Gay. And Republican. And Not Confused.

by Alex Knepper on February 19, 2009

I am a gay Republican. I am not "self-hating." I am not confused.

I am comfortable enough with my sexuality to think of myself in terms of traits other than simply my sexual orientation. I believe that my attraction to the same sex should have no bearing to my thoughts on tax policy, trade, foreign affairs or abortion. I believe that my sexuality is merely an incidental part of my life and should not be a major factor in my decision-making.

I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right. I am aware that Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney hold the same positions on gay rights. I am aware that Bill Clinton signed into law the last major anti-gay piece of legislation passed by Congress - the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I am self-respecting enough to know that the words of the Democrats on gay rights are no substitute for their lack of action.

I believe that the virtues of classical liberalism - individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism - help gay men, just as they do all of mankind and are better exemplified by the Republican Party than by the Democratic Party. I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men's ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be "proud" of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they're just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay - their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person's sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is "supposed" to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I have come to understand on a very personal basis that the stereotypes and caricatures of the parties are no substitute for experiencing their members up close. I see that the "tolerance" and "compassion" of the left only extend as far as a person is willing to further their ideological worldview.

I am not Alex Knepper, the gay man. I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay. I believe that my chosen virtues and the actions that I take, not my unchosen sexual orientation, defines me as a person. I am a man who chooses to think for himself and shape his life on his own terms.

I don't think that makes me so radical.

133 Comments for “Gay. And Republican. And Not Confused.”

posted by KipEsquire on February 19, 2009

What part of “registered independent” is unclear to you?

You invent a convenient straw man argument, hinting that gay Democrats find you repulsive merely because you are not a gay Democrat.

But as a fellow gay non-Democrat, I can assure you that is not the case. They find you repulsive for the same reason I do: because you ARE repulsive. Any person who embraces a collective that actively seeks his destruction — as a core moral principle — is, by definition, repulsive.

Furthermore, I also find you repulsive simply as a libertarian. The current Republican Party has done far more to roll back the principles of classical liberalism — individual rights, minimal government, and free enterprise than the current Democratic Party could ever dream of. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own George W. Bush.

Finally, your bizarre suggestion that all gay non-Republicans exhibit “ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem” [relative to, e.g., Mormonism, Roman Catholicism or Evangelical Protestantism?] is, quite frankly, stupid. Did al Qaeda fund “Yes on 8”?

In short, I would find you repulsive simply for your kindergarten worldview of “I must be either a Democrat or Republican. I must join a collective. I must belong to SOMETHING.” Your compulsion to make a choice, rather than to remain independent and stand above it all, is by itself repulsive.

The fact that you made the self-loathing choice is secondary.
posted by bls on February 19, 2009

I am also an Independent, and have found this website is actually more a tedious haven for right-wing Democrat-bashers than anything else.

Actually, in my experience this is just one more polarized outpost of the culture wars than anything original or truly “Independent.” I wish they’d remove the word from the name of the site, because “Independent” it truly ain’t. Not that I don’t enjoy reading some of the articles by people like Jonathan Rauch and Dale Carpenter, two of the more even-handed folks here; I do.

And I don’t call anybody “self-hating” or anything else, BTW; I wish people here would actually say something of interest to others instead of keeping the wars going. Who cares anymore? So some people aren’t going to like you for your political or social views; what the hell else is new? Endlessly bemoaning the “gay community” – whatever that is – has made this place a parody of itself.

And how about an occasional nod towards gay women, BTW? Those seem to be few and far between around here, too. This is a gay male Republican club, and little else, as far as I can see – which is fine, but why the charade that it’s “Independent”?
posted by CPT_Doom on February 19, 2009

As a gay Democrat, I am also a bit perplexed by this column. All you’ve done is set up a series of straw-man descriptions who you think gay Democrats are, and then set yourself up as against all that, thereby somehow justifying your political affiliation.

My sexuality does not form the basis of my political belief system, nor does it have much, if anything, to do with my thinking on “tax policy, trade, foreign affairs or abortion.” I came to my positions on nearly every one of those issues (with the possible exception of foreign affairs) long before I came out. I support a progressive tax code because I am an economist, and that is the Social Welfare Function I believe works best, based on the evidence. I believe free and fair trade is the best in the long run for our economy, but I also believe that providing tax breaks to American companies that relocate overseas is counter-productive. I believe that women should have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy because a) I believe in the Constitution (and slavery was outlawed in that document nearly 200 years ago) and b) because my mother nearly died in 1971 after being refused a medically-necessary abortion. Nearly losing your mother when you are 4 is a HUGE deal.

The only area even affected by my sexuality is in foreign affairs, and the impact of my sexuality is solely in my belief that we must push for full human rights – including in the radical Islamic states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other lands the GOP seems to love.

You claim there is a “rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right,” and you are correct. The only problem is that there is only a tradition, there is no current affinity for any of those three values in the current party. A party whose platform explicitly places straight people above gay is not one based on equality; a party that denounces educated “elites,” pushes anti-science policies (particularly in the areas of geology, biology and climatology) and promotes the public policy positions of a lying fraud like “Joe the plumber” (who is neither “Joe” nor a plumber) places no value on intellectualism; and a party that promotes the narrow-minded “religious” tradition of the evangelical movement cannot ever be mistaken for a party that values the secular nature of our nation. One only has to look at the attacks on Mitt Romney to know that even members of non-Christian religious traditions are not wanted in the current GOP – at least not as leaders (yet the Democrats have a leader in the Senate who is both anti-choice and a Mormon – THAT’S an ideologically-driven party, right?).

You know, I don’t care that you’re a Republican. Maybe you honestly believe in the ideology of the GOP – that is your business. What bothers me more is your refusal to even acknowledge the arguments against being a member of the GOP as having any value.
posted by tim on February 19, 2009

All this article is telling me is regardless of what party you feel you need to be part of you will find a way to demonize the other side.

Great going there…

(not a republican or a democrat)
posted by Bryan on February 19, 2009

“Bill Clinton signed into law the last major anti-gay piece of legislation passed by Congress ? the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”

Have you forgotten the Federal Marriage Amendment? Which party was pushing that, and which defeated it?
posted by TS on February 19, 2009

You write well, your ideas are good, your statements are organized and persuasive.

I concur with several of the above posters only in that you may do better to classify yourself as independent- not that I think you are “self-hating” or some foolishness, merely that I am not so proficient as you in forgetting that the Republican party’s platform is not friendly to our existence or equal rights.

But in mentioning “the virtues of classical liberalism ? individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism,” “gay men’s ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem,” and “that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be “proud” of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment,” you confirm that you are in the right place.
posted by Bucky on February 19, 2009

Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work. You say you are a Republican because you believe in the values of classical liberalism (ahem, liberalism). You claim much insight into the Democratic party of today, but seem blind to what is the actual Republican party instead of the ideals you attribute to it in the past.

As many others have pointed out, you have other options besides just the R/D divide.

You seem to fail to take into account that the Republican party wants you — AS A GAY MAN — to cease to exist. Period. End of argument. Nothing else matters. They want you gone. Dead. Erased from the face of the earth.

Are you been paying attention?

Claiming to be a gay Republican because of tax policy is rather akin to being a Jewish Nazi because you believe in strong national defense.

Time to rethink your priorities.

No, you aren’t just your sexuality. We all know that. But the Republican party thinks you are.

No, I don’t think you are self-hating. Nor confused.

Just sad. And more than a little bit pathetic as you try to justify your support of a failed and increasingly deeply flawed political party.
posted by Bobby on February 19, 2009

Hey Alex,

“I believe that the gay subculture is destructive.”

—Well, you’re stuck in it, so you might as well learn to enjoy it. As much as I enjoy my debating my conservative comrades, I’m not a breeder and I don’t want to live a breeder lifestyle 24/7.

Conservatives are great when it comes to guns, taxes, national defense, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other basics. I HATE Obama’s trillion dollar bailout and Biden’s idiotic comment about how its patriotic to pay taxes. I HATE the snooty intellectual elites that got us into this economic fiasco in the first place. People like Barney Frank who told us that Fannie Mae was great when it was doing poorly. People like Jeffrey Immelt, the Harvard graduate CEO of General Electric and now appointed economic advisor for Obama. Imment has been running GE for 10 yeas, during that time, GE stock has dropped from 44 to 10 dollars. That shows you how much intellect these intellectual elites have.
posted by BobN on February 19, 2009

Of course you’re not confused. You realize, quite well, that blind partisanship from unlikely characters (indeed caricatures) plays well in today’s “media market”. With any luck, you’ll be another Ann Coulter.

If you’re as handsome as she is beautiful, your prospects are good. I just hope you have furrier legs and aren’t quite as tedious. This introduction bodes poorly in regard to that last bit.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 19, 2009

I would love to have Mr. Knepper tell us if he truly believes that the average heterosexual considers his or her heterosexuality an afterthought. Really? With straight sex omnipresent in our culture? This is a very old line of gay Republican self-justifying bull. In order to justify staying in the Republican Party, this pretense that one’s sexuality is unimportant (something straight people routinely and unselfconsciously contradict by their behavior) is trotted out time and time again.

Mr. Knepper says, “I believe that the gay subculture is destructive.” As it happens, I live in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, a close-in urban neighborhood with a significant gay population and a significant number of gay-friendly business establishments, but the destructive gay subculture described by Mr. Knepper and many others before him bears no resemblance to my life. The stereotypical gay urban culture represents a minority even of the urban gay population, which has the same full range of activities and interests and community involvements as their straight counterparts. Why defending one’s choice of Republicanism requires this trite slander of gays in general I cannot fathom.

If “Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney hold the same positions on gay rights,” how does Mr. Knepper explain the fact that Cheney’s party tried to enshrine anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, while Clinton’s party opposed it?

One of the things I like about my neighborhood is that I don’t have to choose between apologizing for being myself or making a constant effort to erase any sign of my gayness when I am in public in order to avoid being saddled with Mr. Knepper’s eagerly embraced stereotype of a shallow, sex-obsessed freak.

The notion that whom one loves is or ought to be an irrelevant sidelight to one’s life is insulting nonsense. I have had to struggle for many years to maintain my relationship with my foreign-national partner, whom I love dearly and who loves me, against all the legal, financial, and cultural pressures working against us. Patrick’s father’s family has spent years doing their best to drive him to suicide, and only his personal strength and his certainty of my love have sustained him. I am a gay rights activist because people like Patrick and me still have a long way to go to win our right to equal protection of the law. The Republican Party has all but defined itself in recent years by its obsessive determination to prevent our equal protection. Just look at the congressional voting record, and politicians’ stated positions, on gay-related issues. Even adjusting for liberal-conservative policy differences, the Democrats have a far better record of support for gay equality. And don’t just listen to a centrist (not leftist) Democrat like me; look up Republican Unity Coalition founder Charles Francis, who has become utterly disillusioned by the GOP.

The phrase “self-hating” has been bandied about so much that it prevents understanding more than furthering it. So let’s set that aside. What bothers me in Mr. Knepper’s piece is the enthusiastic disrespect for other gay people, whom he caricatures. Are there some who fit the caricature? Sure, just as Mr. Knepper seems to fit some caricatures of gay Republicans.

The saddest thing about all this, however, is that the co-editors of IGF, Jonathan and Steve, appear to admire the twaddle proffered by Mr. Knepper.
posted by Bobby on February 19, 2009

“Claiming to be a gay Republican because of tax policy is rather akin to being a Jewish Nazi because you believe in strong national defense.”

—Are the republicans making gays wear pink triangles? Does the party platform say that gay republicans can’t vote, join the party or ran for office? Are republicans confiscating gay businesses? Are republicans fighting to deprive gays of their right to keep and bear arms? Comparing us to jewish nazis is a joke.

Gay republicans simply care about other issues more important than gay marriage, gay adoption and lifting the ban of gays in the military. So unless they want to bring back the sodomy laws, raid the bars, raid craiglist, and ban gay porn, I’m still gonna vote republican.

We’re not jewish nazis, we’re simply realistic. The government has never done anything for us, so the less taxes we pay, the better we are.

“how does Mr. Knepper explain the fact that Cheney’s party tried to enshrine anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, while Clinton’s party opposed it?”

—It was a bad time in American history, there was fear that the Defense of Marriage Act would not prevail, that the courts would force same-sex marriage on every state.

Say what you want about republicans, but democrats play the same tactics when it comes to gun control, financial bailout, and many other issues.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 19, 2009

Bobby wrote, “there was fear that the Defense of Marriage Act would not prevail, that the courts would force same-sex marriage on every state.”

In other words, the courts would grant gay couples equal protection of the law. While I agree that a good deal of political work is needed before seeking the gay version of Loving v. Virginia, on the merits a Loving-like decision is just what is needed. As to FMA, I know the claims that its proponents made, but their speculative fear-mongering did not justify amending the Constitution for what amounted to blaming gay people for straight people’s marital problems. If the motivation was truly about protecting heterosexual marriage, they would have sought an amendment to prohibit divorce and criminalize adultery. FMA was about scapegoating gay people, pure and simple.

“democrats play the same tactics when it comes to gun control, financial bailout, and many other issues.”

