Stephen Miller joins what is turning out to be a much larger, and enormously welcome conversation over gay rights that has been too long in making it to the public stage. He says the Christianist rebellion against the conservative CPAC is a “Welcome Winnowing” of the right from the conservative movement. Karen Ocamb asks the obvious related question from the left: “Will LGBT progressives be able to work with Log Cabin Republicans in 2011?” And Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times is dumbfounded to learn there are non-leftist homosexuals.
But it’s best to let the Christianists speak for themselves, and I think Joseph Farah of World Net Daily sums it up quite clearly:
Purge is not a bad word. It simply means, according to the dictionary definition, “to rid of whatever is impure or undesirable; cleanse; purify.
As I was listening to Handel’s glorious “Messiah” over Christmas, the phrase, “And we shall purify. . .” struck me, for the first time, as terrifying. Something that is a necessary task in chemistry and the hard sciences is transformed, in human desire and behavior, into horror-ridden moral crusades. Whether someone wants to purify a group of humans for religious reasons, racial ones or political ones — or any combination of those — there are no means to that end that are not gross, shocking, sometimes obscene, and at their worst, naked terrorism.
The Republican Party has given aid and comfort to people who want to cleanse the world of homosexuality. All of their studiously loving words cannot hide that simple wish. The GOP has been able to finesse this decay for long enough, and now faces an internal conflict that not even Ronald Reagan could manage.
The Purists are awake and active. And I can’t see a Republican leader on the horizon who can even begin to handle them.
32 Comments for ““And We Shall Purify. . . “”
posted by Chris on
I know it’s not nice to call people fools, but this was worth sharing.
http://www.GayFools.com
Thanks,
Chris
posted by Jimmy on
“The Purists are awake and active.”
No duh.
“And I can’t see a Republican leader on the horizon who can even begin to handle them.”
Nope. The GOP will just bend down and spit shine the Purists’ jackboots, as usual.
posted by Tom on
“Will LGBT progressives be able to work with Log Cabin Republicans in 2011?”
Can they? On issues relating to equal treatment under the law — repealing DOMA, for example — of course.
Will they? On gay and lesbian issues, probably. On other issues, progressive and conservative gays and lesbians will probably fight like cats and dogs.
And that is how it should be.
The secret to making this work is for all gays and lesbians to be single-minded and relentless in pursuit of legal equality within their own realms of influence, giving no quarter to any politician who votes anti-gay.
posted by Jorge on
The Republican Party has given aid and comfort to people who want to cleanse the world of homosexuality.
Do you intend to suggest that the Republican Party looks the other way at people who want to exterminate gays? If so, that is quite an accusation, and I hope you have a better citation for that than the article you linked to! This is huge breaking news that must be exposed–even Pat Robertson’s Katrina cackles would not compare!
If not, that’s exactly what you did suggest. Somehow I don’t think the two sides will be able to work together.
(from Ocamb’s article): “While LGBT Democrats may be loath to give Republicans any credit for repealing DADT – other than Sen. Susan Collins and LCR attorney Dan Woods – it might behoove the LGBT progressive leadership to consider working on some sort of bipartisan agreement to cease and desist on the usual acrimony and seek compromise – setting aside ideological differences in order to focus on LGBT equality for the next few years. Otherwise LGBTs are doomed to another long period in the political wilderness.”
Hmm…
I agree that some kind of loose coordination and focus would be helpful in a Republican-controlled Congress, but that’s not likely to be a top-down decision. Our organizations will need to be ready to act when the rank and file decides that it is time to act on a specific issue.
posted by BobN on
Uh… on what are “gay progressives” supposed to “compromise” when working with LCRs?
Besides, there’s been cooperation on gay issues between lefties and LCR before. That led, of course, to some gay conservatives dropping the LCR and creating GOProud.
Very odd analysis.
posted by Jorge on
Besides, there’s been cooperation on gay issues between lefties and LCR before. That led, of course, to some gay conservatives dropping the LCR and creating GOProud.
Very astute observation. I wonder what the chances are of cooperation between gay lefties and GOProud.
posted by Tom on
“I wonder what the chances are of cooperation between gay lefties and GOProud.”
