Out Magazine published a hatchet job on gay Republicans ("Washington's Gay War") by Charles Kaiser, who interviews Barney Frank and other gay Democrats (on how awful gay Republicans are) without speaking with a single gay Republican.
As Rick Sincere blogs, Kaiser's number one example of gay Republicans is closet-case conservative Terry Dolan, who's been dead for nearly a quarter-century. Sincere also notes:
If, like Kaiser and others cited in his article, you are still mystified as to why there might be gay Republicans in Washington or any other part of the country, take a look at the principles of the Contract with America and other published Republican documents. Read Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative . Listen to Ronald Reagan's speech, "A Time for Choosing."
As John Corvino writes, religious right universities are fearful of allowing their students to hear thoughtful arguments for gay equality. But it is also true that the liberal left's academic hothouses have worked diligently to snuff out any hint of an encounter with ideological diversity. So perhaps it's of little wonder that LGBT "progressives" like Kaiser no longer know how to confront opposing ideas through argument that is both reasoned and passionate. Instead, mockery of non-liberals, aimed at fellow true believers in big government social engineering through an increasingly regulatory, redistributionist state, holds sway.
43 Comments for “Giving One-Sidedness a Bad Name”
posted by Charles Wilson on
A liberal think tank’s refusal to hire a wingnut or publish that output is completely unconnected to the Republican Party’s institutional homophobia.
The Republicans have fag-baited since the 1980s, and it reached a fever pitch in the elections since 2000. All of this happened while a steady stream of closeted wingnuts have been forced out of the woodwork.
In spite of everything that’s happened, there is no change within the Republican Party. They hate gay peoples’ guts. Always have, always will. That’s why you could hold a Log Cabinette conference in a telephone booth.
posted by Bobby on
It sorts of like the TV show Boston Legal, which keeps getting more left-wing as time goes by. In the begining, the character of Denny Crane made sense once in a while, now he never does, the show is nothing more than a platform for the character of Alan Shore to express his leftwing values. And what did Denny do? He farted. He didn’t even get to make incoherent arguments, just fart, drink, and whore around, while Alan railed against every member of the supreme court, a character on TV insulting real living people without giving them a chance to defend themselves, without even writing some intelligent lines.
The writers of Boston Legal are out of touch with reality, they can’t debate conservative ideas so they simply ignore them. Kaiser does the same.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Charles Wilson wrote, “That’s why you could hold a Log Cabinette conference in a telephone booth.”
Really? Is that why one-fourth of self-identified gay voters vote Republican according to exit polls?
As an open-minded Democrat who has worked amicably with Log Cabin folks for years (and written several articles for their centrist think tank), I do not understand why disagreeing with people (and obviously I do to some extent with Log Cabin or I would not be a Democrat) requires insulting and scorning them. What is the point of talking as if any positions and priorities that disagree with ours are not just wrong but beyond the pale? It is long past tiresome for Democratic partisans to write these kinds of blatantly slanted pieces purporting to illuminate gay Republicans without bothering to talk to them. If dissing them could magically make them all disappear, I could see the point. But Kaiser and others who sympathize with these kinds of hatchet jobs should have figured out by now that gay Republicans have not disappeared. The fact that the cheap insults are still going on after all these years is just pathetic. I am not a Republican and have no interest in being a Republican, but I can respect the different choice made by others who wish to push for change from within the GOP. That seems to me a perfectly legitimate choice, albeit different from my own. Is the reasonableness of that outlook really so hard to grasp?
posted by Charles Wilson on
I think the only cheap insults are the ones that the Republican Party throws at gay people time and time again. It has gotten worse, not better, since the Log Cabinettes have appeared on the scene. By contrast, the Democratic Party has become much better on gay issues over the years.
Let’s see if the Log Cabinettes can go to work on the habit of the their beloved Republican Party to fag-bait every election with whatever tool seems best adapted to it, the latest being the gay marriage scare.
