Raimondo–who claimed to be a libertarian–objected to gay marriage. As the discussion ensued, Raimondo made it known that he was a “right” libertarian of the Murray Rothbard “natural law” sort, which he contrasted with “left” libertarians who inhabited the LP. It was hilarious. What was even more hilarious is the reason that eventually came out as to why he, as a “Murray Rothbard libertarian” objected to gay marriage.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | November 12, 2006, 1:07pm |
You and Northeast Libertarian claimed that the Federal workforce had grown by “over 4 MILLION” people; I demonstrated that that was an impossibility, using referenced sources.
Silly boi. That’s twice that you lied in one comment thread. I never claimed that the Federal workforce grew by “over 4 MILLION” people.
After you have gone through your remedial reading class, maybe you will be able to ascertain that I was taking issue with the claim in your link that the number of federal employees was on the order of 2 million.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never claimed that the Federal workforce grew by “over 4 MILLION” people.
I don’t blame you for trying that maneuver, Raj; the link makes it clear just how much dissembling you were attempting to do to manipulate numbers and make that “four MILLION” claim work. Starting to deny your involvement would be an excellent tactic.
And another question — why do you and your fellow bigots ardently support Congressional predation of teenaged male pages?
That is an interesting misreading on your part of this post — and, given your ally Raj’s continuous support of Gerry Studds and his behavior, an ironic one. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A bus driver does deal directly with the public. Had the matter remained quietly under wraps, which is what I would have done, there would be no problem. Once it becomes public knowlege, then the person needs to step forward and state their reasons. Do you see all the distinctions here?
No.
Two reasons:
1) The employee did not publicize the accomodation — her UNION did. Why should she be held responsible for the fact that her union tried to make a cause celebre out of her accomodation?
2) If this accomodation had not been publicized, how would it have harmed glbts in the least? Indeed, even WITH it being publicized, how does it harm glbts?
Dale put it best; the only harm this does to glbts is to deprive them of the “corrosive satisfaction” of imposing their will on others who they don’t like.
So, when the bus driver came up with this notiont about the ad, and then made an issue of it; s/he should feel the full brunt of what s/he had done. Why is this a problem?
Because it’s preferential treatment.
If you want bus drivers who receive reasonable accomodation to be outed and allowed to be publicly harassed, then gays should be publicly outed and allowed to be publicly harassed.
posted by dalea on
Maybe because unions have a contractual agreement to uphold non-discrimination clauses in their legally enforcable contracts?
You have not responded on the religious issue. Get with it.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | November 13, 2006, 11:39am |
I don’t blame you for trying that maneuver, Raj; the link makes it clear just how much dissembling you were attempting to do to manipulate numbers and make that “four MILLION” claim work.
Poor dear–you still do not know how to substantiate your assertions of fact, do you?
Hint for next time: instead of citing to yourself paraphrasing something that somebody else (NEL) wrote, you might try citing to something that I wrote. You had two opportunities here and here. You cited to neither. Quite frankly, if you had even bothered to read the excerpt that was in the latter, you would have discovered that the increase in federal and quasi-federal employment increased by only 2.5 million during the Bush II malAdministration, not 4 million, as NEL claimed. The latter–“quasi-federal employment”–includes contractors: contracting being a time-honored method of increasing the numbers of people providing services to an entity–governmental as well as private corporations–without appearing to increase the number of direct employees, as I’m sure that any Human Resources guru like you claim to be would know.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Maybe because unions have a contractual agreement to uphold non-discrimination clauses in their legally enforcable contracts?
Those would apply to religion as well, dalea — especially since, under Federal and state law, it is protected. Union contracts cannot violate state and Federal law by allowing discrimination against and harassment of people based on their religious beliefs; however, the fact that this union chose to act in such a fashion makes it obvious that they think they can.
You have not responded on the religious issue. Get with it.
Sorry, but religious protections extend to everyone. You can’t claim that “some of my best friends are….” and then use that as an excuse for continuing to practice your bigotry illegally in the workplace.