I keep hearing this about Democrats and gun control. It seems to me that Democrats pretty much abandoned gun control as a losing issue years ago. Barney Frank urged his fellow Dems to abandon the issue in a book he wrote in the early 1990s. The recent run on guns has been based on an entirely invented fear of Obama planning to take away people’s guns.
posted by Bucky on February 19, 2009

@Bobby

Your response was so telling. First, you ask about the Republican party platform — as if any party platform matters much. But YES, have you read many of the Repub party platforms lately? Pick up the Texas GOP Party Platform. You’ll be surprised. It advocates stripping gay men and women of very basic rights such as the right to work.

And in case you have been living in Headupassland these past few decades, many prominent Republican leaders are still calling for gays to be separated into “camps” so they don’t spread disease to all the good Christian folk.

But really, the most interesting thing was that you weren’t going to worry about the GOP’s war on homos until they started to take away your right to suck dick. You know, as long as they aren’t working to “brind back the sodomy laws, raid the bars, raid craiglist [sic],and ban gay porn” you are still gonna be a Republican.

So apparently your only concern is your ability to get laid. You have no concern for those things that actually make a real life. Legal protections for your husband and your children? Fuck that as long as you can log onto Craigs for a quick hookup.

Which is, of course, why you are a Republican. You define youself by your sexuality.

How pathetic.

Most of us are complete people with well-rounded lives.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 19, 2009

A couple of general points, based upon the responses so far:

1. The Federal Marriage Amendment will not pass. Yes, it is disheartening on an emotional level that many members of the party support it, but please keep in mind that it will never pass and therefore is not something to worry about. Moreover, several members of the Republican Party oppose it: John McCain, the party’s most recent nominee, voted against it in the Senate, for instance. Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman, Fred Thompson, and, historically, people like Barry Goldwater — if there’s room enough for these people in the party, there’s room enough for me.

2. Stop conflating the Republican Party with the Religious Right. They are not the same thing, and they never have been. There is a lot of tension between the classical liberal wing of the party and the Religious Right. The Republican Party as a Moral Majority Meeting exists only in the minds of liberals.

3. A few commenters, including Richard Rosendall, try to deny that a gay subculture even exists, which would be a humorous joke if it weren’t so blatantly absurd. It’s like the old joke about the fish: “What water?” He mentions that living in a ‘gay area’ like Dupont Circle allows him “not to have to choose” between “being himself” and “erasing his gayness.” What a silly dichotomy! There’s a wide, wide (non-gay) world out there, and most of it doesn’t give a shit that you’re gay. You’d be astounded at how the world around you changes once you stop thinking of yourself as a victim.

4. The ‘Jewish Nazi’ comparison is so utterly absurd that it doesn’t merit a response. How about this: when the Republicans are trying to gas me to death, then I’ll accept the analogy and leave the party. Deal?
posted by Alex Knepper on February 19, 2009

This merits its own box, I guess:

“I would love to have Mr. Knepper tell us if he truly believes that the average heterosexual considers his or her heterosexuality an afterthought. Really? With straight sex omnipresent in our culture? This is a very old line of gay Republican self-justifying bull. In order to justify staying in the Republican Party, this pretense that one’s sexuality is unimportant (something straight people routinely and unselfconsciously contradict by their behavior) is trotted out time and time again.”

That’s because the sexuality of straight people is, for the most part, expressed in normal, healthy ways: displaying pictures of their wives on their desks, for instance. That’s the sort of world that I envision for gays, as well. The best way to proclaim your independence from bigotry is not to display a rainbow flag, but to display a picture of your partner on your desk at work. That’s the difference between assimilation and combativeness.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 19, 2009

Alex, the unmerited admiration you have earned from the IGF editors notwithstanding, you will do yourself little good as a writer with such dishonesty. How in the world can my statement, “The stereotypical gay urban culture represents a minority even of the urban gay population” be taken as a denial that those people exist at all?

You have no honest basis for asserting that I think of myself as a victim. I did not just cite discrimination (which I cannot believe you treat so dismissively), I pointed out that I am an activist. The whole point of being an activist (and I bothered to mention that I am a centrist and not a leftist, and notwithstanding the snipings of other people on this discussion board, I could bury you with evidence that I am very far indeed from being a leftist, including several articles published by David Horowitz on FrontPageMag.com in addition to more than 50 articles on IGF. But you make the facile assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be the one other possible thing, which is a grievance-mongering leftist cartoon. You are quite wrong. As to the wider world, pardon me but I come from a large family of heterosexuals, I work with heterosexuals, a majority of my neighbors are heterosexual, and some of my dearest friends are heterosexual–nor did I say anything to suggest otherwise. I said that a substantial number of Dupont Circle residents were gay; I did NOT say that this constituted a majority, nor would that be true. I do not live or work in the imaginary walled-off gay-only zone that you paint. You keep drawing these silly caricatures. Yes, there are circuit-party queens and the like, and I already pointed out that those people and their milieu bear no resemblance to my life. Try paying better attention instead of focusing on making pseudo-clever ripostes. Few things are more annoying than a know-it-all who manifestly doesn’t. I am sorry to be so harsh, but your cheap slanders are too much, and Jon and Steve should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 19, 2009

Pardon me for going off on a parenthetical comment and not getting back to the initial point, which is this: the whole point of my being an activist is a refusal to be a victim. As it happens, I have written extensively over many years against the leftist politics of victimhood. I tried to clue you in to my not being a gay-left caricature by pointing you to my friend Charles Francis; unfortunately, Alex, you don’t seem interested in learning a thing. It is a lot easier knocking down straw men than acknowledging that your chosen party is virulently anti-gay. In what way has the GOP lately distinguished itself from the religious right? As to the classical liberal wing of the party, talk about a dying breed.

And what’s this about a rainbow flag? Alex, why are you so eager to caricature someone you don’t know? I specifically told you that the gay-urban lifestyle you describe bears no resemblance to my life. Please pay attention.
posted by Josh on February 19, 2009

ALEX! This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long while! As a gay Republican, I totally identify with what you’re saying and it’s hilarious to see such hateful people prove your points about the left being more intolerant of you than the right. keep up the good work.

never a victim,

josh
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 19, 2009

This is just sad. Josh, be sure not to let the available evidence interfere with your smug convictions.
posted by jimmy on February 20, 2009

Alex, when Republicans of any stripe use the word assimilation, I look for the door. America, like it or not, is a an amalgam of one sub-culture after another. That is our essence. Conservatives would like American culture to be this homogenous thing, so they can comfortably relate to it, but it’s not. You have an animus toward gay sub-culture, as if that is one thing, gay pride. I don’t have a rainbow flag on my front porch and I haven’t been to a parade in years, but I wasn’t thrown out of my home at 15 years old or forced into reparative therapy, so the pride movement was not as important to me as it was to others. But I understand why it is there. I’m not perturbed by it. I think the paraphernalia is tacky, but so are St. Patrick’s Day parades. I’m still proud to be a Celt.

What is the path of least resistance for equal protection under the law me and my kind, including you? It’s not the Republican party, the one in existence since 1994 and the one embodied by the likes of Tom DeLay. The species of Republican you speak of is either out of politics, dead, or irrelevant.
posted by Jorge on February 20, 2009

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is “supposed” to be.

Okay, judging from the responses here (most of which I find mystifying), this is obviously self-evident.

Speaking for myself, it’s a very strange assumption that one should be obligated to defend, answer for, or reflectively question one’s affiliation every time some random stranger feels like asking one to do so because he has a personal beef against gay Republicans that does not extend to gay non-Republicans or to non-gay Republicans. I realize it’s technically an assumption that the bigots in question are hypocritical in their behavior and don’t interrogate straight Republicans every chance they get, but let’s get real here.

And yes, I get it. People on the right have a habit of underestimating how many people actually agree with the excesses of the left. This is an intrinsic characteristic of rightists in general.
posted by Jorge on February 20, 2009

Now, it says this article was originally published at the author’s university, and the blog says he’s an undergraduate.

Well that explains why I feel like I’ve read a broken record. Yeah, that message does need to be heard. But spare me the lofty preaching to the unwashed masses and start spelling it out.

Many young liberals (not the people who comment on this site, of course) can’t even wrap themselves around an understanding of why clear-thinking, intelligent young people (of any identity group) are Republicans in the first place, and they’re drilled in a political idealism to which all that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson stuff is very foreign. I’ve read some people who were able to break it down that smart ideas are Republican ideas. Is that effective? Or is it more effective to shock people with the idea that even gay people are Republicans.

By the way, here’s a radical idea: not every gay person is obligated to do a thing about gay rights. Inaction is a grave personal sin and hypocrisy, of course–and one that’s matched by every Democrat who moves into a richer neighborhood to get their kids in better schools (yes, that makes you a snob, and that’s why you need to vote Democratic).
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

The whole point of ‘gay activism’ is to combat victimhood? Give me a break. The whole point of identity-based activis is to ferment victimhood and feelings of oppression in groups whose actual oppression is largely internal. Think Jesse Jackson. The proper prescription for people who were kicked out of their homes for being gay — which is, of course, very tragic — is not a rainbow flag, but a healthy dose of philosophy based on individualism, self-reliance, and productivity. Like I said: the gay subculture and the religious right are merely two sides of the same identity-based coin.

I never accused you of being a “leftist,” as you say I do. One need not be a leftist to be a victim. Fine: you’re a centrist — a centrist victim. Anyone who cannot fathom why a gay man could possibly be a Republican has bought into the victim ideology hook, line and sinker. In what ways has the party differentiated itself from the religious right? Well, gee, I just listed some politicians who are not members of it, including the party’s last nominee, John McCain. We could go on with people like Giuliani (my political hero), Thompson, Crist, Huntsman, Whitman, Forbes, etc., etc., etc. There are also the hawks, which I most align with. The entire neoconservative movement is pretty tolerant or even accepting of homosexuality, overall. There are many factions in the Republican Party. Your anger at the religious right is justifiable, but you’re allowing your emotions to get in the way of analyzing the GOP through any lens other than that.

Also, I should note again that everyone needs to shut the hell up about the FMA. It. Has. No. Chance. Of. Passing.
posted by Steve D. on February 20, 2009

“a lying fraud like “Joe the plumber” (who is neither “Joe” nor a plumber)”

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is indeed known by his middle name. And yes, he does work in plumbing, specifically as a plumber’s assistant. He is not required to be licensed unless he represents himself to clients or potential clients as a plumber, and he does not. He works for a principal who is licensed. He is a plumber in all but name.
posted by Bobby on February 20, 2009

Hey Bucky,

“Pick up the Texas GOP Party Platform. You’ll be surprised. It advocates stripping gay men and women of very basic rights such as the right to work.”

—I’ll take a look. But like Knepper said our party has classical liberals and evangelicals. We’re not the same, but we both need each other to win elections.

“And in case you have been living in Headupassland these past few decades, many prominent Republican leaders are still calling for gays to be separated into “camps” so they don’t spread disease to all the good Christian folk.”

—Do you have any examples? Other than James Dobson, who is NOT a republican leader, I’ve never heard that charge.

“But really, the most interesting thing was that you weren’t going to worry about the GOP’s war on homos until they started to take away your right to suck dick.

So apparently your only concern is your ability to get laid.”

—That’s the best thing gays do.

“You have no concern for those things that actually make a real life. Legal protections for your husband and your children? Fuck that as long as you can log onto Craigs for a quick hookup.”

—My life is as real as any. It’s breeders and heterohomos that create this idea that if you don’t have a relationship you’re not complete. I no longer feel depressed about not having a boyfriend. Now I’m aiming to have fuck buddies. As for legal protections, powers of attorney are still valid in court, not that I’m going to need one any time soon.

“Which is, of course, why you are a Republican. You define youself by your sexuality.”

—Oh really? You ever marched in a gay pride parade? You ever put a rainbow sticker in your car? You ever participate in a kiss-in demonstration? Gays define themselves by their sexuality all the time. In fact, so do straights. Aren’t they always singing about women, loving women, fucking women, how hot women are, and all that garbage? Aren’t art galleries full of naked women? Isn’t Opera all about breeder love stories? Ever been to a bachelor party? Ever been to Abercrombie & Fitch?

You remind me of the breeders, you and they are both upset by the fact that I enjoy my sexuality so openly. I don’t need to hide behind a same-sex marriage to screw somebody, I don’t need to adopt children to feel respectable, I don’t need the breeder lifestyle or a cheap imitation to feel fulfilled.

On the other hand, you do! So maybe you’re not the one who’s living a well-rounded life.
posted by BobN on February 20, 2009

“It. Has. No. Chance. Of. Passing.”

Because. Of. The. Democrats. Not. Because. Of. A. Handful. Of. Republicans.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

No! Because a Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures!

It will never, ever, ever pass! The Republicans aren’t even united behind it, to say nothing of the fact that virtually no Congressional Democrats support it!

It is not an issue!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 20, 2009

Alex Knepper wrote, “The whole point of ‘gay activism’ is to combat victimhood? Give me a break.”

You see what this guy does? I specifically stated the motive behind MY activism; but Alex has already decided that all activists are centered on their victimhood, so apparently I don’t have a choice about it. Alex has already made up his mind. Well I am sick of smartass college kids dripping with scorn about things and people about whom they have much to learn. Alex, I told you that I had written several articles for David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com. Did you bother checking out that website? I have been slammed as a right-winger by many gay leftists for having contributed to that website. I also pointed out to you that I have more than 50 pieces published here on IGF. Is this another den of lefties, do you think? Alex, you smug little know-it-all, you are MISTAKEN. You do not know what you are talking about. For your own sake, find some intellectual integrity and stop providing evidence of your dishonesty and unscrupulousness.