Someone has to tell the truth about the Republican Party. The only gay people allowed in the Republican Party are those who’ll agree to be both closeted and silent while that crap goes on. It’s ludicrous for gay people to offer anything but scorn for that stuff.
posted by Bobby on
“The only gay people allowed in the Republican Party are those who’ll agree to be both closeted and silent while that crap goes on.”
—What about Jim Kolbe? He was an openly gay senator from Arizona, politically he was in the center-right arena.
What about Tammny Bruce? She’s a lesbian libertarian republican, I’ve seen her in the O’Reilly factor many times.
True, the GOP doesn’t welcome gays with open arms, they’re not into identity politics, democrats on the other hand LOVE identity politics and exploit them to their advantage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Charles, your response showed that you are not paying serious attention.
Why is it so obvious that it makes no sense for gay Republicans to stay in that party on account of their not being welcome? The same argument could be used against gay Catholics, or for that matter gay Americans 40 or 50 years ago. Why stay and fight when you are not welcome? Because those gay people felt it was their party/faith/country too, and they chose to stand their ground rather than being chased away. That is the more difficult path to choose, and deserves respect rather than scorn, it seems to me.
The problems within the GOP, from a gay perspective, are the very reason why pro-gay advocates are needed within the party. As I have said, it’s not my bag, but I don’t see any need to knock gay Republicans just because they make a different choice than I.
As for some gay Republicans making excuses for Republican politicians who are problematic on particular gay issues, Steve has pointed out many times the exact same sin being practiced by gay Democrats with no similar choruses of denunciation. The fact that Democrats in general are far better on gay issues than Republicans does not justify such double standards. To the contrary, that fact should make special treatment for Democrats unnecessary.
The bottom line from a practical viewpoint is that some gays feel greater affinity with the GOP for ideological reasons having nothing to do with sexual orientation. Given that they don’t share your non-gay-related political views, Charles, why should they have to shoehorn themselves into a party whose views (say, on economic and regulatory issues) they don’t like? What’s the harm of recognizing the true diversity of the gay community? Conversely, what is liberating in an approach that declares one set of views sacrosanct and demonizes any who stray from it?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Richard, it’s one thing to agitate for change, but it’s another to be complicit with Republican fag-baiting in the hope that someday they won’t be so mean. But even if they do that, the least they could do is acknowledge that the Republican Party has a rotten record, and one that is getting worse not better.
They could also speak out on the long string of hypocrisy that has enveloped the Republican Party on this issue. Instead, they say nothing at all.
I actually agree that the Republican Party’s economic libertarianism is, in the abstract, something that could be attractive to entrepreneurial gays. Sort of like German fascism could have been (and probably was) attractive to some Jews who owned big companies in the ’20s.
But when the party loathes your very existence and uses it as a cudgel to gain the votes of yahoos who want you dead, I’d say it’s time to split. All the “loyalty” in the world from the Log Cabinettes isn’t going to get them anywhere; after all, the director of the National Conservative PAC, Terry Dolan, was fairly overtly gay back in the ’80s.
When it was convenient, the Republicans threw Dolan under the bus, just as they’ll throw every other homosexual under the bus, from David Dreier to Larry Craig to Lindsay Graham. Oops, I guess we’re not supposed to name names. It’s still 1957 in these here parts, right?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Charles Wilson wrote, “Instead, they say nothing at all.”
First you said they could all fit in a phone booth, now you claim they say nothing. False and false. Before you make these sweeping characterizations, it would help if you showed some sign of knowing what you are talking about. Again, my larger point is that the one-quarter of gays who vote Republican are not going away, so you might as well face reality and decide to deal with these people more seriously than simply dismiss, mock, and insult them.
posted by Richard on
Yawn. Many people on the political right do not have much tolerance for dissent and the same thing can be said of people on the political left.
The ‘gay press’ does not show much interest in reporting on gay people who are members of a third party either. Heck, gay Republicans are probably given more press then gay Greens, Libertarians…
posted by RIchard on
Point 1: America has a ‘weak party system’. What does this mean? Well, it means that it is hard to hold members or candidates to the party platform.
A gay citizen can — in theory — belong to either major party — probably — vote in either party primary.
