Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley is "too busy" to meet with a group of children of gay parents. O'Malley, a Democrat, courted gay votes during his 2006 campaign for governor, including at Pride events, and received support from LGBT activists. But, as the Washington Blade story reports,
after moving to Annapolis, O'Malley last year greeted a court ruling upholding Maryland's ban on same-sex marriages by noting the state shouldn't tell "any faith how to define its sacraments."
Many Maryland LGBTers opposed the re-election of moderate GOP Gov. Bob Ehrlich, citing Ehrlich's lack of support for gay marriage.
More. (Moved up from below) Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.
21 Comments for “Unsurprising Result of LGBT ‘One Party’ Strategy”
posted by Jim on
Can anyone name one thing that the Republican party has done to further the cause of gay equality? Citing heterodox (and, don’t get me wrong, admirable and laudable) moves by “mavericks” like McCain and Schwarzenegger don’t count, precisely because they are heterodox.
posted by Richard II on
Again, one kmight call certain people here, third party-phobic or an anti-independentit.
Most Democrats and Republicans are probably going to shy away from gay marriage, unless public opinion changes.
The more relevant question is what degree of legal equity do they support?
Also, their are probably more socially conservative, anti-gay evangelical Chrsitians as a voter class then their are gay voters. Why would GOP abandon one for the other?
posted by Adrienne Critcher on
What a ridiculous question:
“Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans?”
I am not aware of any move by gays to ban Republican marriage, to prevent Republicans from adopting children or serving as foster parents, to keep Republicans from serving in the military or to spreading stigmatizing lies about Republicans.
posted by Jim on
Adrienne is completely right. It’s a preposterous question. Remember that every time you meet a Republican critic of Lawrence v. Texas (a completely middle-of-the-road for Republicans and others with a “conservative judicial philosophy”), this person is telling you that states should be able to imprison people simply for having gay sex. I submit that this is as intolerant as it gets.
The fact that a lot of gay people react to this kind of bigoted bullshit by rejecting the Republican Party is neither surprising nor inappropriate.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, the reason most Republicans don’t bother with gays is because they realize that, as evinced by the fact that gay and lesbian people and organizations fully support state and Federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, as well as making common cause with people like Pat Robertson, as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — when Democrats do them.
Conversely, the reason Democrats like O’Malley do this sort of thing is because they know there are plenty of Democrats out there who will support Democrats regardless of what Democrats do “because Republicans are worse” — even to the point of making the ludicrous claim that Republicans are building internment camps for gays.
Of course, as Jim stated elsewhere, behavior like O’Malley’s, which would be called homophobic and hateful if a Republican did it, is perfectly acceptable as long as it gets Democrats elected.
posted by Jorge on
Of course Republicans are more tolerant. You don’t get to hear such blatently snide and offensive comments about gays until you reach Ann Coulter, who once went so far as to call some 9/11 family members “harpies.” The ones who are intolerant are off the deep end on many more things.
I haven’t heard many stories about people being forced to resign under pressure by Republicans just because they were gay.
I’ve been around Republicans and I’ve been around other gays. I’ve run into a few homophobes among the Republicans and a few self-righteous intolerant jerks among the gays. I’d rather take my chances among the Republicans. The gay bigots tend to cluster together more.
posted by Richard on
Um No. The Republican Party leadership has one primary goal; winning elections. Everything else; platform, philosophy and ethics are secondary to the primary goal.
How has the Republican Party sought to win [federal] elections since the 1970s?
Well, it is often called the, “Southern Strategy” and it involves supporting legislation that will appeal to the, mostly, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-feminist, law and order socially conservative evangelical Christians.
The notion that the GOP will support gay rights — at the risk of losing elections — is just silly.
They are not going to piss off a major voting block [their base], in order to gain what, offiically, amounts to 4% of voters.
The only, possible, exception is if the GOP really wants to win a particular election that it would not otherwise win using this Southern Strategy. Then, and only then, do they support a ‘moderate’ Republican.