I think that it depends on the nature of “cooperation” expected on an issue.
I do not expect to see progressive and conservative groups to craft a common message, pool resources and work in teams, or any other such Mr. Rogerish sort of cooperation on an issue. Lawyers can do that on constitutional issues — witness Olson and Boies — because political philosophy isn’t a factor. But political groups, generally, can’t and shouldn’t be expected to do so.
But there is another kind of “cooperation” which entails working in tandem, but not necessarily together, that seems to me to be possible on many issues.
The model I’m suggesting is one in which progressives and conservatives have a common objective with respect to an issue — to enact, amend or repeal a law to promote equal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law — and the two political camps work independently, each from the standpoint of their own political philosophy, to achieve the objective, regardless of differences in political philosophy.
Let’s look at Section 3 of DOMA (federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage) to see how this might work.
Section 3 repeal, it seems to me, is an issue almost designed for this kind of cooperation.
Whatever their differences in political philosophy about the nature of federalism and about the wisdom of same-sex marriage, progressives and conservatives could, it seems to me, effectively work together in tandem to repeal Section 3, each within their respective political spheres of political influence. Progressives could bring Democratic votes to the table, and conservatives Republican votes, based on different political calculus and philosophy.
Progressives could work the Democrats on the basis of civil rights and conservatives could work the Republicans on the basis of states’ rights. The two sides might be miles apart on why Section 3 should be repealed, but together in agreement that it should be repealed.
While the two might not agree on the reasons why the other supports DOMA repeal — in fact, may each think that the other is dead wrong in the reasons for supporting DOMA repeal — the two could each articulate independent rationale for repeal and work to achieve repeal.
It is that kind of “cooperation” that I think is possible and desireable.
posted by BobN on
What you’re describing isn’t “cooperation”. Mind you, the approach is fine with me. In fact, I would encourage autonomous efforts because I see this “let’s work together” stuff as an attempt to legitimize a “gay-right organization” with precious little evidence of accomplishment. In fact, GOProud is more notable for what they’ve done to harm gay rights than what they’ve done to further them.
posted by Tom on
I don’t want to get into a definitional argument, because I think that the substance is more important, so maybe “concurrent, concerted action” is closer to what I’m describing than “cooperation”.
The point is that progressive and conservative gays and lesbians can form political coalitions around specific issues relating to equal treatment, agreeing on the result — the necessary specific change in law to accomplish equal treatment, in this case the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA — without finding common ground on reasons why the result should be effectuated.
I’m doing nothing more than practical politics. DOMA repeal is going to require Republican votes, even in 2013 or 2014, when I think Obama is going to bring the issue to a head. So the question for Obama will be “Where do I find the Republican votes, and how do I bring them into the fold?”
The obvious answer is to build a political coalition of Democratic civil rights advocates and Republican states’ rights advocates. I think that is what Obama will do, slowly, carefully, largely behind the scenes, while he builds support among the American public.
The question posed by this thread is whether or not progressive gays and lesbians and conservative gays and lesbians can support that effort. I think that they can, so long as neither side tries to impose on the other a common rationale for acting.
What I do know is that it is no longer enough for Republican gays and lesbians to expect Democrats to carry the water for them, whining at each step in the process that Democrats are doing “too little, too late”. It is absurd, and counterproductive.
Republican gays and lesbians need to create a hell of a stink on conservative principles and get their party off its elephant ass.
posted by Throbert McGee on
It seems to me that GOProud is mainly notable, thus far, for self-publicizing as the exciting new alternative to LCR, but without managing to articulate how its policy positions on concrete issues are different from those of LCR. (For that matter, on overtly “gay” issues, GOProud doesn’t even distinguish itself from the gay left in a consistent way — for example, I can recall seeing a GOProud press release chiding the Obama administration for its lack of progress on LGBT issues, including the failure to pass ENDA. But, um, shouldn’t a principled “small government” conservative group be happy that an intrusive nanny-state program like ENDA failed?)