Yet, a gay Republican is probably not going to have much say in the implemention of the party platform or formal policy decisions and will be supported only when the party really wants to win a traditionally urban, socially liberal district.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Again, my larger point is that the one-quarter of gays who vote Republican are not going away, so you might as well face reality and decide to deal with these people more seriously than simply dismiss, mock, and insult them.
These people are dismissed, mocked, and insulted day in and day out by their “friends,” so I don’t feel any need to be particularly nice to them when their Republican loyalty causes gay people nothing but harm.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Charles, your reference to “their Republican loyalty” and to their scare-quoted “friends” suggests a naive view of the reasons for activists joining a particular party. It is not about loyalty to friends, it is about advancing policy goals. As to the resistance the Log Cabiners face, they never said they expected the struggle to be quick and easy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I’m wondering if the folks at Out magazine even comprehend the one-sidedness of their article; let alone how it confirms they are nothing but a mouthpiece for the media-hungry, validation-deprived GayLeft press. Someone in the comments section for the article asked: “When did Out change its name to OutDemocrat”?
Out, 365, Gay.com, Advocate and others have long sought to use their media platforms to either advance the Democrat Party agenda or explain away missteps of Democrats onto the corpse of gay political interests. Like when ScreaminHowieDean axed gay staffers, axed the DNC budgeted gay office and made it clear by speaking with the 700Club that gays wouldn’t control HIS party… gay media outlets like Out magazine prove that pimping ain’t just for the ho’s. Out didn’t take ScreaminDean to task… they shilled for the Master.
Toss ’em a biscuit.
posted by Charles Wilson on
It is not about loyalty to friends, it is about advancing policy goals. As to the resistance the Log Cabiners face, they never said they expected the struggle to be quick and easy.
The Log Cabinettes have existed since 1977. At that time, there were plenty of Republican moderates. Since then, the Republican Party has moved steadily against gay people in every respect.
Any progress made by gays in the political arena has been through the efforts of people outside of the Republican Party, which hates gay people and would rather see them dead.
posted by Charles Wilson on
he Democrat Party agenda or explain away missteps of Democrats onto the corpse of gay political interests. Like when ScreaminHowieDean axed gay staffers, axed the DNC budgeted gay office and made it clear by speaking with the 700Club that gays wouldn’t control HIS party… gay media outlets like Out magazine prove that pimping ain’t just for the ho’s. Out didn’t take ScreaminDean to task… they shilled for the Master.
Spoken like the real “moderate” you claim to be. What a transparent liar you are.
posted by Jorge on
Being a gay Republican is nothing compared to being a pro-choice Catholic.
posted by Bobby on
You don’t get it, Charles Wilson, real gay republicans, not the ones at LCR but the ones beyond the narrow agenda of LCR, care about other things aside gay rights. We have other concerns. We’re similar to black republicans who don’t think civil rights are a #1 priority. As for Larry Craig, you don’t have to be a homophone to hate him. I hate him for being a liar, a hypocrite, a wife cheater, and the kind of pervert that would have sex in a bathroom. If it was up to me, I would have him castrated.
The GOP does tolerate gays, gays who are openly gay from the get go and don’t go around sending obscene IM’s, bringing hookers to their offices, harassing pages or having sex in bathrooms. And before you call us intolerant, remember that Spitzer was betrayed by his own democratic party after the hooker scandal came to the surface.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson whines: “Any progress made by gays in the political arena has been through the efforts of people outside of the Republican Party, which hates gay people and would rather see them dead.”
Ahhh, and now we’re back to ChasWilson’s favorite conspiracy complaint… the GOP leadership is working with the WH to set up gay concentration camps in Idaho and kill off all the gays, just like Hitler tried to do to the Jews. Ahh, yes.
I wonder if these guys have str8 faces when they offer this nonsense up for consumption?
RichardR, ChasWilson has written before that gay GOPers have acted like Jewish informants in Warsaw… selling members of their own community to the German murder machine for nothing more than a piece of bread or a pass for the day… and his rabid response to your reasoned reply underscores the open and nearly indecent contempt he has for any gay who ascribes to GOP principles.