Of coarse, that tends to only happen after a party has lost of few elections. So really, if we want the GOP to loses the Southern Strategy we would actually want them to lose a couple of elections.
posted by Mack on
When I look at the endless gay sex scandals in the republican party, and contrast them with the – not lack, alas, but significantly lower incidence – and the reaction of the various parties thereto – the thoughts of ‘republican’ and ‘tolerance’ makes me laugh. In the upper echelons, I’m sure it’s a don’t-ask-don’t-tell situation. For public consumption? Gays are evil, immoral, abominations-before-God-Allmighty and we should exterminate them before the All-Merciful tosses another hurricane Katrina our way as a loving nudge in that direction.
As far as MANHUNT is concerned – I suspect they were reacting to the anger of their customers. I’ve heard a lot of fury and and a sense of betrayal at the news of that donation.
Republicans. Tolerant. Bwahahahahahahahahaha. I’ll be laughing over that one for the rest of the day.
And as long as we’re entering CAPTCHAs, why not do some good? Take a look at recaptcha.org
Cheers
posted by J.V. on
Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the Democrats above all focus on the second toss-off item and ignore the hard-hitting posting on how Democrat Gov. O’Malley got gay $$$ and votes and then screwed gays over because, as we all know, gays would rather suffer gladly at the hands of their beloved Demo party than ever, ever, ever support a moderate GOP candidate/office holder (and then are shocked, shocked, that the Demos take them for granted, the GOPers aren’t supportive).
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, it’s no surprise that GOPers are less inclined to embrace the gayLeft agenda as the true voice of gays… frankly, GOP leaders don’t need a lesson from the gayLeft Democrats to know that those voters will never, ever be available for conversion no matter how progressive the GOPer proves themselves to be. It’s like going after the felon vote or extreme environmental activist votes… the GOP shouldn’t be wasting its precious time courting those who are completely out of sync with GOP values. Can they be blamed after the scandalizing treatment of Bush or Romney by the LogCabin types? And that’s supposedly a gay group who was within the GOP –but was really taken over by gayDemocrat activists.
McCain offered that he’s against a federal marriage admendment and that it should be decided by individual states… unless some activist federal judge oversteps themselves and starts legislating from the bench again. Both BarryO and Senator McCain believe marriage is reserved for 1 man, 1 woman… does that position on the majority policy issue of the gayLeft affect their unguarded embrace of BarryO? No, of course because they’re Democrats first, gay second and their promised seat at the DNC table would be removed if they did otherwise.
Bush worked for and signed the most expensive AIDS/HIV program appropriation in history and the gayLeft yawns. Surprised? No… if they did anything else it might confuse the gay voters.
I wouldn’t expect Democrats to try to get the NRA vote by suddenly embracing 2nd A rights. I wouldn’t expect Democrats to try to get the suburban vote by finally ending the corruption and illegalities rampant within inner city Democrat kingdoms. I wouldn’t expect Democrats to try to appeal to religious values voters because those voters are in direct opposition to most of what modern-day Democrats stand for and promote. I wouldn’t expect Democrats to embrace tax cuts because they’ve promised to spend other peoples’ money on pet constitutencies and they need those dollars –even if the Democrats retreat from Iraq.
Of course the gayLeft is far more reactionary to gay conservatives, gay moderates or gay GOPers… the gayLeft usually trots out the Nazi-Jew metaphor, tries to revoke the person’s gayCard, etc. Theirs is a special, deep-seated hate and loathing for any gay who would cross the proverbial picket line… just like they’ve learned from the BigLabor goons inside the DNC. “Smash da’ bums; break some legs”.
The gayLeft is far, far more intolerant of those who don’t march to their instructions than most rank&file GOPers are to gays and I speak from experience… of course, it’s sort of like some writers at IGF who have an axe to grind against religion or the Catholic Church… they rail against the authoritarian dictates of the religion/Church and then practice the same intellectual hegemony on those who don’t fall into THEIR line –mimicking the intolerance they just cried about being practiced on them by evil, totalitarian religion.