In any case, BobN, what do you think that GOProud — which is only a few years old and still tiny — has done to harm gay rights?
posted by BobN on
The enthusiastically campaign for anti-gay candidates. Obviously, if one is a Republican, this is almost unavoidable, but they even go with the more anti-gay candidate when choosing at the primary level of GOP vs. GOP.
As you point out, they’re teeny, tiny. They could pick and choose and find GOP candidates to support. In fact, being teeny and tiny, they do choose, and their choices expose them for what they are: a propaganda tool to help draw gay people into the GOP. Or rather, gay money. The GOP has little use for gay people other than as donors.
And I would quibble about your assertion that GOProud and LCR share policies. LCR would, as well. GOProud is rather strident about how they are the “real” conservatives. I say throw some olive oil on them and let them wrestle for supremacy.
posted by BobN on
Sigh. My typing is getting awfully sloppy these days.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, no, since according to BobN, Tom, and the Obama Party, supporting and endorsing bans on marriage makes you pro-gay, gay-supportive, and worthy of gay money and endorsements.
And this is also what makes gays like Tom counterproductive and ineffective; people in Wisconsin realized that Tom would call them Nazis, homophobes, and bigots even as he was out endorsing and supporting Obama Party members with the same views. They figured out quickly that Tom and his ilk have no concern for “gay rights” or “equality” and in fact are nothing more than Obama Party shills who are trying to use their homosexuality as a smokescreen for leftist views.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not sure it’s all that obvious how bashng LCR and inviting Ann Coulter to speak at an event is supposed to draw gay money to the GOP unless that money is already very red to begin with.
In fact I think GOProud, despite its name, really is not about the Republican party but about conservative principles. At least that’s what they say about themselves.
I must take exception to your statement that the Republican party has little use for gays other than as donors. When is the last time you’ve heard a gay person called a RINO? When’s the last time you’ve heard the charge applie on gay rights–for there are certainly a fair number of Republicans you’d think are RINO worthy there (Cheney, Giuliani, recently Powell, Scott Brown of all people, the other moderates in the Senate). Look at what happened after the third presidential debate in 2004, how much more proof do you need to dispell your petty little prejudices? Really, both gays and Republicns are more complicated and more integrated than the laundry list of gay-themed demands and their conservative opposition.
posted by BobN on
When is the last time you’ve heard a gay person called a RINO?
There are no gay politicians to be called RINOs. Back when there were a couple, they voted anti-gay and no one called them anything but good Republicans.
there are certainly a fair number of Republicans you’d think are RINO worthy there (Cheney, Giuliani, recently Powell, Scott Brown of all people, the other moderates in the Senate).
I’ve gone over Cheney enough times, I’m not going to repeat myself. He’s pulled the wool over your eyes and there’s no way to pull it off apparently. Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage. He opposes NY recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage. Powell is called a RINO all the time. And Brown has ONE vote in our favor and he’s being accused of being a RINO over it. The GOP moderates in the Senate have “RINO” tattooed on their foreheads.
Look at what happened after the third presidential debate in 2004, how much more proof do you need to dispell your petty little prejudices?
You mean the Cheney high indignation about Mary? That crapfest?
posted by Jimmy on
ND30- The thing about trotting out the same ol’ BS, as you do, is that it rarely tells the whole story.
Funny how Harold Ford Jr. has done a 180 on gay marriage. Perhaps he was there all along, and Rosen knew it, and knew that he was just behaving like a politician. Or, Rosen believed that Harold would change his mind, as he has done.
You got any other examples other that the same tired, irrelevant one you use every time you want to make this phony point?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, that one makes the point beautifully, Jimmy; Obama Party gays like yourself spin for Obama Party politicians regardless of what they do.
It’s especially hilarious with the FCKH8 campaign, which is funding and supporting “Equality” California, AFER, the Courage Campaign, and others, now screaming that voting for or supporting marriage amendments causes the deaths of gay teenagers and that any politician who does so, like Harold Ford did repeatedly, is a murderer.
Tom wonders why the people of Wisconsin kicked him and his Obama Party massas out of office. It was mainly because they realized that Tom and his ilk are hypocrites who support and endorse people whose actions they scream constitute “murder” elsewhere.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve gone over Cheney enough times, I’m not going to repeat myself. He’s pulled the wool over your eyes and there’s no way to pull it off apparently.