As to FMA having no chance, that is no thanks to the GOP. I never said it did have a chance. Having been defeated twice when the GOP controlled Congress, it certainly isn’t going to prevail now. That wasn’t the point. The point is that you make phony excuses on this gay-related website for your Republican affiliation and your despisement of Democrats, when the record clearly shows that the Democrats, for all their faults, have a far better record on gay issues and the Republican Party has made sowing panic over an imaginary gay threat one of its central motivating impulses. I did not say, and do not believe, that gay issues are the only important issues. But to the extent that they have any importance at all–and surely you are not going to say that the discrimination to which I referred (citing my own family’s case) is unimportant or that my mentioning it proves me to be terminally trapped in and defined by victimhood. How in the world does it reek of victimhood to work for equal justice under the law? What is the matter with you that you insist on treating gay activists in particular and the gay community in general as one hundred percent, wall-to-wall “victims” and deserving of contemptuous dismissal? Could the world possibly be that starkly simplistic? God almighty, how pathetic. Try setting your ego aside for five minutes and pay attention to what your interlocutors are actually saying instead of your silly straw men.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 20, 2009

BTW, Bobby, I have enjoyed your posts in this discussion, but why all the harshness about “breeders”–aside from Alex’s dishonest implication that straight people treat their sexuality as unimportant? I happen to come from a pair of your so-called “breeders,” and my family is full of them. We’re certainly not going to gain equal justice under the law without support from a lot of straight people. Don’t let’s lose our heads just because some Gen-Y smartass is finger-painting with his excrement all over the wall.
posted by elaygee on February 20, 2009

Sorry, Gay Creepublican equals Jewsih nazi to me and indicates some sort of cognitive dissonace that even I can’t figure out
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

Richard, I’m more than familiar with FrontPageMag and I’ve read two of Horowitz’ books. You can trot out credentials all day long — I’m merely going by your words in this post. You’re like the guy who runs around calls blacks ‘niggers’ and then insists that his best friend is black.

I was not making any excuses for the GOP on gay issues. Their record is abysmal and I’m glad the Democrats provide a counter-weight on issues such as the FMA. It’s clear that if Congress were filled with 535 Republicans that the FMA would pass. But that’s not the world that we live in.

But — but! — I am not a single-issue voter, and I am highly pragmatic. That’s the difference between us.

Or do you honestly think that I, as a laissez-faire capitalist and Kagan-style neoconservative, would better fit in the Democratic Party? Please. How would you justify such a thing? “Well, they may be surrendering to Islamists (who, if you’ll recall, aren’t too fond of gays) and dismantling the market, at least they don’t try to pass the FMA!”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 20, 2009

Alex, first of all, you have blatantly misrepresented what I wrote on this discussion board, as I have already pointed out and should not have to repeat. Second, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that someone with my publishing record could fit the caricature you paint.

As to which party would be the better fit for you: there you go again committing the fallacy of the false alternative. What forces you to choose between the Republicans and Democrats? Not only are there other parties, you could register as an independent.

But what is your evidence that DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL are “surrendering to Islamists”? If you are going to repeat the nonsense that opposition to the war in Iraq constitutes “surrender” to terrorists, then essentially you are saying that disagreeing with Bush and Cheney constituted treason. Any vision of America that requires a majority of voters to be regarded as treasonous is not a vision of my beloved country that I recognize or accept. Aside from that, it should be clear by now even to Iraq war diehards that the war policies of Bush and Cheney HELPED the Islamists recruit more people to their cause. And it used to be Republicans who made a lot of noise about being opposed to nation-building and who talked about “Democrat wars” (that was Bob Dole in 1976) and otherwise slammed excessive foreign entanglements. But somehow, when Democrats say similar things, they are surrendering to our enemies? Disgraceful.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

I guess we can agree to let your words speak for themselves on the victim count, then.

There is no point in registering as an independent in Maryland, where I live: we have closed primaries. Either way, let’s get real: if I were an independent, I’d just work with the Republicans, anyway. In the end, no matter what you register as, you pick a side and you work within it. I’m a pragmatic kind of guy, so I’m a Republican.

Democrats supported the Iraq War initially — most of them, including our current VP and Secretary of State, voted for it, after all — and then tied their own political success to any success of the terrorists in Iraq. It is utterly unprecedented in American history for the opposition party to actively undermine the Commander in Chief during a time of war like that. Harry Reid himself came out and said that the war was “lost” before the surge had even had time to be fully implemented. It’s beyond disgraceful.

Putting the Iraq War to one side for a minute, what have Democrats proposed to fight Islamofascism? We could very well accurately label them the party of No. Guantanamo Bay? NO. Patriot Act? NO. Wiretapping? NO. Harsh interrogation methods? DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR FEELINGS…

The main contribution of the Democrats so far to fighting Islamofascism — when they even come to think that Dick Cheney is morally superior to terrorists — has been to complain.
posted by Bobby on February 20, 2009

“BTW, Bobby, I have enjoyed your posts in this discussion,”

—Thanks Richard, that means a lot to me.

“but why all the harshness about “breeders”–aside from Alex’s dishonest implication that straight people treat their sexuality as unimportant? I happen to come from a pair of your so-called “breeders,” and my family is full of them.”

—Growing up in a latin culture, I heard the word “marico” constantly, sometimes as a term of endearment, most times as a put down or a nickname. Among anglos you know what words I’ve heard. So to feel empowered, to feel powerful, I use the word “breeder” behind their backs. Maybe that’s why blacks often use the word “cracker” or “honky.”

“We’re certainly not going to gain equal justice un the law without support from a lot of straight people.”

—That’s true, and I would never use the word breeder outside a gay area just like most polite straights don’t use homophobic words in front of us.

Personally, I find the word fascinating, it sounds so much like the n word but carries none of that racial punch. It has a legitimate origin from the fields of horse and dog breeders, and it reduces straights to a sex ad.

Lisa Lampinelli, who makes fun of everyone, did a whole segment on HBO about gay words, like ass pirate and butt muncher and all that. They have no problem ridiculing us, telling jokes at our expense.

So when I use the word “breeder,” some of that resentment goes away.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 20, 2009

Alex, your persistent intellectual dishonesty is sad. You write, “Democrats … then tied their own political success to any success of the terrorists in Iraq.” Name one Democrat who said that, and kindly provide the citation. If you can do so (and I mean for real, rather than your usual caricatures), that will be one Democrat whom I denounce. But your partisan misrepresentations aside, Democrats love their country as much as Republicans, and don’t want the terrorists to win any more than Republicans do. Indeed, many Democrats feel that Republican policies HELPED the terrorists, including by destabilizing the Middle East and doing great damage to America’s reputation. Basically, you make the assumption that the Bush/Cheney policies were the only way to defeat the terrorists, and that anyone who disagrees with those policies wants America to lose. The first assumption is contradicted by the evidence (as I have said), and the second is mere slander.

Alex wrote (characterizing critics of Bush/Cheney), “Harsh interrogation methods? DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR FEELINGS… ”

Alex, if you honest-to-God think that Bush’s Democratic critics are wrong, why is it necessary to misrepresent what they say? Aren’t the Democrats’ actual statements bad enough for you. Restating the Democrats’ criticism in such a cartoonish and juvenile manner proves nothing other than to discredit you. We are not talking about mere “harsh interrogation,” we are talking about what is widely recognized as torture. And we are not talking about merely hurting people’s feelings, as you well know. The saddest thing about the Republican embrace of torture, beyond the extensive evidence that it doesn’t work, is that America is trashing international standards that America itself promulgated. Defending habeas corpus, opposing warrantless wiretapping, upholding due process of law and other fundamental American values is not at odds with the mission of defeating Islamist terrorists, but essential if we are to avoid killing the patient in the name of curing the disease.

Andrew Sullivan, self-described conservative, blogged today: “The Republicans, one infers, represent fiscal responsibility, the freedom of the individual vis-a-vis the government, the resilience of human nature, and prudent strength in foreign policy. Hmmm. Which party added over $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities, turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, and endorsed indefinite nation-building at a simply staggering cost in two of the most intractably divided non-countries in the world? Which party asserted ‘near-dictatorial’ powers for the executive, the priority of the will of the leader over the rule of law, and a mantra, in the words of the most ‘conservative’ vice-president in memory, that ‘deficits don’t matter.’ Which party described prohibitions against torture ‘quaint’ and presided over the most reckless, and irresponsible period in American finance since the 1920s?”
posted by Orange_Red on February 20, 2009

Alex:

It is easy to disparage “the gay lifestyle.” I would want you to stop and consider, however, that you are conflating gay versus straight with single versus coupled. Married straight people and partnered gay people put pictures of their partners on their desk. Single gay and straight people spend more time in bars and clubs which cater to potentially compatible partners. Single people, in other words, go to target-rich environments in order to meet people. That is not just the “gay lifestyle”–that is the single lifestyle. Hell, a lot of gay and straight people are uncomfortable spending every weekend in a bar, but recognize that everyone else is a little uncomfortable too.
posted by Scott Lassiter on February 20, 2009

Don’t despair Alex. Richard does not take any criticism of his views as legitimate and he always professes to be misrepresented. He alone is allowed to stereotype, certainly not anyone else. You’ll notice Alex, that Richard doesn’t allow anyone to comment on his wrtings here, and that should speak volumes to his openness and desire to hear the views of others. It is sad I know.

On a positive note……I liked everything you had to say in this article and couldn’t agree more.
posted by Scott Lassiter on February 20, 2009

Oh, correction…..Richard does allow comments sometimes. But when he doesn’t want to be confronted he restricts comments. An example would be his praising of Barney Frank not long ago. He makes these decisions, because well, he suffers from the affliction of always being right.
posted by Andrew on February 20, 2009

Nice two-part ad hominem attack there, Scott.
posted by Mark F. on February 20, 2009

Richard:

While I don’t always agree with you (I’m an independent libertarian), you are an island of sanity in what is and has always been a disappointing website.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

Richard, I challenge you again to name a single proposal that has come from Congressional Democrats in the name of fighting terrorism.

Their chief contributions to the war effort, I would contend, are to (1) Complain about absolutely everything — without offering alternative solutions — in a war that they supported, authorized, and funded in the first place, and (2) Tie their own political success to that of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. Maybe they didn’t really mean it deep down, but like Congressional Republicans catering to the Religious Right on the Terri Schiavo matter, Congressional Democrats were utterly paralyzed when it came to offending their base — to taking any motions supporting victory in Iraq.

History has proven the defeatism of Harry “This War Is Lost” Reid false, of course — but it does not and will not excuse his treacherous, opportunist actions.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

“Restating the Democrats’ criticism in such a cartoonish and juvenile manner proves nothing other than to discredit you. We are not talking about mere “harsh interrogation,” we are talking about what is widely recognized as torture.”

Journalists willingly engage in waterboarding in order to experience it. Christopher Hitchens idiotically suggested that since he, a comfortable, well-off Western journalist abhorred the experience, it was torture. A Fox News reporter insisted that it was a terrible experience — that’s the goddamn point — of course, but would a journalist willingly partake in anything that could be considered torture?

Talk about defining torture down. Waterboarding is harsh interrogation. Period. ‘Torture’ should be a word reserved for the most vile and despicable of acts — not something that a journalist will willingly endure for audiences.
posted by Marcel on February 20, 2009

I liked the article and although I don’t agree with all the contents, as a staunch libertarian I can understand where Alex is coming from on some of these issues with identity and representation. I do think he’d be better served by ditching the GOP (which with one shining exception does not support classical liberal values), taking the Libertarian Party with a few grains of salt (*cough, Bob Barr, cough*), and going fully independent. He’s clearly demonstrating some independent thinking by not conforming to the mainstream gay media’s Democratic groupthink.

I think it is very unfair for all these people to be bashing Alex based on the old “gay Republicans are traitors” argument. That kind of stance only makes sense in a fantasy world where the Democratic Party actually gives a damn about LGBT people, where they don’t take our support for granted along with every other minority group they can bribe politically. It also excludes anyone whose views lie outside the tired Democrat/Republican axis of evil.
posted by BobN on February 20, 2009

Alex, explain the previous prosecutions and punishments of both foreign and American military members for water-boarding.
posted by BobN on February 20, 2009

Hmmmm… do we care if they “give a damn” if the “political bribery” they provide includes passing ENDA, repealing DADT, repealing (at least portions of) DOMA, and passing federal recognition of (at least) civil unions?

Or is there some other form of “bribery”?
posted by Matt from Canada on February 20, 2009

Awesome words Alex. You are the true activist here.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

“Hmmmm… do we care if they “give a damn” if the “political bribery” they provide includes passing ENDA, repealing DADT, repealing (at least portions of) DOMA, and passing federal recognition of (at least) civil unions? Or is there some other form of “bribery”?”

* Even if you do think that Democrats are good on gay issues, are you a single-issue voter? Or are you so wrapped up in your sexual identity that you’re willing to cast aside all other issues? I, for one, am not!

* ENDA was mere token legislation. The vast majority of corporations, including almost every single one on the Fortune 500 list, already had anti-discrimination policies on the books. The apocryphal redneck-run small business will always find a way to fire gays, anyway — but why the hell would a gay person want to work for such a place, anyway? (Also, as a domestic libertarian, I support the right to private discrimination, but that’s a separate issue…)

* It’s the Democrats’ fault that we have DOMA in the first place. Clinton could have vetoed it; he instead signed it.