And as for Raj, sorry; you threw in your lot with NL’s “4 MILLION” statement. Your attempt to dissemble now and pretend that you didn’t agree with it is completely out of character with your tone and statements in the thread cited. Furthermore, unlike you, I know that your source claims that all employees of any company or organization who receives ANY money whatsoever from the Federal government, be it by contract or grant, is a “Federal employee”. If you had HR knowledge, you would know that contractors and vendors do NOT count as employees, as much as this individual wants them to for statistical padding purposes.
Or, in short, you can roast with NL’s foolish statement now, since you chose to support it then.
posted by ETJB on
The bus driver issue is problematical (sic) because where do you draw the line?
If a Catholic objects to a pro-choice ad on the bus? If an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim objects to an ad on the bus for pork products? They could run out of buses pretty darn quick.
I am sorry, but no one should be urinated upon. Yes, the bus driver may be a total asshole but he was simply given another bus to ride.
He did not say that he did not want to drive gays people around and he did not make derogatory comments to gay people on the bus.
Is this a reasonable accomodation for an employees religious beliefs? Do we have any lawyers in the room?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The basic concept at work, is what’s known as “reasonable accomodation”. This revolves around what are defined as the essential functions of a job; an employee is required to be able to perform them with or without it. However, if the employee requests accomodation and you can make it with negligible financial or other impact to your business, you should do so; failure to do so on your part would expose you to charges of discrimination, especially if the employee were to be fired. If you can’t, however, you are not compelled to drastically modify your plan or business to do so.
To put it in this context, suppose I run a small gift store. Because of our traffic patterns, Saturday is the busiest day of our week.
If I make it an essential function of the job that you must be able to work Saturdays, then I would be justified in not hiring applicants who can’t work Saturdays, even if the reason they can’t do so is religious. But if I don’t require Saturday work of all employees, or all employees of a certain level, I could run into problems if I fired or refused to hire a person whose religious beliefs prevented them from working on Saturday.
In the case mentioned, it was handled very simply and easily; the bus driver was simply assigned another bus, which apparently was no huge issue. If the only bus available had the ad, or switching buses would have caused operational problems elsewhere, then you could start making a business case that accomodating the employee’s needs would cost too much and create too much business disruption — and thus require the employee to make the choice between driving that bus and being terminated.
posted by dalea on
The identity of the bus driver is now known: America’s Best Christian Betty Bowers. Let the driver wear a ‘God told me to hate you’ teeshirt. And carry an honorary first stone. Snark.
Seriously this statement:If you want bus drivers who receive reasonable accomodation to be outed and allowed to be publicly harassed, then gays should be publicly outed and allowed to be publicly harassed.
Gays are already are publicly outed and be publicly harassed. Has been so for as long as I have been around, which is a long time. Let the driver join in the fun.
On religion, my point was that I am a religious person. Why are you jumping on me for being anti-religious?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
North Dallas Thirty | November 12, 2006, 1:34pm
“Unfortunately, Thomas, the same dark picture can be created of democracy, of capitalism, and of numerous other systems of belief and philosophy, all for one simple reason; people are not perfect, and they make mistakes.”
No, Christianity is not a good thing ruined by bad people. As I previously stated, it is INTRINSICALLY a dangerous ideology because it is a revealed religion, and revealed religions naturally breed intolerance, fanaticism, and ultimately violence.
“For someone like yourself, who is antireligious…”
A critical assessment of revealed religions does not make me antireligious.
“… and has a strong need for acceptance of his antireligious beliefs…”
What exactly led you to think that I strongly needed acceptance of my allegedly antireligious beliefs (or any other beliefs of mine for that matter)?
“Would you, for instance, throw out the abolitionist and black civil rights movements because many of them centered around Christianity and Christian beliefs?”
Even though some religious denominations, for instance the Quakers, have been particularly active in the fight against slavery, your claim seems rather speculative. Did they fight slavery because of their Christian beliefs or in spite of them? After all, as far as the Bible is concerned, slavery is AOK. This is probably why the Southern Baptist Convention, which was specifically created to defend this godly institution, didn’t renounce it before 1995.