And I’ve gone over Bush enough times but I never tire of repeating myself on that. The fact that you’re a dead set deluded hater does not immunize you from fair criticism.
Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage. He opposes NY recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.
Well there’s gratitude for you. One of the first Republicans to take any kind of pro-gay stance. Without him, domestic partnerships would be nowhere in NY, and civil unions would probably be farther behind in the rest of the country, too. That’s more than I can say for our current president.
Powell is called a RINO all the time.
Has he ever been called a RINO on gay rights?
You mean the Cheney high indignation about Mary? That crapfest?
John Kerry made a calculated decision to publicize Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation in an effort to scandalize conservatives into not voting for Bush. It’s hard to imagine a better example of ivory tower liberals totally misunderstanding the relationship between conservatives and gays.
posted by Jorge on
Funny how Harold Ford Jr. has done a 180 on gay marriage. Perhaps he was there all along, and Rosen knew it, and knew that he was just behaving like a politician.
I think the more likely explanation (if that is true) is that Ford moved to New York to explore challenging Sen. Gillibrand in the primary. Who herself moved toward the left after she was appointed, to be fair.
posted by BobN on
And I’ve gone over Bush enough times but I never tire of repeating myself on that. The fact that you’re a dead set deluded hater does not immunize you from fair criticism.
Cheney supports the rights of states do choose whether or not to recognize our relationships. That’s it. That’s all there is there. AND he doesn’t support legal recognition in HIS state.
If that’s pro-gay, I’m an anteater.
Well there’s gratitude for you.
Are you even paying attention to YOURSELF? YOU asked “When’s the last time you’ve heard the charge applie on gay rights”. I was just giving you examples of folks who are called RINOs about their stance on gay rights. As for Giuliani, who said I’m not grateful for his work on civil unions? Heck, I’m not a NYer but I still see he was ahead of the curve (on the GOP side) on that. Of course, since he’s still toying with running for something or other, he has backtracked a bit. Still, who couldn’t love him for what he’s done for drag.
posted by Jorge on
YOU asked “When’s the last time you’ve heard the charge applie on gay rights”. I was just giving you examples of folks who are called RINOs about their stance on gay rights.
Except that they’re not. Don’t try to out-bluff me.
Powell is disdained by conservative Republicans for a lot of things. I’ve never heard of gay rights being one of them. And so far it looks like Scott Brown is escaping notice, too, or at worst, being portrayed as soft on abortion.
Cheney supports the rights of states do choose whether or not to recognize our relationships. That’s it. That’s all there is there. AND he doesn’t support legal recognition in HIS state.
If that’s pro-gay, I’m an anteater.
Ah, yes, I get it now. You are dismissing his “freedom means freedom for everybody” spiel. As usual, it’s all about the politics for you. And so your point that Republicans have no use for gays except as money–you say that because you have no use for Republicans except for political favors. Why do I keep forgetting this?
posted by BobN on
As usual, it’s all about the politics for you.
No, it’s about clarity and honesty. He utters — with remarkable consistency — a statement of a few sentences. To you, it means full-throated support. To me, it does not pass parsing. It appears to mean almost nothing. (I grant that he opposes criminalization.) Despite repeated calls to clarify and expound on his statement, he refuses. I can’t help be see that as being dishonest.
As for the others and you not having “seen” anyone call them RINOs on gay issues, I can only suggest Google.
posted by Jorge on
I suggest if you’re going to claim that your research skills are superior to mine, that you prove it.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I agree with that, and it’s very well put, but that’s what happened with LCR this time. There’s no record of GOProud standing with the left on anything.
posted by Tom on
Well, Jorge, I am often at a loss trying to follow the internal machinations of LCR and GOProud. I don’t know what purpose GOProud serves within the party that LCR wasn’t serving.
My view is that LCR helped bring down DADT through a well-timed lawsuit and subsequent lobbying efforts. I don’t know if GOProud did anything or not to help out on DADT repeal.