With that level of hateful spite, reason isn’t going to work. Facts will have no sway. He proves that point time and again.
You’re right in the notion that many gays who join the GOP do so for policy reasons and, maybe, the central core issues that bring them there aren’t about gay politics. I have yet to meet a gay GOPer who joined because gay marriage animated his/her political activism. And I have yet to meet a GOPer who is openly hostile to me or my partner or my family. BUt I’ve met plently of GayLefties who are intolerant to the max, to my face… (paging ChasWilson, paging ChasWilson; stand up and be credited)
What draws gay GOPers to the Party of Lincoln is usually about lower taxes, smaller govt, conservation of the enviroment, restoring trust in our institutions, patriotism, supporting the WOT and our troops, preserving American values or a mixture of other issues.
posted by Richard on
If GOP Queers do not have a high value on their rights, then it does defeat the argument that they can some how change their party’s views.
posted by Charles Wilson on
now we’re back to ChasWilson’s favorite conspiracy complaint… the GOP leadership is working with the WH to set up gay concentration camps in Idaho and kill off all the gays, just like Hitler tried to do to the Jews. Ahh, yes.
Interesting that Michigan Matt, who has lied about being a “moderate,” should mention this. In fact, Mike Huckabee, the second-place finisher for the Republican presidential nomination, wanted to quarantine people with HIV.
RichardR, ChasWilson has written before that gay GOPers have acted like Jewish informants in Warsaw… selling members of their own community to the German murder machine for nothing more than a piece of bread or a pass for the day
I never wrote that, or anything remotely resembling that. Once again, Michigan Matt the fake “moderate” stoops to telling wingnut lies.
As for the rest, Michigan Matt parades his partner and their adoption of kids as a sort of street cred here, but overlooks his rants against gay marriage, not to mention these choice words regarding the attempted murders of four people in a gay bar.
posted by Charles Wilson on
True, the GOP doesn’t welcome gays with open arms, they’re not into identity politics
You’d better tell that to the “identity politicians” at Malcontent, who want everyone to donate their federal tax rebate to the campaign of a Log Cabinette city council candidate. Ha!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Matt wrote, “And I have yet to meet a GOPer who is openly hostile to me or my partner or my family. BUt I’ve met plently of GayLefties who are intolerant to the max, to my face…”
Yes, Chief Justice Rehnquist was quite friendly with the gay couple who were his neighbors. A prominent right-wing judge is quite nice to his gay nephew. And so on. In my experience they do tend to be nicer to your face than the far-lefties are. But they have been much more effective in pushing and upholding anti-gay policies than the self-marginalizing left has been at implementing their own policy goals.
posted by Charles Wilson on
But they have been much more effective in pushing and upholding anti-gay policies than the self-marginalizing left has been at implementing their own policy goals.
I’d say that, with respect to gay issues, the “self marginalizing left” has been pretty damn successful over the years. The Log Cabinettes, on the other hand, have proven to be an abysmal failure in every respect.
Well, maybe not in every respect. I understand that Rep. David Dreier makes a mean apple martini. At least the man is good for something. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RichardR, I just wonder about the latter part of your statement.
For instance, here in Michigan, when the constitutional amendment to prohibit SSM was moving through the initiative stage, the Democrats had language added that effectively also banned civil unions and domestic partnership agreements from being considered -sort of- the equivalent of SSM benefits.
The Dems did that to us. In their defense, they thought it would bring legions of opponents to the ban out into the streets because several large urban areas had DP programs in place.
The ban won 61-39%… the same percentage that approved an anti-affirmative action proposal the following cycle.
When it came time to fight the SSM ban, the Democrats like Granholm, Levin, Stabenow, et al were AWOL. They were front and center -complete with aging Democrat leader Rep John Dingell’s wife- in fighting the anti-affirmative action proposal, even after it passed.
I don’t know that the GOP is more destructive to our interests. I think there’s a socialRight within the GOP that’s hijacked the Party for their agenda… but I’m not sure they’re worse than the Democrats.