* Republicans across the country are evenly split on DADT, according to polls. Let’s not act like the party is monolithic on that issue.

* Several Republicans support civil unions, including the Evil George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and most recently Mormon (!) Utah (!) Gov. Jon Huntsman. Either way, neither party has made any substantive action on this issue.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 20, 2009

“Alex, explain the previous prosecutions and punishments of both foreign and American military members for water-boarding.”

Unwarranted.
posted by BobN on February 21, 2009

“Unwarranted”

Sigh. You have a bright future in right-wing punditry.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 21, 2009

Do you or do you not think that something can both qualify as “torture” and be something that average television journalists willingly endure for audiences? I think a good litmus test for what constitutes torture, at the very minimum, could be “something that journalists can’t be paid to do.” Can’t we at least agree on that?
posted by Dan L on February 21, 2009

A solid column. I’m a gay Republican as well, though my relationship with the party is far more tenuous than yours appears to be–McCain’s nomination was the only thing keeping me from changing my registration after the Bush administration. (Had any of the others gotten it, I’d almost certainly have bolted.)

Your writing goes a bit too far in places, I think, particularly when your language talks about “gay men”, when I assume that in reality you’re attacking a particular leftist concept of what it is that gay men are supposed to think. Even among gay Democrats, I would suspect that only a minority of them would adhere to the particular construct you’ve put forward.

Further, I think adding some criticism of the Republican Party would have helped balance the column. One of the key conflicts gay Republicans face is the fact that the most anti-gay folk tend to be, well, Republican. And these people frequently win the party’s nomination for various offices. Fortunately such a person did not win the presidential nomination for this past election, but my central fear with McCain’s loss is the direction that the party would choose to go in the next four years. I hope very sincerely that the party will resist the temptation to go the Huckabee route. (Huntsman for president, anyone?)

More broadly, one of the key points about the American party system is fact that both parties consist of diverse coalitions of competing interests. Most criticisms of gay Republicans falsely center on the conception of American political parties as being organizations that are centrally run and monolithic, rather than a broad coalition of intellectually diverse groups frequently in conflict. Indeed, American political parties are among the weakest party organizations in the world, with virtually no party discipline (e.g. the case of Joe Lieberman this past year) and with no central party control over who gets to be a candidate (in proportional representation countries, the central party chooses who is going to be on the party’s list, and even in Britain, for example, local MP candidates are generally chosen by the central office, not by American-style primaries). In such an open, free-wheeling political party system, criticism of gay Republicans merely for their party affiliation is universally unfair.

Lastly, a bit of advice: respond to comments here sparingly. Yes, it’s a bit painful when people take unfair potshots at you, and the temptation to respond can be hard to ignore. If you don’t, however, you’ll be spending all day on this forum (rather than paying attention to your studies!) and all it will do is rile you up and make you feel alienated. Internet commenters tend not to be particularly the most civil people in the world, and you would do well to leave misguided comments be.
posted by Peter T on February 21, 2009

Alex

BobN is right — you DO have a bright future in right-wing punditry.

“Do you do do you not think that something can both qualify as “torture” and be something that average television journalists willingly endure for audiences?”

Well, if “average” television journalists were IN FACT willingly enduring waterboarding for audiences, you might have a point. But I don’t see vast hordes of “average” journalists — television or otherwise — subjecting themselves to torture.

Yes, we have had a few brave (or just ratings seeking) journalists undergo controlled, voluntary and limited waterboarding to expose the lies surrounding the US illegal torture program. And every one of them has reported that it was in fact, torture.

Yet you, somehow fail to understand how being forcibly strapped down and waterboarded against your will, as part of a lengthy “interrogation”, for hours or days on end constitutes torture.

Your complete lack of empathy for your fellow man is astounding at best and depraved at worst.

Perhaps you might remove your “Club Gitmo” t-shirt just long enough to realize that there are many things that one might endure in one circumstance (medical necessity requiring the removal of teeth, for example) that would be torture when performed on someone against their will in a different setting.

And regardless of your own personal ethical failings, waterboarding is legally considered to be torture according to US and international law. A highly-placed sadist with a law degree doesn’t change that fact.

If you are still so convinced that waterboarding isn’t torture, I eagerly await the detailed report of your own experience with the process. Hey, it’s something that even “average” journalists are willing to do. And you seem so above average, Alex, that I am sure it would be easy-breezy for you!

I’ll check back later so you can tell us all about it.
posted by Pat on February 21, 2009

Alex, I’ll leave the debate to others as to whether waterboarding is torture or not. But it is a world of difference for someone who is willing to take part of it, where I would assume, there is a mechanism to stop the action as soon as the participant feels their life is in danger, or even becomes overly uncomfortable. A prisoner, who undergoes waterboarding, does not have that luxury. That’s the part that could make waterboarding torture. And that’s the part that I’m fairly sure that Hitchens, or any other journalist, would not agree to.

So whether or not waterboarding is torture or not, we have to determine the following: 1) Is waterboarding an acceptible form of treatment for prisoners of war, even for one of our own soldiers who becomes a prisoner of war held by another nation or group? (By the way, I understand that sometimes, nations do not adhere to widely accepted international standards. I don’t want the U.S. to be one of those nations). 2) Is waterboarding actually effective in getting important information?

If the answer to either of the above is no, then we must decide waterboarding is out.

Richard, I challenge you again to name a single proposal that has come from Congressional Democrats in the name of fighting terrorism.

You have a point here, Alex, but this is totally different than saying the Democrats hoping that terrorism wins. The problem is we really do not have an effective way to combat terrorism yet other than gathering some intelligence and foiling many (but not all) of the terrorist plots. Some of the Republican legislation has been done in the name of combatting terrorism. But the question is are they effective? And at what cost to our freedom and liberty?

It’s the Democrats’ fault that we have DOMA in the first place. Clinton could have vetoed it; he instead signed it.

No, Alex, let’s put the blame exactly where it’s due. Yes, Clinton did sign it, and he certainly deserves a good share of the blame. But since Clinton has zero power of enacting the law without Congressional passing it, there’s more blame to go around. This includes the majority of Democrats that voted for it, and the almost unanimous Republicans that voted for it. Oh, Bush deserves blame to. During one of his State of the Union addresses, he could have proposed that Congress repeal it. Instead he chose to further it by pushing Congress to support FMA. Oh, yeah, he could have also pushed for civil unions too. But that didn’t happen either.

By the way, I have no problem with a gay person choosing to be Republican. I agree with you that being gay is not a choice, but one’s political affiliation is. I can certainly understand why you made that choice, because there are plenty of other issues. Even if the Democrats were perfect on gay rights, and all Republicans were always anti-gay, which is not the case. But I think that you fall into the same trap that you accuse gay liberals of, but generalizing your opponents.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is “supposed” to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I do not condone the mocking of Democrats for your choice. And I’m glad that you haven’t been mocked are shunned by fellow Republicans. I’m curious as to how much you engage some of the religious right Republicans regarding gay rights. But it still doesn’t surprise me that these people aren’t courteous to you. I have been in the presence of someone who abhors the choice of my partner, simply because I am a male. And he was very courteous to my face, as I was to him. And on issues that have nothing to do with sexuality, I have been mocked or shunned in a manner that, on its face, sounds very polite and classy. Many times, I would have preferred to be told directly, instead of the “classy” cheap shots. My point is, what if everything else was the same about the Republican Party, except that a significant percentage of them (not necessarily all) tell you to your face that they think the fact that you are gay is disgusting, counterproductive, immoral, and inferior. Would you still be Republican?

I am not completely sure why a person should be “proud” of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment.

I’m not sure if “proud” is the correct word. I think it’s more about acceptance. How many gay people grew up being told how wrong it is being gay, being shunned, mocked, excoriated, etc., including from their own family. Being gay is not the accomplishment, but accepting it despite many forces telling you that you should be ashamed of it, I think you would agree is quite an accomplishment.

I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they’re just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.

Sure there’s discord, but I think you are attributing it to the wrong source. While I’m sure there are exceptions, I think most gay people want to assimilate into mainstream society as much as any other culture. It’s easy for me now, because just about everyone I know is accepting of me and my sexuality. Not everyone has the luxury. And even where I live, how ready is mainstream society ready for homosexuality. How comfortable are they in seeing two men (or two women) holding hands, kiss in public, slow dance at a traditional wedding, talking about their relationship in the same way that a straight person would?

I envision a future in which a person’s sexual orientation will be an afterthought.

I couldn’t agree more. Right now, neither party’s actions, in their own way, are furthering that.
posted by Bobby on February 21, 2009

Dan,

McCain was a horrible choice, he was a maverick, beholden to no one. For years the liberal media loved him because he would attack republicans, fight with Bush, support anti-free speech campaign finance reform, promote gun control, seek amnesty for illegal aliens and do the usual RINO things. It was only after winning the nomination that he pretended to be a conservative.

During his candidacy he was weak, he chastised his fellow supporters when they attacked Obama, he called Obama a great man and a patriot. In other words, he didn’t do his job.

The republican party cannot afford moderates. They need a Jindal or a Pallin. Someone charming, with common sense, with gumption to do their own thing while ignoring opinion polls, an extreme conservative in economics, a hate of government waste (unless it’s military spending) and someone proud of his Christian faith so we can keep getting the 30 million born again christian vote.

The country can’t afford democrats in office. Obama is turning America into a thirld-world country. You know the latest outrage? He wants car drivers to pay a mile tax! That’s right, a tax for every mile they drive. And they called Bush stupid, seriously. Bush had more common sense in one finger than our idiot in chief in his entire body.
posted by jvn on February 21, 2009

“You know the latest outrage? He wants car drivers to pay a mile tax! That’s right, a tax for every mile they drive.”

You pay too much attention to right wing nuts. The idea was floated by Ray Lahood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation and immediately shot down by Obama.

I’d rather drink the koolaid of the mythical gay urban stereotype of Knepper than drink the koolaid of the Republican right wing nuts. And if you haven’t noticed lately, that is all the GOP has left — the crazies.
posted by Jim on February 21, 2009

“I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay.” You make the point and then fail to understand the implications. I was once the subject of a magazine article and the author described me as a Gay carpenter. I told him I was not a gay carpenter but a carpenter who happened to be gay. I tried to explain to him that I am gay and was a carpenter but one had nothing to do with the other. The Republicans do not understand this. They think being gay is a choice and have used gays as a way to divide for political reasons. There is something very sad in seeing someone align themselves with those who would have that someone treated as less than equal. I do not condone but can easily understand why other gays and democrats give you grief. You not only participate in your own lessening…which I suppose is your choice….but you participate in the lessening of others by not standing up to those you agree with politically. The democrats and gays folk are not your problem my friend. You are your own worst enemy and instead of facing that, you attack. Good luck with that.
posted by Kary on February 21, 2009

Republicans brought us George Bush and the last 8 years. What else do you need to know? Republican gay people are the most odious people on earth. Get the fuck out of my subculture, asshole.
posted by David Lauri on February 21, 2009

Hmm, when gay men and lesbians have rights equal to those held by heterosexuals perhaps gay men and lesbians can start living simply as men and women.
posted by Greg VA on February 21, 2009

Of course, Alex appears to have no appreciation for the fact that rainbow flag wearing, gay subculture promoting, pride marching, “stereotypical” homosexuals created the world he now lives in — a world in which he can publish an article as a gay man and not fear for his safety or his future. That didn’t just happen, and it didn’t happen because heterosexual people suddenly, out of the goodness of their hearts, decided to play fair.

It happened because drag queens and gay activists and lots of other people Alex would look down his nose at refused to be victims anymore. And rather than sneer at them, Alex should learn to understand their perspective and say “thank you.”
posted by homer on February 21, 2009

Alex writes: “I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay ? their lives are gay.”

Stereotypes are wonderful, aren’t they? Yes, some people lived in the Castro or whatever neighborhood in NYC is trendy. But most of us faggots and dykes live in neighborhoods next door to straight folks and we shop at the local supermarket and some of us research local history or knit sweaters or taking cooking classes. But you know what, if some queer people want to live among other queer people, I’m glad they have that option. They are certainly many other ethnic, racial, political, retiree, or religious groups who do the same. Are they just as “bad” as you are implying the gays are?

You know, people may not be giving you a hard time because you are a Republican. Maybe they are giving you a hard time because you can’t acknowledge the fact that you can live openly as a gay male because of the hard work of other people, few of whom were Republican.
posted by Bob Smith on February 21, 2009

I would find Alex Knepper?s screed about why the Republicans are the better party more persuasive if he?d mentioned the anti-environmental jihad they?ve waged since Reagan put James Watt in office. As a gay man, I loathe the Republicans more for their environmental and health care policies then their stand on denying equal rights for gay men and lesbians. (And their supposed ?rich tradition for intellectualism? would be more believable if they hadn?t consistently supported an anti-science agenda.) The Republicans believe in small-minded government, which they?ve proved is worse than just about any form of big government.

I?m also surprised by Alex?s harsh judgment of gay subculture. As a Republican he should be in favor of the unregulated meat market of gay clubs. Although judging from the photos of Alex displayed on Facebook, I?m willing to bet he?d have a kinder view of gay subculture if he displayed some entrepreneurial zeal and joined a gym, got a good hair-cut (or at least combed his hair) and bought some contact lenses. Unfortunately for Alex, even gay Democrats believe that dating is a free-enterprise system and that gay men aren?t born bitter: it?s a choice.
posted by Bobby on February 21, 2009

“You pay too much attention to right wing nuts. The idea was floated by Ray Lahood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation and immediately shot down by Obama.”