Here in Michigan we had seven pro-gay moderate GOPers running last fall for the State House… guess what, the local and regional gay activist groups wouldn’t endorse them because it would have meant endorsing a GOPer in a primary and they knew the candidate would use that endorsement in the General Election against a Democrat -whether the Democrat was pro-gay or not. Can’t give those candidates any fodder to use against the incumbent Democrat… party first!
Sort of sucks when gays mindlessly carry the water for gayDemocrats… but then, we are all Victims First -or so the gayLeft contends… let’s be in the party of victimized, hyphenated Americans.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mack writes: “In the upper echelons, I’m sure it’s a don’t-ask-don’t-tell situation. For public consumption? Gays are evil, immoral, abominations-before-God-Allmighty….”
Actually, Mack, Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist holds that position and he’s a lifelong Democrat.
They people I’ve worked with for 15+yrs in the upper reaches of the GOP have been uninterested in my sexual preference… something I can’t say about the upper reaches of the Michigan Democrat Party.
But you go on with your fiction… it’s a great storyline. Wanna write for IGF?
posted by Tony in Seattle on
RE: Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.
You’re making the wrong assumption: that the chairman was forced to resign because he supported a Republican. Had McCain run a gay-friendly or even gay-tolerant campaign, I doubt the chairman would’ve been forced to resign. It’s not the Republicanism, it’s the intolerance.
So the real question is: Are McCain supporters more tolerant of intolerance, or are gays? The answer: McCain supporters are.
posted by Timothy on
“Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans?”
In my opinion, it depends on whether you are talking policy or personal.
While gays seldom endorse political measures that would restrict the rights of Republicans, the leadership of the Republican Party does seek to diminish or thwart equality for gay persons. So in the political realm I think that on average Republicans are less tolerant.
However, on the personal level, I’ve never known a Republican to be uncivil or unkind to a gay person because they were gay – or at least not in my presence. But I’ve witnessed gay people being harshly intollerant of persons registered as Republicans many many many times (this is less true than it used to be).
I also seldom hear of Republicans refusing to meet with gay groups or gay constituents (I live in CA so it may be a matter or geography). But I know that some gay groups will refuse to let a Republican even appeal for their support.
But that isn’t to say that sometimes a working relationship can be established.
I’m reminded of when Richard Riordan first ran for Mayor of Los Angeles. Because he was a Catholic Republican he was opposed on that alone by a number of prominant gays in WeHo. He went on, after winning, to be the most supportive mayor our community has had either before or since.
When it came time for reelection, our community had forgiven him for his party affiliation.
This is also what we have seen in San Diego this last election. After Mayor Jerry Sanders spoke in favor of marriage equality, prominent gay Democrats worked to rally support in the community even though there was a Democrat in the race (though not expected to win). Sanders won outright without the need for a run off.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re making the wrong assumption: that the chairman was forced to resign because he supported a Republican. Had McCain run a gay-friendly or even gay-tolerant campaign, I doubt the chairman would’ve been forced to resign. It’s not the Republicanism, it’s the intolerance.
Oh, I doubt that, given that liberal gays and lesbians did not demand that Andrew Tobias or Hilary Rosen resign for giving money and endorsements to FMA supporters.
Nor did liberal gays and lesbians get upset about donating millions of dollars and endorsements of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to John Kerry, who supported bans on gay marriage and bragged that he had the “same position” as Bush — a position which, by the way, the same gays and lesbians had tagged hateful, homophobic, and intolerant.
In short, it’s not the alleged “intolerance”; it’s the political party.
posted by Timothy on
I have noticed during this political season that some purportedly gay websites have dedicated themselves to be anti-McCain sites. They aren’t even as pro-Obama as they are anti-McCain.
And I would have to say that about 80% of the time the attacks on McCain have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation or gay equality whatsoever.
At times the accusations are so far-fetched that if anyone made similar accusations against a gay person many of us would be horrified at the blatant homophobia. It really does go into the hatred category.
And I have to wonder why.
While I don’t think McCain is particularly supportive of the gay community and while I think that he “doesn’t get it” sometimes, the guy is certainly not a homophobe. He’s not even an anti-gay opportunist like Bush, who probably isn’t a hater either but is willing to sell out principle for political gain (in my opinion).