It’s why, frankly, getting the nomination into McCain’s hand means so much to a large group of us centrist GOPers… maybe we can finally break the back of the socialRight within the GOP and get the Party back to its moderate tradition.
Honest, I haven’t been smoking anything today… I’m a runner and that wouldn’t be good for shaving :18 off my 6 mile run.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If GOP Queers do not have a high value on their rights, then it does defeat the argument that they can some how change their party’s views.
Or maybe we’re simply a bit more aware of the unusual definition of “rights” you’re using.
Right now, if a heterosexual is attacked because of their sexual orientation, there’s no “hate crimes” enhancement, additional prosecution money, or Federal involvement.
Right now, if you fire a heterosexual because of their sexual orientation, there’s no “discrimination” charge.
Right now, if a heterosexual wants to marry someone of the same gender, they can’t; they can’t even marry whatever they want to have sex with, especially if that whatever is underage, already married, related to them, or of a different species, no matter how much they “love” them.
And yet, somehow, heterosexuals get along swimmingly, despite being denied all these “rights”.
You could learn something from that, Richard (not Rosendall).
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Matt wrote, “I think there’s a socialRight within the GOP that’s hijacked the Party for their agenda… but I’m not sure they’re worse than the Democrats.”
Well, my goodness, the congressional voting record alone is extensive. Take the House vote on Barney Frank’s gay-only version of ENDA last November 5. (I’m going by memory in this paragraph, so the dates and numbers could be slightly off.) The bill passed, with about 35 Republicans voting in favor. The GOP leaders did not just oppose the bill on its merits, they tried a series of procedural maneuvers to kill it. But they were up against the Gentleman from Massachusetts in one of his finest moments, and they lost.
“It’s why, frankly, getting the nomination into McCain’s hand means so much to a large group of us centrist GOPers… maybe we can finally break the back of the socialRight within the GOP and get the Party back to its moderate tradition.”
I wish you luck on that (but not this year, as I am an Obama man).
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, as someone who hangs around libertarians more than the average gay activist (hello, I’m a contributor to IGF), I am well aware that there are gay people who oppose ENDA-type bills for perfectly honorable (if in my view misguided) reasons. But unless you are actively opposing all employment-discrimination laws–which is to say, trying to repeal them–it lacks ideological consistency to single out gay people by only opposing ENDA. Personally, ENDA is not highest on my list of priorities (DADT is higher, for one). I suspect that ENDA’s protections would be mostly prophylactic, preventing a certain amount of discrimination by stigmatizing it and by giving attorneys plausible backing to their threats of lawsuits against discriminatory employers.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But unless you are actively opposing all employment-discrimination laws–which is to say, trying to repeal them–it lacks ideological consistency to single out gay people by only opposing ENDA.
Not particularly.
Race and gender are protected because they are obvious and immediate traits — plus the backing of multiple Constitutional amendments in terms of both.
Religious belief, despite not being an obvious or immediate trait, is protected because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religious expression.
Furthermore, given that heterosexuals may with perfect right be fired for what constitutes private sexual conduct, I fail to see why any other group should receive legal protection for its private sexual conduct.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Furthermore, given that heterosexuals may with perfect right be fired for what constitutes private sexual conduct, I fail to see why any other group should receive legal protection for its private sexual conduct.
Don’t those Log Cabinettes just love themselves?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hmmm…..so if I don’t support special privileges for myself based on my sexual orientation that straight people don’t get, I’m “self-hating”.
This is, I suppose, how Charles Wilson and his fellow Democrat gays like Bonnie Bleskachek and James McHaney justify to their Democrat employers their private sexual conduct.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The really scary think is that North Liar Forty is a personnel puke in San Francisco. Just imagine if a self-hating Republican closet case like him actually had the power to fire people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. He’d be a regular J. Edgar Hoover.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Something else: If North Liar Forty is going to cherry-pick one unbalanced Democrat’s craziness and use it to smear the whole group, then I’d guess the Republicans provide what we might call a target-rich environment.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(snickers) I do have that power. However, I wouldn’t, just as I wouldn’t fire someone for being heterosexual, because that in and of itself simply isn’t relevant to their job performance.