Hey JVN, it’s not my fault that the New York Post broke the story, which claimed what I said, and then later Obama decided that the idea would be unpopular.

“I’d rather drink the koolaid of the mythical gay urban stereotype of Knepper than drink the koolaid of the Republican right wing nuts.”

—It’s the republican right-wing “nuts” that let the country know when government goes too far.

“Republican gay people are the most odious people on earth. Get the fuck out of my subculture, asshole.”

—I love it. That’s like the Klan calling blacks racist. You just gave a great example of progressive tolerance, Karyn. No wonder your kind wants to shut down talk radio, you can’t stand debate, can you?
posted by Rob79 on February 21, 2009

Some great points made in this article. I think to often we equate ones sexuality with political affiliation or beleif, as a Gay man I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, mainly because I think both sides are completely nuts.

Having said that I think you make some great points Alex, I too believe that ones sexuality should not engulf their lives, it’s part of us, but not all of us.

We must stop segregating ourselves, those who hate us do that enough on their own!
posted by Mark D Fulwiler on February 21, 2009

“Waterboarding is harsh interrogation. Period.”

Jesus Fucking Christ. You are a real cretin, Alex. Only the most evil and/or idiotic people think waterboarding is not torture. This is a method that has been used by Nazi Germany and various other evil regimes, is clearly against the law and is immoral.

Shame on this site for publishing your revolting crap.
posted by Mark F. on February 21, 2009

This is the absolute last straw for me. Goodbye Indegayforum.
posted by MovingOn on February 21, 2009

This debate, like an aging drag queen, is tired. It resurfaces, time and again, rarely with any evolution in thinking. Can?t both sides agree to a few evident truths and talk about some real issues here?

Yes, Republicans have been actively trying to restrict gay rights. Aside from some deep blue state Republicans Alex mentions and few libertarian types (Alan Simpson), most GOP officeholders are publicly opposed to gay rights.

But Democrats have been cowards for years, afraid of alienating older or hesitant ?Heartland? voters. Gays (like African-Americans) were victims of Bill Clinton?s singular ability to publicly champion minority interests while simultaneously passing laws at odds with minority interest groups. Ah, the mystic powers of triangulation!

The truth is it?s not really politically advantageous for either party to be pushing the full menu of gay rights today. Demographically, in about ten years they?ll be a considerable majority of voters who will want to hear the pitch. The reality is we really are the ones we are waiting for. Gays and lesbian individuals living fearlessly and sharing their personal testimony will win this battle faster than the Human Rights Campaign can.

Which brings me to an important point. There?s a generational shift at work here. Despite the fact that Americans are more comfortable and accepting of homosexuality, gay culture has remained static, expecting young newcomers to accept old traditions as an immutable facet of gay identity. Swapping out Cher for Britney is not innovation folks.

The circuit parties, drag shows, and bars that were a (much needed) social outlet for men who came out during the 80?s and 90?s seem foreign and irrelevant to a new crop that came out in high school, meets online, and shares pictures of their partners with their Facebook friends.

The partisans on both sides of this debate mention valid criticisms. But this debate isn?t really a fight over which political party gays and lesbian should belong too. It?s a fight over the meaning of sexual identity and the ways gay and lesbians want to establish themselves and be recognized in America. That?s an important conversation, one that?s far more necessary than fighting over who?s voting Republican or Democrat.
posted by BobN on February 21, 2009

“Do you or do you not think that something can both qualify as “torture” and be something that average television journalists willingly endure for audiences? I think a good litmus test for what constitutes torture, at the very minimum, could be “something that journalists can’t be paid to do.” Can’t we at least agree on that?”

No. First of all, I’ve yet to hear of a single journalist, average or not, who has voluntarily turned himself over for water-boarding by a declared enemy. Granted, I suspect either Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann (sp?) would — for the right price — submit to water-boarding at the hands of the other. But they don’t count. O’Reilly, especially, has shown himself to be unbound by normal human morality.

If you choose the path of punditry, your goal — your REAL goal — should be to influence people with ideas. Not straw men. Not mind games. Real ideas. Preferably good ideas. Well explained. If you think today’s threats warrant torture, SAY SO. Explain why the old rules just don’t count anymore. And explain how we should apply the new rules and to what end.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s fine if you want to be a “conservative”, even a Republican. I think it’s wrongheaded but that’s OK. Gotcha “debate” and silly propaganda, on the other hand, are not OK. As those libruls at the United Negro College Fund say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Yeah, I know, I’m not paying your tuition, so who am I to nag.
posted by Avi Oppenheim on February 22, 2009

I suppose people enjoy Alex Knepper the way others are drawn to kabuki or Beijing opera or any other severely ritualized performance. They don’t anticipate novelty or bravura, but delicate, subtle deviations from scripts long ago set in stone.

Like characters in kabuki and Beijing opera, gay Republicans inhabit a dreamy world of arcane high-drama far removed from the tedium of everyday civilian life, which I guess is part of their charm. They provide distraction and, reliably, comic relief.

Gay Republicans also set the mind in an Oriental mode because they so resemble in thought, manner, and deed, a stock character perennially central to traditional, conservative societies — the court eunuch.

Their performance is letter perfect. The reflexive subservience to politically powerful men and the social system which confers that power. The touchiness endemic to the awareness that powerful men tolerate eunuchs only because they pose no threat to wives, daughters, and mistresses, and then only to the degree that eunuchs are scrupulous in their subservience.

This subservience is of interest because its advantages are at best ambiguous. A sort of power through which its very wielding proves itself no real power at all. Whatever influence the eunuch exerts is on loan to him, granted or as easily withdrawn by a system and its elites whose interests are other than his own.

And this is why the time-honored role of the court eunuch is that of frantic fussbudget, the testy, defensive scold forever hyper-viligant of insult, forever at pains to ensure that protocol is at all costs observed, that others know their place, and that the traditional order is zealously maintained.

After all, a traditional order doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t favor some people over others. So the eunuch must therefore show an exaggerated hostility toward infertile concubines, dishonored princes, and other victims of the order he upholds. Were he not disdainful of victims, people might think he saw something of himself in them. And any suspicion at all of such sympathy could prove his undoing.

Court eunuchs may not have been happy, but they had the consolation of always being busy. A traditional order, like an old house, falls apart as much from external forces as from the wear and tear caused by those who live within. If you’re not careful with its upkeep and care, it could collapse around you or go up in smoke. And then where would you go?

Traditional order and the powerful are what give the emasculation of eunuchs its only possible meaning and purpose. Without traditional order, and powerful people to be protected by it, eunuchs would be revealed as being nothing more than what they are. Men without balls.

# # #
posted by Scott on February 22, 2009

As you can see Alex, you have no chance of even making a dent in the Borg co-op. You will be assimilated or destroyed. They are not interested in your weak thoughts and poor reasoning skills. You are inferior. And worse yet, you are young and it is imperative that they pile-on in an attempt to convert you before?..well, it?s too late. They do not want you to live your life the way that you would like. You will only receive visible scorn and they will shun you at every opportunity.

Ironically, they have taught you to be compassionate and inclusive, and that you should have the upmost respect for others and their plight. If you happen to become homeless however, they will surely not assist and will blame your self-loathing behavior and attitude. They only assist deserving minorities who think appropriately. It?s only a matter of time before they will have complete and total control of the minds of everyone. I mean look at this morning?s news – A drag queen has just become the Homecoming Queen at George Mason. Yes, with these types of occurrences it is likely that everyone in America will finally succumb to the inevitable. Please, for your own good and safety, join the collective.
posted by Charles Francis on February 22, 2009

Alex Knepper wants his sexual orientation to be a “non-issue” with the Republican Party. And I can understand that intellectual position, because I once believed this was possible. The Republican Unity Coalition , which I formed, was chaired by Senator Alan Simpson, and President Gerald Ford served on our Advisory Board. President Ford believed our vision was possible and joined us on this basis. The mission of the RUC was “non-issue”, and “assimilationist” within that “rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality with the Republican Party that Alex imagines, because it once existed. That tradition is gone. The RUC failed in achieving this goal, because at every level of the GOP, from the White House down to members of Congress, the “non-issue” became “THE” issue whether fundamental rights were at stake– such as striking down sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas) which criminalize homosexual activity, to civil unions or military service or marriage equality. I will never forget when the RUC criticized Senator Santorum for defending sodomy laws (“man on dog”), how we were abandoned by our friends like Mary Matalin and Mary Cheney, who certainly came from that classical liberal tradition. Alex Knepper’s ability to even write openly about being gay, and potentially working in a federal job, or receiving a security clearance, or serving in government at any level, or adopting a child, or keeping one in a divorce —all of this was achieved at great personal cost and sacrifice by gay men and women who realized that “non-issue” assimilation was not an option, if one cares about civil equality.
posted by David on February 22, 2009

I find it interesting that you so easily dismiss the issue with the FMA because it never had a chance of passing in the first place. What difference does that make? George Bush got on national television and told every American (especially his religious base) that gay people are nothing more than second-class citizens and should be treated as such. Of course everyone knew it wasn’t going to pass. But the message got out loud and clear: The Republican party hates gay people. How you can so easily make that affront to gay rights irrelevant, I find astonishing. I, for one, will never forget it or forgive it.

As for the role model of the Republican party, John McCain. He is hardly a spokesperson for gay equality. In fact, just the opposite:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tanene-allison/mccain-on-gay-rights-no-m_b_130268.html

Isn’t that funny. It almost looks like he has gone out of his way to hide his positions on gay issues. But then again, I’m sure you’ll find a rational reason to overlook McCain’s anti-gay stance. I have faith in you.

For me, this pretty much sums up the Republican party:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=5644436

Senator Buttars spews out mind-boggling hate-speak about gay people, and the Senate President basically says that he agrees with him. But the public outcry was so loud that he had to do something to pacify everyone. Hearing Mr. Buttars words, and seeing the inaction taken makes me want to vomit. Ya know, I have a feeling if you were to die, Senator Buttars would be dancing on your grave. You might want to think about that. To align yourself with a political party that doesn’t give a crap about you is repugnant.
posted by Steve on February 22, 2009

Here are excepts from two 2008 party platforms. You may dismiss these as just words that won’t be backed up by actions, but even if you accept that (and I don’t) I can’t imagine how any gay person could endorse a platform that contains the second excerpt.

We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,

and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive

bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all

attempts to use this issue to divide us.

Because our children?s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 22, 2009

“Isn’t that funny. It almost looks like he has gone out of his way to hide his positions on gay issues. ”

McCain did, indeed, go out of his way to hide his (all things relative) pro-gay positions.

So did Barack Obama.

In bashing McCain, you seem to forget that the Democrats are not a pro-gay alternative.

You also seem to forget that I am not a single-issue voter.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 22, 2009

Steve, no one actually gives a shit about the party platforms, Democrat or Republican. You’re just looking for any reason — any at all! — to oppose the Republican Party.
posted by BobN on February 22, 2009

Oh, never mind.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 22, 2009

Alex,

Again you are wrong. Obama published his gay-related positions on his campaign website:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

The following website was also created:

http://www.lgbtforobama.com/

As to McCain’s pro-gay policies, they are few and far between. For one thing, he supported Arizona’s anti-gay-marriage ballot measure. Below I will paste a couple of paragraphs from a column of mine from last August.

McCain has benefited from a narrative portraying him as a steely former POW ready to defend our country in a dangerous world. This ignores his more comfortable post-POW lifestyle, as well as evidence that the Iraq war he championed has made us less safe. Meanwhile, over 12,000 servicemembers have been forced out of the military under the “Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell” policy that McCain supports, even as personnel shortages have led to stop-loss orders preventing soldiers from leaving when their tours end.

Mockery by some gay Republicans about the supposed naivet
posted by Jorge on February 22, 2009

Don’t despair Alex. Richard does not take any criticism of his views as legitimate and he always professes to be misrepresented. He alone is allowed to stereotype, certainly not anyone else. You’ll notice Alex, that Richard doesn’t allow anyone to comment on his wrtings here, and that should speak volumes to his openness and desire to hear the views of others. It is sad I know.

Hmm…

Personally Mr. Rosenthal gives me the impression sometimes of being a Democratic and/or liberal sycophant. If you don’t mind, Richard, I would rather not justify why I have had that impression, but I am a still little sore about one time you didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt, either.

There is, I believe, a litanus test on this site. If it does not make sense to some people why Mr. Knapper is being included and welcomed as a contributer, let’s have them cite it. There ARE gay rightests who would fail it.

(Well, actually I’m only aware of one. Most conservative gay person I’ve ever heard of. He is always attacking the gay subculture, and personally I’m glad he is. We need people who speak truth to power like that in this country, and if they’re wrong, well let them lose. But my God he is just drop-dead wrong sometimes. I mean people like him take social conservatism and they make it make sense.)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 22, 2009

Jorge, I will allow the evidence above to speak for itself. I do find it odd, though, that some people consider any strong disagreement with their opinions, however well supported by evidence and argument, to constitute intolerance of dissent.

BTW, I think you meant “litmus,” not “litanus.”