“Furthermore, Thomas, the same logic is easily used in reverse.”
No, it cannot be used in reverse. As previous stated, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an ideology.
posted by dalea on
I am a strong supporter of natural religion such as De Rerum Naturae. I personally feel that revealed religion is in the ‘space aliens’ part of the spectrum. To believe in the Bible and to believe in space aliens from Venus strike me as equally credible.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The reason I say that you are obviously antireligious, Thomas, is made apparent in this statement.
After all, as far as the Bible is concerned, slavery is AOK. This is probably why the Southern Baptist Convention, which was specifically created to defend this godly institution, didn’t renounce it before 1995.
Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that the Southern Baptist Convention became necessary because the OTHER portions of the Baptist Church specifically renounced and denounced slavery.
Furthermore, do you really want to argue, as you do, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was working AGAINST his Christian beliefs?
The reason I state that you need acceptance of your beliefs is because you quite obviously cannot tell the entire story and attempt to cast doubts as to the intentions of Christians who provide an example to the contrary of your statement of Christianity always causing evil.
In short, Thomas, your worldview requires either ignoring or denigrating those facts which do not fit your argument.
Now, to dalea:
Gays are already are publicly outed and be publicly harassed. Has been so for as long as I have been around, which is a long time. Let the driver join in the fun.
Why should you demand the right to do to others what you oppose being done to you?
It never fails; when given a choice between principles and petty revenge, gay leftists choose the latter.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that the Southern Baptist Convention became necessary because the OTHER portions of the Baptist Church specifically renounced and denounced slavery.”
Actually, I did not mention it because I thought it common knowledge that the Southern Baptist Convention was born out of a secession, which implies, of course, that other Baptists within the Triennial Convention opposed slavery.
“Do you really want to argue, as you do, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was working AGAINST his Christian beliefs?”
We now know that most of Mr. King’s words were not truly his. How are we to argue about his beliefs?
“You quite obviously cannot tell the entire story and attempt to cast doubts as to the intentions of Christians who provide an example to the contrary of your statement of Christianity always causing evil. .”
I’m sure that some day, some place, a Nazi did a good thing. Does that change the nature of Nazism?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, I did not mention it because I thought it common knowledge that the Southern Baptist Convention was born out of a secession, which implies, of course, that other Baptists within the Triennial Convention opposed slavery.
Wait a minute…..didn’t you say this?
After all, as far as the Bible is concerned, slavery is AOK.
And before this?
When men believe that God has spoken to them, as Christians do, there is no place for tolerance. Dissent becomes blasphemy because there can be no contradiction to the so-called “Word of God.”
So, Thomas, you have set up for yourself a contradiction by which you insist that Christians are dangerous because they will never go against the Bible, but then admit that Christians opposed slavery, despite it allegedly being OK in the Bible.
We now know that most of Mr. King’s words were not truly his. How are we to argue about his beliefs?
“Not truly his”? Then whose WERE they?
I’m sure that some day, some place, a Nazi did a good thing. Does that change the nature of Nazism?
No. But it does change the notion that all Nazis were irrevocably evil because their belief system was.
On the other hand, you insist that all Christians are irrevocably evil because their belief system is.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“So, Thomas, you have set up for yourself a contradiction by which you insist that Christians are dangerous because they will never go against the Bible, but then admit that Christians opposed slavery, despite it allegedly being OK in the Bible.”
I see no contradiction. Have you ever heard of the wars of religion? The fact that two tribes rely on the same “Word of God” for moral guidance does not prevent them from interpreting it differently with the same dogmatic assurance.
“Not truly his”? Then whose WERE they?”
Authors he read, authors he heard. Mr. King was a serial plagiarist.
“On the other hand, you insist that all Christians are irrevocably evil because their belief system is.”
Really? When exactly did I say that?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love how quickly these bigots forget when confronted with examples of how their prejudices lead them into contradiction.