The problem is, Charles Wilson, people like you, Bleskachek, and McHaney think what gets you in trouble at work is your “sexual orientation” — and thus, you want laws passed that make it impossible to fire a gay person regardless of their behavior.
I treat gay employees exactly the same as I do straight employees — keep the rules and you’re fine, break them and you’re gone. No special privileges regardless of sexual orientation.
That really bothers you, doesn’t it? It upsets you that I don’t give special treatment to other gay people, doesn’t it?
posted by Colin on
It isn?t only religious right universities which are fearful of allowing their students to hear thoughtful arguments for gay equality. One of the terms of service of the forums on Crosswalk.com (The Intersection of Faith and Life) states ?Refrain from making statements or URLs which promote the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle, adult entertainment, sexual immorality or pagan and false religions?.
posted by Richard on
A civil right law that includes sexual orientation, or race, or gender, or religion does not over ride BJQ.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I do have that power. However, I wouldn’t, just as I wouldn’t fire someone for being heterosexual, because that in and of itself simply isn’t relevant to their job performance.
There is only one reason for that: the law that prohibits you from doing it. You’d like nothing better than to be able to fire gay people for not being “straight acting.” Or whatever.
posted by Bobby on
“You’d like nothing better than to be able to fire gay people for not being “straight acting.”
—-Nobody likes a screaming queen, Charles, specially in a corporate setting. The same standard applies for African-Americans, those who sound like Colin Powell tend to do better than the ones that sound like Moesha or the ones who sound more ghetto.
I think an effeminate gay can be tolerated in a corporate setting, but he has to be very good at what he does.
Sometimes southerners face the same problem, there are people who discriminate against southern accents, and think people with such accents are stupid.
Besides, at-will employment allows discrimination. All you have to do is find an excuse to fire someone. Want to fire a gay queen? Say he has conflicts with other employees, find a spelling mistake in his work, say “it’s not working out.”
Besides, there was a gay in my office I would have loved to fire. He never said hello to me, always ignored me, he was such a bitch. And maybe none of that was related to his work performance, but if I had been the boss, I could have fired him for those reasons.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Besides, at-will employment allows discrimination. All you have to do is find an excuse to fire someone. Want to fire a gay queen? Say he has conflicts with other employees, find a spelling mistake in his work, say “it’s not working out.”
All of this works only if you’re a liar who doesn’t care about the law. Which, if you’re North Liar Forty, is about the size of it.
posted by Bobby on
“All of this works only if you’re a liar who doesn’t care about the law.”
—Well Charles, people lie, sometimes they like to themselves. “Oh, we didn’t fire Jack for being gay, no, we have no problems with gay people, but you know, he wasn’t a team player.” I have met so many people that make homophobic statements and then say they have no problems with gays.
And I met them in the theoretically gay friendly advertising environment. I heard that in the world of financial traders for example, the homophobia can be brutal.
As for caring about the law, I think most people care about themselves and their needs first. The only thing that can really protect workers is labor unions, then it’s almost impossible to fire anyone. But labor unions don’t exist in our white collar world.
So I’m sorry to say that if they want to fire gays, blacks, old people, fat people, ugly people, whatever, they’ll find a way.
posted by Charles Wilson on
So much for corporate Republicans and their precious “rule of law.” It reminds me of like Michigan Matt, who parades himself as a “moderate” when in fact he’s a drooling wingnut.
posted by Delfin Ramirez on
All the previous comments have been truly entertaining. It has been my experience that true strides in equality have been made under Republicans and not Democrats. The key here is that Republicans, in general, are more defined in their views and when subjects like “equal protection under the law” are discussed they do not and cannot hide. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to run for cover and then peek out when the shooting stops. Respect for other people’s views should be on the same plane as commenting on someone’s fashion sense. I have been a Republican all my life and do not regret one minute of it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well written Delfin. My experience parallels that described.
posted by Alan on
I am a GOPer who isn an American queer and joined because marriage has animated my political activism. Also don’t ask don’t tell. Of cource I belong to the Log Cabin. They have there act together.