He’s just some politician who gets nervous around gay questions and wishes he didn’t have to address the issue at all. I may not vote for him (I’m waiting for the two Veep picks to decide) but he’s not a heinous villian.
And really McCain’s gay positions are not all that far from Obama’s. If McCain were a Democrat, he’d fall into the “acceptable” category – though there would be some concern over his bumbling of the adoption issue and I think he’s flat wrong on DADT (his position is to rely on the advice of the military leaders).
So why the hate?
All I can conclude is that McCain is completely and entirely evil without a single redeaming quality because he has an R in the parentheses after his name.
posted by Richard II on
Since we were not that and do not really know the people involved, it is difficult to say why someone who works for a gay male hookup webpage was told to resign after it became known that he gave money to McCain.
Was it because he was a Republican? Was it because McCain opposes just about every single gay right issue? Was it because they want the board members to remain non-partisan?
Then, was it –assuming what is being suggested — illegal? Well, is political belief or affiliation protected under civil right laws? Not at the Federal level and rarley at the State level.
Kerry opposed gay marriage, but supported civil unions and many other gay rights issues.
posted by tjr on
The fact that Republicans use gays as red meat for votes from their rabidly homophobic, bigotted base every election cycle is enough to turn off any right thinking gay voter. The Democrats embrace gays in their party while a hypocritical “dont ask dont tell” policy is used by the GOP. John McCain doesn’t even support civil unions, gay adoptions, health benefits for the partners of gay employees. He supports Cailifornia’s ballot iniative to ban same sex marriages, and campaigned in his home state for a constitutional admendment. After all this we should consider supporting him and the GOP BIGOTS because the Democrats are not perfect, give me a break. Every election cycle is more of the same for the Repugnant Party. The dillusional Log Cabin poor souls will continue to be disappointed by the Grand Old Pervs.
I’ll take an imperfect democrat like O’ Malley anyday, at least I know he’s not working to enact legislation to diminish my very existence.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
On the question of whether or not gayDemocrats are more intolerant of Republicans than vice versa, tjr wins the prize hands down for showing us what’s what in the gayDemocrat mind with this beauty: “The fact that Republicans use gays as red meat for votes from their rabidly homophobic, bigotted base every election cycle is enough to turn off any right thinking gay voter.”
Gee… and someone here was recently bashing me for calling the gayLeft and gayDemocrats pimps for selling out the gay vote to the Democrat Party? Money, people, energy and effort but no results needed… yeah, love those gay activists who have sold us into voter bondage.
Time to hoe another row for da’ Masta. Way to go, tjr.
posted by Richard II on
I hear the Mccain campaign is returning the dontation from the guy anyways. Well, as an Indepenedent here is how I tend to look at it;
Mcain seems to oppose any legal recognition for same-sex couples and them having kids and any civil right or hate crime inclusion and will appoint judges who may overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but may be open to civil unions. He has supported some civil rights and hate crime inclusion and would probably not appoint justices who would set us back.
Now, frankly I tend to be a bit more Hawkish on foreign policy (Mcain) but also think that we need to be smarter about it (Obama).
I am pro-gun rights as much as I am pro-First Amendment rights. I am also a big proponent of election law reforms.
posted by AKN on
Michigan-Matt: Maybe you’ll be happy to know that, as a registered democrat in Rhode Island in 2000, I voted for Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who I had a great deal of admiration for, and who served the smallest state with distinction. Not all gay dems are as ‘blind’ as you would portray them.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
AKN, that’s great to hear because, I too, thought Chafee was a good Senator and would have voted for him if I resided in RI.
You’re right on the “not all” gays are blind in their service to the Democrats, but 89+% for the gayvote comes close to matching the lockstep fealty of other Democrat groups like BigLabor, innercity dwellers, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, blacks and radical environmentalists.
Your qualifier of “not all” may be apt. Glad to hear of your support for Chafee; I stood against those conservative gay GOPers who saw him as a RINO and wanted him out of the Senate… and helped in his 2006 campaign.