Christianity is intrinsically a dangerous ideology because it is a revealed religion, and revealed religions naturally breed intolerance, fanaticism, and ultimately violence. When men believe that God has spoken to them, as Christians do, there is no place for tolerance. Dissent becomes blasphemy because there can be no contradiction to the so-called “Word of God.” And persecutions and massacres invariably ensue.
In fact, you called it a “noxious ideology” that should be stamped out.
And while I would ordinarily applaud someone’s, especially a gay leftist’s, refusal to make of MLK a deity, yours is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of the contradiction you’ve created by denying that MLK’s words and the way in which he used them were his own.
Gay leftists like yourself need to realize that your antireligious bigotry is not a requirement of being gay and that your hate and prejudice towards Christians is your own, not a function of your sexual orientation.
Of course, then there’s no excuse for it.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“You called [Christianity] a ‘noxious ideology’ that should be stamped out.”
No, I only pointed out that “given Christianity’s dreadful track record of massacres, persecutions and destructions over the centuries, a case could certainly be made that society has a legitimate interest in the eradication of such a noxious ideology.” I said a case could be made, not that I was willing to make it. In fact, following your first misrepresentation of my words, I even unambiguously stated: “There is no need for a religious war as you assume. Christianity has no future, at least in developed countries. It’s already on the way to eradication in Europe. The better educated people are, the less likely they are to become Christians. No war is necessary, just patience.”
“An attempt to weasel out of the contradiction you’ve created by denying that MLK’s words and the way in which he used them were his own.”
There was no contradiction and Mr. King’s words were not his. What else could I say?
“Gay leftists like yourself need to realize that your antireligious bigotry…”
Once again, a critical assessment of revealed religions does not make me antireligious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, Thomas, what you are doing does not qualify as a “critical assessment”.
“Critical assessments” start at a neutral position and consider the evidence, both pro and con, prior to making final statements and positions.
You, however, started from the final position of Christianity being evil — and have continuously ignored or attempted to belittle examples of where Christianity does NOT fit your insistence that it invariably results in intolerance, fanaticism, and violence.
You are correct that criticism of religion does not make one antireligious; however, a complete inability to recognize ANY positive aspects whatsoever to religion does — and that is the case with you.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“You, however, started from the final position of Christianity being evil…”
No, I actually started from Christianity’s dreadful track record of massacres, persecutions and destructions and reached the conclusion that it was a noxious ideology based on a dangerous notion: divine revelation.
“A complete inability to recognize ANY positive aspects whatsoever to religion does — and that is the case with you.”
Isn’t it strange that you consider any criticism of the Christian ideology an indictment of religion as a whole?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….and of course, along the way, you completely ignored any positive aspects of Christianity, employing, as we saw in the case of Dr. King, some interesting gymnastics to explain how his Christianity inexplicably didn’t produce the results you claimed it always does.
And as for your last statement, Thomas, you made your hate and distaste for all religions abundantly clear above with this:
Christianity is intrinsically a dangerous ideology because it is a revealed religion, and revealed religions naturally breed intolerance, fanaticism, and ultimately violence.
In short, you didn’t just criticize and attack Christianity; you criticized and attacked ALL religions.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Some interesting gymnastics to explain how his Christianity inexplicably didn’t produce the results you claimed it always does.”
A man helps his neighbor because he thinks his god commanded him to do so; a man kills his neighbor because he thinks his god commanded him to do so. The actions are different but the rationale is the same, and this rationale is dangerous.
“In short, you didn’t just criticize and attack Christianity; you criticized and attacked ALL religions.”
All religions are not revealed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A man helps his neighbor because he thinks his god commanded him to do so; a man kills his neighbor because he thinks his god commanded him to do so. The actions are different but the rationale is the same, and this rationale is dangerous.
Mhm.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the former is much, MUCH more common than the latter; furthermore, the action of the latter would be almost universally condemned by the religious.
If you want to play this little game, Thomas, you should be also demanding the dissolution of Germany as a nation — because, while German nationalism may be a positive thing in some cases, it was also a direct cause for the rise of Nazism.
All religions are not revealed.
Name a few examples that are not.