I appreciate Charles Francis having weighed in.
posted by Jorge on February 22, 2009

Well, you learn something new every day. You know I once pronounced tombstone “tom-stone?”
posted by David on February 22, 2009

Thanks for not letting me down 😉

Okay, here goes nothing… I think the ‘single-issue voter’ mantra is just a convenient way to give yourself permission to take the easy path without any of the guilt. From the sound of it, you’ve put your sexual identity aside as long as the Republicans do A, B & C like you believe they should. Meanwhile, they’re also doing X, Y & Z to disenfranchise every gay person in this country. But since you’re not a single-issue voter it’s easy for you to look the other way. Like you said, being gay is an incidental part of your life. That’s very true. But when your state and government are legislating what you can and can’t do because of your sexuality, then it’s not so incidental. Perhaps you would be more concerned if you had a partner that was in the hospital, and you weren’t permitted to visit him or make decisions regarding his treatment. Things like this happen on a daily basis, and it does destroy people’s lives. If the thought of adopting a child has ever crossed your mind, your state (and your political party) might have some issues with your sexuality even if you don’t.

I can assure you, if you ever do become a ‘couple’ your sexuality won’t be incidental. Here is today’s real-life example: My partner and I just took our dogs to the dog park. There was a straight couple already there with a medium-size Collie. Before we arrived at the gate, the woman literally picked up her dog and walked over to the bench to get the leash. They exited at the other gate just as we walked in. Then they let their dog loose at the playground 50-feet away. This same scenario has happen to us a dozen times before. It wasn’t a coincidence. So I do get the ‘wanting to blend into mainstream society’ thing. It’s just not as easy as it sounds.

BTW… I completely understand not relating to the ‘gay lifestyle’ that some gay people live. My partner and I don’t live in a gay neighborhood. We don’t go to gay stores. We don’t hang a rainbow flag on our porch. We don’t frequent gay bars. We live our lives exactly like all of our straight neighbors, and we didn’t have to exclude our sexuality to do it. It’s extremely difficult at times, but in the end it’s worth it.
posted by Scott on February 22, 2009

I don’t get the dog thing other than that you think they removed their dog because you and your partner showed up and you believe it’s because you are gay? I think there are probably several reasons they could have left each time as you entered. It appears to me to be a hypersensitivity and misinterpretation to events surrounding you. We are all guilty of that at times.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 22, 2009

“I can assure you, if you ever do become a ‘couple’ your sexuality won’t be incidental. Here is today’s real-life example: My partner and I just took our dogs to the dog park. There was a straight couple already there with a medium-size Collie. Before we arrived at the gate, the woman literally picked up her dog and walked over to the bench to get the leash. They exited at the other gate just as we walked in. Then they let their dog loose at the playground 50-feet away. This same scenario has happen to us a dozen times before. It wasn’t a coincidence. So I do get the ‘wanting to blend into mainstream society’ thing. It’s just not as easy as it sounds.”

What does this have to do with being a Democrat or a Republican?

Individual bigots will always exist. Nothin’ you can do about it. Just gotta wait for the cultural tides to shift, unfortunately.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 22, 2009

“Mockery by some gay Republicans about the supposed naivet
posted by Alex Knepper on February 22, 2009

“Okay, here goes nothing… I think the ‘single-issue voter’ mantra is just a convenient way to give yourself permission to take the easy path without any of the guilt. From the sound of it, you’ve put your sexual identity aside as long as the Republicans do A, B & C like you believe they should. Meanwhile, they’re also doing X, Y & Z to disenfranchise every gay person in this country.”

Which Republican is trying to take away my right to vote?

And yes, I put my “sexual identity” (mostly) aside because I don’t really think it’s a big deal. When I see the candidates, I don’t immediately think “Okay, what does John McCain think about my sexuality?”
posted by Charlie Wingerter on February 22, 2009

Your article’s rationale is shaky at best, and your logic relies on several flawed premises.

You first suggest that your sexuality has no bearing on your “political” decisions. There is no problem with this idea on its own as you could make a corollary statement, “I won’t allow my skin color to alter my political choices either.” But how is it possible to keep that same ideological purity when the “political” agenda is actively focused on your sexuality?

You strive to reduce and trivialize “gay” as a lifestyle choice; as something as insignificant as a hobby, as something that does not define you or give you direction. Despite your clever construct, society and policy does think your sexuality merits more consideration than that of a mere recreational activity.. Whether it’s adoption or visitation rights, the right of inheritance, or the myriad of other “benefits” afforded straight couples, it is abundantly clear that American society does think sexuality is more than “an incidental part of my life.”

“I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right.” This entire statement is incredibly broad with no evidence to support it. “Intellectualism” is a slippery term. Are you speaking of Socratic Intellectualism? Or are you referring to the generalized notion of an attitude of devotion or high regard for intellectual pursuits? Or is it possible you have mistaken intellectualism with rationalism?

In contrast to your opinion, I believe the Republican Party currently practices “anti-intellectualism”, with its populist heroes (Joe the Plumber), jingoistic politicking (Drill, Baby, Drill), and general disregard for science or math.

You would also be well served by providing support for your claim of the Republican Party’s secular beliefs. This past election was anything but a secular affair. How many times did Republican pundits recycle rumors of President Obama being a “secret muslim”? How many clips of Reverend Wright were aired on FOX news followed by the interviews of outraged Republicans? Abortion and gay rights are certainly not secular issues, and the Republican’s have gotten a lot of mileage and fundraising out of both topics. It got bad enough, that even Mitt Romney had to defend his Mormonism during the primaries and make a big speech about secularism in America.

On the equality front it’s even worse. For the record, The Republican Party is against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Marriage Equality, Federal Protection for Couples, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, the repeal of DOMA, and same-sex parenting rights. They’re also against anti-discrimination laws in the work-place and don’t even support equal pay laws.

You make a larger jump in fallacious logic when you conflate “individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism” with the modern day Republican Party. While the historical view of the Republican party and the larger conservative movement may jibe with that statement, the Republican party of the modern era is a far different beast. Indeed you offered that holy trinity of ideals as comparative evidence as a way of making a pejorative point about the Democratic Party, but it’s still just a generalized statement that has no fact to back it up. You would’ve been well served if you offered citations in order to back your initial claim.

If we let recent history illustrate the Republican Party we get a different sense of what the current GOP is like. We saw how the McCain campaign merchandized the theme of “The Maverick”, all the while the candidate was capitulating his long time beliefs to the whims of the party overlords. The past eight years easily demonstrated that anyone with a dissenting voice within the GOP were quickly thrown under the bus or simply ignored. The GOP actively used both patriotism and fear tactics to squelch any that questioned their motives. From Cheney’s mushroom clouds to the Dixie Chicks getting death threats, the GOP talking points never stressed individualism nor full democratic participation. Instead, the party mantra was “you’re either with us or your against us.”

You are also not well served by combining cultural relativism and liberalism and then attributing both to Republican ideology. First off, cultural relativism is too often mixed with moral relativism and both are highly toxic topics in political arenas. We cannot live in a reasonable world if we subscribe to moral absolutism certainly. However, Republicans are very keen to be culture warriors waging in class warfare of their own creation. Whether its the ten commandments in the County Courthouse or Bill O’Reilly’s imagined war on Christmas. Face up to it; it is GOP strategy to foment wedge issues and then inject them into tight races in order to gin up their base, which (like it or not) is the Religious Right.

But you really jump the shark with this next gem, “I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men’s ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.” I challenge you to provide proof that other fundamentalist religions hold “gays” in higher esteem than that of radical Islam. But this statement is far more egregious than just it’s ignorant generality. Many gay people are aware of the death sentences handed down to Iranian youth. While that is certainly horrible, how should we respond when right here, in our enlightened and advanced country, we have gay children getting shot, being beaten, being abandoned and left for dead.

But its even worse than that. While you claim gay men are ambivalent towards radical islam, there are elected Republicans who claim that homosexuals are a greater threat to this country than radical islam or Al Queada. Rep. Sally Kern (R) is more concerned about gays than any terrorist out there and (R) Rep. Chris Buttars of Utah concurs, “”They’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.” GOP talking heads have blamed the gays for anything from 9/11 to Katrina, and yet we’re supposed to believe this is the party of Lincoln?

The rest of the piece is exhaustingly filled with more generalities and very little fact and analysis. You go on to paint gay men with broad brush strokes all the while asking that you do not be lumped in with them. You write off the Democratic party with a couple of talking points and expect us to accept your version of the Republican Party. The GOP you speak of may have existed, maybe back in the days of Goldwater, when William F. Buckley was an intellectual light in the post war GOP darkness. But, Buckley is dead and old style conservatism died with the Southern Strategy. Today the GOP is run by authoritarian nationalists and the religious right.

Between those 2 groups, there isn’t a whole lot of individualism, self-reliance, intellectualism, secularism or equality.

Good luck to you sir.
posted by Bobby on February 22, 2009

“Jesus Fucking Christ. You are a real cretin, Alex. Only the most evil and/or idiotic people think waterboarding is not torture.”

—Then you don’t know much about torture. Most regimes use electricity, beatings, cutting fingernails, etc. Waterboarding only makes the criminal feel like he’s drowning. What’s the big deal? Should we have another 9/11 because you didn’t want a terrorist to suffer?

This is exactly why many people vote republican, including gays! We don’t want to die in a burning building while the civil liberties of terrorists are preserved. We don’t want to lose our jobs while the government creates temporary blue collar jobs fixing bridges that aren’t broken, we don’t want nationalized banks, we don’t want more money for the arts, we don’t want billions of dollars for NASA and when the rest of America sees the consequences of voting for Obama, when they see the big automakers firing people AFTER getting government bailouts, when they see the economy NOT recovering after passing bailout after bailout, then your President will end up like Jimmy Carter, a one-term failure.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 23, 2009

Something I’ll need to learn as I advance in punditry is to resist the urge to reply to every nonsensical person out there. There are a few people here that I’d love to reply to, but won’t bother with because their arguments are just so fallacious (Like this Charlie fellow above, who uses the “Take one crazy comment from one person and then say ‘See! This is what the party stands for!'” technique. That’s basically his entire argument!).
posted by Brian D on February 23, 2009

That’s a lame response.
posted by BobN on February 23, 2009

“Just gotta wait for the cultural tides to shift, unfortunately.”

Translation = “Just gotta wait for the left to do the hard work, then we can ALL be Republicans!!!!”

Oh, one more thing. It’s been a while since I checked, but as for people LIVING with HIV in the U.S., men who have sex with men are, by far, the largest group based on mode of acquisition, still accounting for about half of those infected. In terms of new infections, we’re WORSE than we were just a few years ago, and now account for more than half of new cases, more than 2/3 of males cases.

If you, personally, “have nothing to do with HIV” and it has no effect on your life, you’re either celibate or stupid.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 23, 2009

“Oh, one more thing. It’s been a while since I checked, but as for people LIVING with HIV in the U.S., men who have sex with men are, by far, the largest group based on mode of acquisition, still accounting for about half of those infected. In terms of new infections, we’re WORSE than we were just a few years ago, and now account for more than half of new cases, more than 2/3 of males cases.”

HIV, to me, is a personal responsibility issue, not a governmental issue, and I’m tired of people acting like I have some responsibility toward the infected because I have a biological attraction to men.

“If you, personally, ‘have nothing to do with HIV’ and it has no effect on your life, you’re either celibate or stupid.”

Or responsible.
posted by Jorge on February 23, 2009

Something I’ll need to learn as I advance in punditry is to resist the urge to reply to every nonsensical person out there.

For punditry I think you should just reply to the ideas and stand on them. They tend to repeat themselves. For people I think are nutjobs I sometimes just hang them, sometimes deliberately say something reasonable that I know will provoke them.
posted by alanmt on February 23, 2009

I am a gay Republican. But I don’t vote for any Republican candidate who doesn’t support gay equality. When I am treated as equal uder hte law, and my marriage is treated as equalunder the law, then I will be free to vote for the philosophies of governance which I think are important. But while I think that traditional conservative political principles (i.e. calssical liberalism with a conservative respect for restraint and tradition) provide the best way to govern, the fundamental inherent human principles of liberty and equality are nonnegotiable – they are more than a mere governing style and cannot be abrogated by a civilized society.

Like it or not, the Democtratic party is fronting candidates who understand the equality issue and are more likely to set things right sooner.

My husband and I could get along fine with our Canadian marriage, it’s true. In a social sense, everyone treats us just like every other married couple present. But it’s not right. And legal equality needs to catch up with social equality. And now that we have a baby coming in a few months, I am working twice as hard to make sure that our little girl, who will be certain to face some social cruelty at some point from prejudiced people, isn’t part of a family that also suffers from an unfair legal disability.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on February 23, 2009

Alex, I said that the Democrats are better on gay issues than the Republicans, not that they are perfect, or that you care about gay issues, or that there are not legitimate policy differences on things like hate crimes. I have specifically said that the Democrats have their faults. And I myself am skeptical about hate crimes, especially the rationales that groups like HRC give for touting them (citing specific hate crimes for which suspects were arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned, as if those cases were crying out for federal intervention despite the states involved having handled them well). But the Democrats are demonstrably and significantly better than the Republicans on gay issues. Your determination to be completely dismissive on every front, in flagrant disregard of the evidence, may cause some people to think you are clever. Enjoy their company.
posted by Bucky on February 23, 2009

@alex k

“Take one crazy comment from one person and then say ‘See! This is what the party stands for!'”

Alex, your schoolyard taunting response to Charlie might carry more weight if you weren’t the one person making the crazy comments.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on February 23, 2009

The reason gay leftists like Richard Rosendall and the others on this board are ridiculed and rightly mocked is because they believe and make statements like this.