But looking at the GOProud legislative agenda, it seems to me that there will be opportunities for cooperation between GOProud and progressive gays and lesbians on a number of issues — tax equity for gays and lesbians, opposing efforts to criminalize homosexual acts (domestic and foreign), opposing the FMA, and (although this is not on GOProud’s stated agenda) DOMA repeal.
Some of this will require concerted action, but not all.
For example, if GOProud extended its legislative agenda (currently “standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians”) to include standing strong against efforts in our own country to criminalize homosexual acts, GOProud could take the lead in reversing the “recriminalization of sodomy” platforms of the Montana, Oklahoma and Texas Republican parties.
We all have a role in the fight.
posted by Throbert McGee on
If one takes the position that Republican philosophy is generally a good thing that one wants to see grow and spread among gay people, then in theory, it could be very helpful to have one Gay Republican group whose primary mission is to “win hearts and minds” among non-gay Republicans when it comes to LGBT-related issues; and a separate Gay Republican group whose focus is to spread the GOP gospel among teh gheys.
But as I said upthread, I’m not certain that GOProud has actually managed to put together some sort of mission statement that identifies where it overlaps with LCR and where the two organizations differ. To the best of my knowledge, the genesis of GOProud ultimately goes all the way back to LCR’s refusal to endorse Bush over Kerry in 2004 because of Bush’s support for a Federal Marriage Amendment — so evidently GOProud sees loyalty to the Republican Party as more important than loyalty to “The Fight for Marriage Equality™.” But I don’t know whether there’s any difference between GOProud and LCR on DADT or ENDA, for example.
posted by BobN on
GOProud doesn’t support ENDA.
http://blog.goproud.org/index834e.html?p=329
As for DADT, GOProud seems to have done little work to actually repeal the law other than complaining when Obama and the Dems faltered on the way to repeal. I recall reading something about them favoring repeal but “not now” with two wars going. Oddly that webpage seems to have “disappeared”. They actively supported candidates opposed to repeal. LCR, which is a gay-rights organization rather than a marketing tool for the GOP, has actively worked for repeal for years.
posted by Tom on
As for DADT, GOProud seems to have done little work to actually repeal the law other than complaining when Obama and the Dems faltered on the way to repeal.
Sounds vaguely reminiscent. I wonder where we’ve heard that line recently?
posted by Paul Cook-Giles on
Ummm… the text is “…and He shall purify…” 🙂
posted by Travis on
“Will LGBT progressives be able to work with Log Cabin Republicans in 2011?”
Why doesn’t anyone ask if Log Cabin Republicans will be able to work with LGBT progressives?
Why is it always assumed that the progressives sh0uld be the ones to compromise while the conservatives should never yield an inch?
posted by Throbert McGee on
@BobN:
But apparently GOProud doesn’t oppose ENDA, either — the first sentence in your link is:
“GOProud does not have an official position on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”
In other words, GOProud’s position is to stand with its finger in the wind.
On the other hand,
LCR unambiguously supports ENDA, and even argues explicitly that federal power should trump the states on certain matters:
“As a Republican organization, we appreciate the importance of state autonomy, however…”
[Big But emphasized. –Th.M.]
So, the “we’re more conservative” upstarts are unwilling to overtly challenge the established rightwing-gay group on such a basic point as whether an expansion of federal bureaucracy is something undesirable.
To me, it seems like ENDA is the safest issue on which GOProud could capitalize to show that they’re free-thinking mavericks and nothing like the LCR Establishment (in that the “we don’t need more federal bureaucracy” spin will potentially appeal to anyone with the slightest libertarian sympathies) and yet GOProud declines to stand out from the gay flock.
Of course, GOProud is a rather new group still finding its identity — but the longer they persist in not being too different from LCR, the less their separate existence seems justified.
posted by BobN on
You see lack of support and (official) lack of opposition as being just a bit different from full support. Odd.
If GOProud had the cojones, they’d take full-throated opposition to ENDA and all other non-discrimination regulations based on religion, etc. Of course, that principled stand would cast the GOP in a poor light, so ain’t gonna happen.