You seem to fail to take into account that the Republican party wants you — AS A GAY MAN — to cease to exist. Period. End of argument. Nothing else matters. They want you gone. Dead. Erased from the face of the earth.

Are you been paying attention?

Claiming to be a gay Republican because of tax policy is rather akin to being a Jewish Nazi because you believe in strong national defense.

Notice how none of the liberals here said a single word against that. Not one. Not even Rosendall. Not even the vaunted “Charles Francis”, whose independence doesn’t seem to preclude him kowtowing to the gay party line that Republicans all want to exterminate gays.

That’s because Rosendall and the rest of the bigot left that he represents need that caricature, those lies, those smears, to maintain their culture of perpetual victimhood that insulates them from having to take any responsibility whatsoever for their behavior.
posted by BobN on February 23, 2009

“Or responsible”

Well, here’s what you said:

“I’m a bit tired of people talking about HIV as a “gay issue.” The vast majority of gay people have nothing to do with HIV, and most people with HIV are not gay. Yes, it affects gays disproportionately, but AIDS is not “one of my issues” just because I’m gay.”

Take some “personal responsibility” and acknowledge that your comment contains at least one outright untruth. Or was it the classic avoidance on “most people”?

As you get older, your circle of friends and people you care about will come to include a greater than average number of people living with HIV compared to most Americans. As time goes on, it will include a greater than average number of people no longer living due to AIDS. If it doesn’t become “one of your issues” somewhere along the line, then you do, truly, have a bright future in right-wing punditry.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 23, 2009

“As you get older, your circle of friends and people you care about will come to include a greater than average number of people living with HIV compared to most Americans. As time goes on, it will include a greater than average number of people no longer living due to AIDS. If it doesn’t become “one of your issues” somewhere along the line, then you do, truly, have a bright future in right-wing punditry.”

HIV will never be one of my issues even if your silly prediction does come true, because I don’t believe that the government has any role to play in it. Again: it’s a personal responsibility issue. In this day and age, with all of the information and protection available, if you get HIV through sexual contact, it’s your own damn fault.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 23, 2009

Richard is willfully ignoring the fact that I have stated about ten billion times that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on gay issues.

That doesn’t mean that I think that the Democrats are good on gay issues, though, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I’m willing to abandon capitalism and the war against Islamofascism (as well as smaller issues like gun control, originalist judges, and others) to jump ship to them.
posted by Peter on February 23, 2009

“originalist judges”

Alex, would those be the same judges that didn’t think that black people were actually, you know, PEOPLE?
posted by Jason D on February 23, 2009

“Again: it’s a personal responsibility issue. In this day and age, with all of the information and protection available, if you get HIV through sexual contact, it’s your own damn fault.”

Among so many ignorant and stupid comments I’ve seen, this, in particular, takes the cake.

So it’s my old roommate’s fault he got HIV from a relationship that was supposed to be honest and monogamous?

Clearly you’re single, and your comments make it clear that you intend to continue that way.

It’s a myth that anyone who gets HIV these days (especially through sexual contact) can only blame themselves. They can also thank all those abstinence programs that took the tools to make responsible decisions out of the hands of students.

Don’t kid yourself, responsible people get HIV every day. And they weren’t implying that you would contract HIV, they were stating that eventually you’d have a friend with HIV. Course that would involve two extraordinary events to happen, 1) you’d have to actually stop vomiting and judging people long enough to talk to a gay person and 2) you’d have to actually interact with more than a few of them long enough to become friends with them. Somehow, I don’t see that happening. Again, no surprise that you’re single…. people, compassion, empathy, don’t seem to be your strong suits.

I don’t think people are rude and discriminatory because you’re a republican, I think the fact that your an asshole is a far bigger factor. There are asshole democrats and independents, they just don’t hide behind their party like you do.

The gay subculture you speak of? Well, I’ve lived in Chicago for 8 years, 3 of those years spent in the gay neighborhoods of Andersonville and Wrigleyville, and I have yet to meet anyone who fits the description you put forth. I’m sure they exist, I just must not have bumped into them. Maybe I’ll meet them after another 8 years?
posted by Rob on February 24, 2009

Republican? I thought this was the Independent Gay Forum. Oh well…

Originalist judges? You mean ones like John T. Raulston, who found John Scaopes guilty and started each trial with a prayer? Give me a break.
posted by Aaron on February 24, 2009

I agree with you Alex that my orientation is something that is a unchosen part of me, but I disagree with many of your assumptions. First, I don’t care about gay subculture at all (and I suspect that only a small percentage do). I don’t listen to gay music (unless you consider punk to be gay music) or watch films generally made for only the gay community. I do not have many gay friends or attend gay functions. I am proud of how I dealt with coming out, but I do not march in pride parades. However, you seem to be forcing this aspect of yourself into a small corner. The fact that you write a manifesto stating how unimportant it is shows me it is important to you–and the fact that this is an independent gay forum shows me that you are either an idiot or deluded. No matter how unimportant it may seem, your choice of date and your circle of friends would be determined by this aspect. Your family obviously sees you as gay, so that would also create a certain situation in your life. Pride is coming in that you are saying it means nothing, but your declaration is everything. Being proud to be gay is the same thing as being proud to be an American, Irish nationality, etc. Those who came before have helped you to live a free life, and that is where pride comes from. If you can’t see that, you are selfish. I don’t wear shirts or hang rainbow flags, but I recognize the struggle for gay rights.

I did my taxes yesterday, and I would have a bigger pay check if my spouse of 16 years was included. My mother-in-law died recently, but I could not take part in the decision making because I was not married legally. There are all kinds of things that are policy related that affect my life as a gay person. I don’t go around saying I am gay, gay, gay, but everyone at work and in my life knows, and I can’t escape it. Sure, you can be a poser and claim that being gay is a small brick in the whole of your wall, but you know that is not true. The fact that you are writing this article tells me that it is not true. You may wish it to be true, but society deems otherwise. It strikes me that the article is trying to make others of political persuasion believe something about you on the surface that is not true. Realize, like with Andrew Sullivan, that the conservative political machine will spit you out as soon as they perceive you are not one of them.

BTW, I am as libertarian as one can get, so do not assume I am a democrat.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 24, 2009

“Alex, would those be the same judges that didn’t think that black people were actually, you know, PEOPLE?”

No, they would be the ones who follow the letter of the Constitution, which makes no differentiation between whites and blacks.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 24, 2009

“The fact that you write a manifesto stating how unimportant it is shows me it is important to you–and the fact that this is an independent gay forum shows me that you are either an idiot or deluded.”

More than one person has said this to me, both here and elsewhere, and it’s completely silly. I’m speaking of an ideal; the IGF shouldn’t have to exist. It does, though, because there are people claiming to speak for me who actually don’t.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 24, 2009

“So it’s my old roommate’s fault he got HIV from a relationship that was supposed to be honest and monogamous?”

No, and that’s a very tragic situation, but not one that reflects the reason that most people out there have HIV.

And it certainly doesn’t mean that the government should get involved in it.
posted by Jorge on February 24, 2009

This is all quite silly. The correct answer to the why one is a gay Republican question is to answer why you’re gay. Piss off the impudents. The interaction between being Republican and being gay is quite fascinating, but ultimately distracting and harmful to the cause of diversity.

However being a Republican is on its own a completely morally neutral trait that belongs squarely in the black morass of partisan politics. Which is lots of fun but not something to be taken seriously.

I find it difficult to believe that in this country of otherwise independent-minded and intelligent people, not the least of which are in this forum, there are people who believe it a mortal sin to approve of waterboarding, and who believe it is actually reasonable to try to discredit Republicans by pointing to the upholding of slavery in the courts. This kind of stubborn outrage and off-topic hysteria is no substitute for an honest exchange of and tolerance of diverse ideas. It belongs right up there with James Dobson’s hysterics over teaching about gay people in public schools, and Ann Coulter’s obsession with graphically identifying gay sex acts in her books.

I also think it should be noted that there *is* a two-party system in this country which strongly discourages people from actually registering for any party except Democrat or Republican.

Most people in this country seem to be quite stable around the proposition that there are millions of people in this country who actually are Republicans. This is perfectly natural.

I think the people who are upset that there actually are such things as Republicans in this country and among the gay community should get over it quickly, because chances are Obama’s going to flop and we’ll have another two-termer Republican in the White House.
posted by CLS on February 24, 2009

I am a confirmed non-voter who wouldn’t vote for either party if you paid me (okay, if you paid me enough I might consider it provided I was pretty sure my vote wouldn’t actually elect anyone). I started life as Republican but was cured of that affliction long ago. But my default preferences were that the Republicans would win. These days the Republicans couldn’t lose badly enough to satisfy me. I wish to see them obliterated off the face of the political map. There is nothing about them that is remotely liberal in the classical sense of the word. They are BAD on economics, BAD on social freedom, BAD on foreign policy.

From what I can see even their motives are bad. And you can’t even debate them since they are faith-addicts who think that some assertion that a deity tells them what to means they don’t have to justify their positions with evidence or logic. All they do is assert that God wants policy X and policy X is almost always pro Big Government. Sure the Democrats are a Big Gov lot. But Republicans today are a Massively Big and Malicious Government lot. I’d rather the Democrats won office at this point in time.

Until the Republicans chuck out the American Taliban they can count on my total animosity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on February 24, 2009

Until the Republicans chuck out the American Taliban they can count on my total animosity.

They already have, CLS, because they’ve pretty much figured out you’ll support and endorse as “pro-gay” anything that comes from an Obama Party member, regardless of what it is or does or endorses or says. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of gays are screaming publicly, quote, “the Republican party wants you — AS A GAY MAN — to cease to exist. Period. End of argument. Nothing else matters. They want you gone. Dead. Erased from the face of the earth.”

In other words, you’ve got people who fully support marriage bans, workplace discrimination, and calling gays “filthy” as long as they have the right party affiliation, and who are claiming that the Republican Party’s sole goal is genocide of gays.

You’re not rational people. You whine and scream about “hate crimes” even as you hang Sarah Palin in effigy. You shriek about “workplace discrimination” even as you blockade and threaten businesses to demand that people who make political donations you don’t like be fired. You scream about marriage equality even as you give donations and endorsements to people who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

What on earth has the gay community done that would make them in the least worthwhile for Republicans to support? Sheesh, as the Donald Hitchcock case showed, even the Dems’ love for you is based solely on your ability to shut up and hand over your wallet, and vanishes instantly the minute you talk back.
posted by BobN on February 24, 2009

“What on earth has the gay community done that would make them in the least worthwhile for Republicans to support?”

Uh… being citizens???
posted by BobN on February 24, 2009

I am perplexed by the idea that the government should not involve itself with HIV/AIDS.

I seem to remember that even the Bush administration considered it a national security issue. That is, if I’m not mistaken, one of Alex’s “issues”.

Does the hands-off approach you advocate apply to all other public health issues, as well? Or is it just the sex-related ones? Gay-related ones? Contraceptive-related ones? (It’s so hard these days to keep track of the various reasons the different factions of the GOP give for sticking their heads up their… ooops, I meant in the sand.)

There are plenty of nations in the world where the government does nothing about HIV. Some where they do almost nothing about public health in general. Which one should be emulate?
posted by Bobby on February 24, 2009

Hey BobN

“”What on earth has the gay community done that would make them in the least worthwhile for Republicans to support?”

Uh… being citizens???”

—That’s not enough. A pedophile is a citizen, a wife beater is a citizen, Barney Frank is a citizen. Ironically, the democratic party supports illegal aliens which are not citizens.

Besides, republicans don’t support people, they support principles. Democrats support minorities getting a handout, republicans support the tax breaks that create jobs. Democrats give a speech praising gays, republicans have hired gays at all levels in the administration.

So it’s not a question of what the GOP can do for us, it’s a question of where do our principles lie. Do we want the party of let the government do it for you or the party of do it yourself? Do we want hope and dreams or the pains and pleasures of capitalism? Do we make history by rewarding the young, pretty and popular or do we reward the old, wise and experienced? Do we want to feel guilty for being white or do we say enough?
posted by BobN on February 24, 2009

“So it’s not a question of what the GOP can do for us, it’s a question of where do our principles lie.”

Oh, is that what ND40 meant?

“Do we want to feel guilty for being white”

We’re all white now? Cool.
posted by Alex Knepper on February 24, 2009

“I am perplexed by the idea that the government should not involve itself with HIV/AIDS. I seem to remember that even the Bush administration considered it a national security issue. That is, if I’m not mistaken, one of Alex’s “issues”.”

Ugh, I’m talking about domestic AIDS and you know that. Stop it.

“Does the hands-off approach you advocate apply to all other public health issues, as well?”

Most, yes.

“There are plenty of nations in the world where the government does nothing about HIV. Some where they do almost nothing about public health in general. Which one should be emulate?”

None.
posted by Infovoyeur on February 24, 2009

Speaking of “conservatives” not just Republicans, a litmus test I use to test their competence: do they “get” the “gay thing”? Affirm equality (not mechanical “acceptance, celebration”) because homosexuals are no objective threat; orientation is neither chosen nor changed; same-sex marriage does not interfere with religion (is a civil right issue); and so forth. But many do not; is it because of that “toxic strand” within s-o-m-e “conservative” thought? “Fear of change, authoritarianism, need for external authority,” that cluster? My hypothesis: the gay rights issue just “rings too many hot flags, rattles too many red buttons” [so to speak…] in the above “toxic strand” cluster, to be manageable for someone possessed of that so-called toxic strand. Such as gender-role-identity, and all the rest. Why else is “conservative” thinking so silent-or-dismissive on the issue of homosexual rights? [Well so I thought…] {;>)
posted by apr on February 25, 2009

I sympathize with gay Republicans wanting to be accepted by a party where the majority of its base thinks you are an abomination. Giuliani(the great hero) and McCain supporting civil unions? These two frauds ran away from their previous positions just to appease the nuts in the party.

Talk about self-reliance, small government and personal responsiblity, the last 8 years are a perfect example of this, the GOP style. The party is bankrupt of ideas, stuck with the same chant for tax cuts like a messed up mp3 file. Michael Steele, the new chairman holds more of the same bigoted views towards gays. Quite conservative of him.

As long as the GOP is beholden to the extreme elements of America this party will continue to be on the wrong side of history. With Sarah Palin and Bonny Jindal as the future of the GOP, we can be assured that there will be more Democratic landslides to come. But hey gay Repubs…the party would still love your vote!
posted by Bobby on February 25, 2009

Tax cuts work, APR! That’s why Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota and Honda have auto plants all over the south. In the southern states you don’t have to deal with pesky labor unions and high corporate taxes. Your democratic party is anti-business. They promise jobs but hate the corporations that create them, they say they love small businesses while telling Joe the Plumber to spread the wealth.

You democrats love raising taxes, I’m sure you’d love to raise capital gains back to 30%, or 50% if the let you. Ironically, you can’t collect any capital gains if nobody’s winning in the stock market. I’m unemployed, so you can’t collect my taxes either!

And if you want to talk about extreme elements, the democratic party is beholden to moveon.org, huffingtonpost.com, dailykoss.com and every big donor from Hollywood, not to mention George Soros, major financier of those radical organizations through his Open Society.

Sara Palin and Bobby Jindal appeal to most Americans just like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did at one point. The economy is going down the drain, Walls Street is angry at all the pork in the bailout, the price of oil is going up and your president wants to invest in unproven alternative energy. Your democratic party is out of touch. Obama didn’t get elected for his leftwing radicalism, he got elected because he’s black, young and gives pretty speeches. Eventually, Americans will get tired of hearing him speak and will expect to see results.
posted by apr on February 25, 2009

Bobby I see you live in conservative la la land. You spew the same crap heard from Rush Limbaugh. You are unemployed now because of the failures of Bush’s ideological polices of the last 8 years so I can see why you are bitter.

Oh the tax cuts certainly worked Bobby…you’re unemployed and the economy is tanking. You need taxation for infrastructure, roads, bridges, education, healthcare. Bush’s tax cuts does not benefit America’s middle class but only the rich.

In case you don’t know it, Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal thinks you are a sin so good luck with your future leaders. Please tell me who are the “most Americans” Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal appeal too, because they certainly were M.I.A on November 4th. If your thinking…”Obama got elected because he is young, black and gives pretty good speeches” is along the same lines of the rest of the GOP then that gives me so much satisfaction, it shows you guys are completely CLUELESS. Obama coming in after 8 years with a dud in the White House is quite beneficial, because any little insignificant results he gets would be seen as progress.
posted by Bobby on February 26, 2009

“Oh the tax cuts certainly worked Bobby…you’re unemployed and the economy is tanking. You need taxation for infrastructure, roads, bridges, education, healthcare. Bush’s tax cuts does not benefit America’s middle class but only the rich.”

—No. Gasoline taxes pay for infrastructure, and if government can’t do with the money they get, they should do with less. That’s fiscal responsability!

As for the rich that you hate, they create more jobs than anyone. Make them pay more and they’ll simply move their fortunes to tax shelters. The problem with people like you is you actually think the government can create wealth.

“Obama coming in after 8 years with a dud in the White House is quite beneficial, because any little insignificant results he gets would be seen as progress.”

—Keep dreaming, this isn’t a shitty thirld world nation where giving a pretty speech is enough to keep the peasants happy. This is America, a first class nation, people here expect the very best, and if your magical negro can’t deliver, American will turn against him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on February 27, 2009

Bush’s tax cuts does not benefit America’s middle class but only the rich.

Not quite. As that shows, the Bush tax cuts actually did better at putting real amounts of money back into the hands of real live working families than the Obama “credits”, which are designed to ensure that real working families subsidize the Obama voting bloc that wants bigger welfare checks and doesn’t want to work.

And Bobby, you have to understand: gays like apr have no concept of wealth creation, because the only place from which they get money is the government. They have been taught by the Obama Party that anyone who has more money than they do doesn’t deserve it and stole it from someone else. To them, every business, every corporation, every successful working person is a thief who is oppressing others.
posted by Bobby on February 27, 2009

“And Bobby, you have to understand: gays like apr have no concept of wealth creation, because the only place from which they get money is the government.”

—The irony is that gays like APR don’t seem to mind the success of other gays in the entertainment industry. Where are the socialists calling for Ellen Degeneres to earn only $100,000 a year and to donate the rest of her salary to charity? Where’s the outrage over the millions of dollars Rosie O’donnel has made in her life? Where are the rich haters when it comes to Suze Orman?

In the meantime:

“President Obama wants to spend about $3.6 trillion next year to pull the nation out of recession…”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-deficit_N.htm
posted by bucky on February 28, 2009

bobby:

“magical negro”

enough said. you’ve told us all we need to know about you.

i’d say you were a horrible person but that would imply you were actually a person.
posted by Bobby on February 28, 2009

“magical negro”

—Yes, it was a liberal writer from the Los Angeles Times who called Obama that. Here, see for yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story

“enough said. you’ve told us all we need to know about you.”

—Should I show you hundreds of examples of minorities saying nasty things about whites?

Or more interesting, a white liberal radio host referred to Condoleeza Rice as “Aunt Jemima.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6530925/

“i’d say you were a horrible person but that would imply you were actually a person.”

—Of course, you liberals don’t think anyone who disagrees with Saint Obama is a person. Fidel Castro plays the same tricks, he calls his enemies “gusanos” or “worms” in English.

Funny how it’s not ok for me to call Obama a magical negro while it is ok for you to compare Bush to a monkey or for Al Franken to write a book called “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.” I wonder if borders would stock a book called “Michael Moore is a big fat idiot.”

Go ahead and worship Obama. In the spirit of dissent, I will call him any name I want.

And I’m not alone, check out what Alan Keyes calls him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkMfToY9Pk
posted by bucky on February 28, 2009

own it you bigot
posted by Bobby on February 28, 2009

“own it you bigot”

—Alright. I’m a bigot against big government, censorship, intimidation, progressive radicalism, Chicago-style politics, etc, etc, etc.

Whatever, Bucky, you probably want to get penetrated with Obama’s 12 inches of socialism. “Oooooh Obama, that deficit feels so good.”
posted by Jorge on March 1, 2009

I sympathize with gay Republicans wanting to be accepted by a party where the majority of its base thinks you are an abomination.

Well I’m a little offended. I’m not particularly motivated by acceptance, and I’d like some of your pity, too.

How about showering some of your sympathy and pity on those of us gay Republicans who merely want to conquer the Republican party by force? We don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, either. I became so depressed when Giuliani’s campaign collapsed I voted for Mitt Romney.

By the way, why on earth do you care about such irrelevant things like tax policy? Register as a Democrat if you’re going to go off on boring political stuff like that and stop going to those pointless marches and rallies.

Funny how it’s not ok for me to call Obama a magical negro while it is ok for you to compare Bush to a monkey or for Al Franken to write a book called “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.” I wonder if borders would stock a book called “Michael Moore is a big fat idiot.”

It is not okay. Why are you tolerating it?
posted by Bobby on March 1, 2009

“It is not okay. Why are you tolerating it?”

—Because we’re powerless to stop it. We can’t stop the progressives from comparing Bush to a monkey or calling him retarded, but we can called Barrack Hussein Obama a magical negro, St. Bama, the messiah, Obidiot, that dirty communist, etc.

We conservatives, libertarians and independents need to unite. Obama is destroying our country, we must unite against his policies. We cannot let the president’s personality blind the country to the reality of his evil policies. Read Ann Culter’s latest column, she’s brilliant.

“As Obama prepared to deliver his address to Congress on Tuesday, the Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner, Fox News’ Bret Baier and Charles Krauthammer all gushed that history was being made as the first African-American president appeared before Congress.

Even Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom I suppose I should note was the first Indian-American to give the Republican response to a president’s speech, began with an encomium to the first black president. (Wasn’t Bobby great in “Slumdog Millionaire”?)

Are we going to have to hear about this for the next four years? Obama is becoming the Cal Ripken Jr. of presidents, making history every time he suits up for a game. Recently, Obama also became the first African-American president to order a ham sandwich late at night from the White House kitchen! That’s going to get old pretty quick. ”

http://anncoulter.com/
posted by KevinQC on March 1, 2009

Alex, you are headed down a long and bumpy road. But it’s also the right one. Remember, you are shattering a lot of people’s preconceptions about what and how you should think… just because you’re gay. No one likes that; liberals especially.
posted by mmv on March 4, 2009

Great piece, keep up the good work. I think more people feel the same way than are willing to admit.
posted by Bobby on March 5, 2009

Here’s the latest Obama outrage. Florida has a huge cigar economy based on tobacco grown here and cigars exported from elsewhere, yet now our magical negro has decided to raise taxes by 900% on cigars, this could destroy the jobs of thousands of people. And why is Obama raising tobacco taxes? Because he wants to give kids health insurance! Kids that we didn’t have, we’re talking about the kids of poor breeders that shouldn’t be having kids in the first place! But Obidiot doesn’t see it that way, no, our historical president thinks it’s ok to punishing prosperity with job killing taxes is perfectly fine. What the American people have done is appoint an alcoholic to take care of a bar. And gays who vote republican understand this, they understand that we’re not just gay, we’re Americans, we live in this country, we have jobs, we pay taxes, we need a strong economy BEFORE we need same-sex marriage. It is because we love our country that we HATE the policies of our socialist president.

Obama is the worst president this country has ever had. Wall Street hates him, and pretty soon mainstream will scorn him as well.

The liberals didn’t stand with Bush, I won’t stand with Obama!
posted by Amicus on March 8, 2009

hummmm…..

looks like another ‘hereditary’ Republican, trapped in a genetically adverse body…
posted by tjr on March 9, 2009

Reading the comments from some gay Republicans soothes me, because it shows there will be more landslides to come. They harp about more tax cuts for the rich depite the last eight years. The Republican party is regional and led by a ranting obese, self-absorbed, substance abusing bigot. Gay Republicans will NEVER be accepted by their party.

How sad!

They didn’t get it in November, they still don’t get it and never will get it…thank goodness.

Bobby:”The liberals didn’t stand with Bush, I won’t stand with Obama”

Bush was a DISASTER…9/11, Iraq war, Katrina…please don’t stand with Obama!
posted by nh on March 16, 2009

Does Mr. Gay Republican live in Nebraska? I think not. Maybe he should try it sometime though. It would do him good to experience assimulation in a state dominated by his party. I’m sure it would change his perception regarding the “destructive” gay subculture.

Has Mr. Gay Republican ever felt true hostility? The boyfriend and I went to a straight Kareoki bar because he likes singing in public. We weren’t out to make a “statement.” The gay Kareoki bar was a 30 min drive a way in inclement weather and we wanted an early evening. The boyfriend sang two lines of a song to me while going around working the audiance. The “breeders” took such offence to it we were driven out of the bar.

Come on Mr. Gay Republican, there is no such thing as “assimuation” in a state dominated by people of your political party. In order to feel safe in public in a state dominated by your party one has to always “cover up.” Gay’s can’t kiss in public, holding hands is out, can hug, but it must be brief and you better definately your boyfriend away hard afterword to keep up your “straight” image. Remember it’s not just red neck thugs who might beat you up or murder you. Somebody from work just might see you and tell your boss. Got to keep in mind there are no “anti Gay” descrimination laws on the books in a Republican state. You can be fired for just being a Homo!

Gay Republicans are labled “self-loathing” because they accept such activites as “normal” and “healthy.”
posted by Bobby on March 17, 2009

“The Republican party is regional and led by a ranting obese, self-absorbed, substance abusing bigot.”

—Oh, like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are thin? Wake up! Fat people are everywhere, fat people are 65% of America, when you insult republicans for being fat you’re insulting your own socialist kind!

“Bush was a DISASTER…9/11, Iraq war, Katrina…please don’t stand with Obama!”

—That’s right, I stand AGAINST Obama and I hope all his evil policies fails.

“The boyfriend sang two lines of a song to me while going around working the audiance. The “breeders” took such offence to it we were driven out of the bar.”

—Why would you do that? Why provoke people? Why not just go to an evangelical church wearing a t-shirt that says “I hate God.” Seriously, gays need to behave themselves in breeder territories.

“Gay’s can’t kiss in public, holding hands is out, can hug,”

—Not all gays have someone to kiss, hold hands with and hug. And even if I had a boyfriend, I would not behave myself that way unless me and my boyfriend had guns in our holsters.

Besides, are gays safe in West Hollywood? Are they safe in the Castro? Gay bashings have occurred many times in those areas.

Obama’s on his way out, he’s doing a terrible job, he’s the worst president America has ever had. Pretty soon the average American is gonna get tired of Mr. Articulate. Pretty soon Malia and Jemima or whatever her name is will stop being so adorable.