Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle say it’s OK with them if GOProud, a gay Republican group, attends the Conservative Political Action Conference. This distinguishes them from a number of other leading Republican figures. Good on them.
But how grateful should we be? At The Daily Caller, Jeff Winkler calls out gay-rights groups for “willfully ignoring” Palin’s and Angle’s gestures:
The nation’s largest gay rights advocacy organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), has instituted its own “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward conservative firebrands Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle after they implicitly — but clearly — voiced support for the gay-oriented Republican group GOProud.
I agree that mainline gay groups have been too partisan (though I also agree that Republicans have given them little cause for bipartisanship). IGF came into being partly to make this point.
But are we really supposed to praise Republican politicians simply for saying they’re willing to share a convention hall with—well, with “diverse groups,” as Palin delicately put it? (Would it have been so hard to say “gays”?) Isn’t that setting the bar a bit low? Shouldn’t we expect them to do or say something that might actually help us? Or at least specifically acknowledge that we exist?
Put me down with HRC on this one. I’ll keep an open mind on Palin. But I’ll praise her when she earns it.
22 Comments for “HRC Hypocrisy?”
posted by BobN on
I’ll keep an open mind on Palin.
If your mind is “open” about Palin, you must not have investigated her record on gay rights.
posted by esurience on
Jeff Winkler is trying to have it both ways here.
Either GOProud is a gay rights group that is good for gay people, and therefore banning them from CPAC would make sense if you think homosexuality and conservative values don’t go together… OR they aren’t a gay rights group. But if they aren’t a gay rights group, then the HRC should not be giving kudos to Palin for saying they should be welcome… because who cares?
Personally, I don’t view GOProud as a gay rights group and I don’t think they view themselves that way. They’re a group of conservatives who happen to be gay.
So they shouldn’t be banned from CPAC, but no one should be getting any major kudos for supporting them either.
posted by Jorge on
“When she’s earned it?” Where Sarah Palin stands with regard to the gay community is already on record. Her comments (which I saw live) change nothing.
The reason her comments are worth noting are 1) as additional proof that any reputation she used to have as a gay-hating bigot was completely made up, and that she is in fact a traditional values conservative and 2) just to make sure nothing’s changed with either Palin or the movement she figureheads.
But it’s not in a lot of people’s interests to acknowledge that there are such things as conservatives who are very chilly toward the gay community without being outright bigots. However, that is the reputation she is rightfully entitled to.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is 2011. We’re supposed to be grateful to be allowed in the room? This continues to be my problem with gay Republicans. Celebrate the conservatives who actually deserve our respect. Ted Olson would be at the top of that list. There are others. Why make excuses for people who clearly haven’t earned that respect?
posted by BobN on
a gay-hating bigot… and …. a traditional values conservative
The difference between the two is what, exactly?
Sarah Palin will remain in the bigot category until she “refudiates” her support for a constitutional amendment banning recognition of gay couples. An apology, in addition, would be appreciated.
posted by Jorge on
The difference between the two is what, exactly?
You place a litnus test on politics and social rules instead of where it should be: on people’s ethical personal conduct toward one another.
As usual, I object in the strongest possible terms.
I think that covers all the bases.
I didn’t really want to get into a long drawn out thing, but I’ve changed my mind. Could you tell me one more time why I should care about Sarah Palin’s or anyone else’s political position on gay marriage? Or even (since everybody in politics is opposed to gay marriage) the federal marriage amendment? No, you won’t convince me.
posted by BobN on
You place a litnus test on politics and social rules instead of where it should be: on people’s ethical personal conduct toward one another.
I have never thought that holding oneself out as a “traditional values conservative” has much of anything to do with “ethical personal conduct”. Do you? I can point to all sorts of prominent “traditional values conservatives” whose public statements and private actions illustrate the exact opposite of “ethical personal conduct”. Can’t you?
since everybody in politics is opposed to gay marriage
First of all, there are quite a few Democratic politicians who favor SSM. Oh, and Cindy McCain, too! Secondly, if you don’t grasp the difference between opposition to SSM coupled with support for federally recognized CUs and opposition to any sort of recognition of same-sex couples, well, I can’t help you.
posted by Jorge on
I have never thought that holding oneself out as a “traditional values conservative” has much of anything to do with “ethical personal conduct”. Do you?
I don’t. You seem to be conceding my point that politics and ethics or conduct are unrelated.
I can point to all sorts of prominent “traditional values conservatives” whose public statements and private actions illustrate the exact opposite of “ethical personal conduct”.
And I can point to all sorts of prominent traditional values conservatives who are dead set against legal recognition of gay marriages who also personally affirm the right to dignity and full social and political participation for all US residents, including gays. Sarah Palin is one of them, as Mr. Rauch’s entry makes very clear. His prime objection to Sarah Palin’s statement affirming there’s nothing wrong with sharing a room with GOProud is that she alludes to gays “delicately”. That is as far as you can take any accusation of anti-gay animus against her. Her politics are irrelevant.
First of all, there are quite a few Democratic politicians who favor SSM….
I’m waiting with bated breath for deliverance. Could we just skip the nitpicking here?
posted by BobN on
You seem to be conceding my point that politics and ethics or conduct are unrelated.
What kind of moral upbringing results in a person who thinks it’s OK to lie, cheat, and who knows what else, just because “it’s politics”?
who also personally affirm the right to dignity and full social and political participation for all US residents, including gays
Meaningless gibberish. What is “full participation” in the social institution of marriage if you can’t even get a domestic partnership?
Her politics are irrelevant.
Politics are irrelevant when assessing a politician. Got it…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What kind of moral upbringing results in a person who thinks it’s OK to lie, cheat, and who knows what else, just because “it’s politics”?
I don’t know, BobN. What was your moral upbringing?
After all, you and your fellow gays and lesbians like Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan have been claiming that Palin faked her pregnancy, that her husband had an affair with a prostitute and an incestuous affair with her daughters, that she was being asked to call for an invasion of Egypt, and that she was bashing Christina Aguilera — all of which have been proven to be lies.
Furthermore, as we see, you and your fellow gays and lesbians support making threats of violence against her and her family, such as your hanging her in effigy in West Hollywood and Sandra Bernhard calling for Palin to be raped.
You and your fellow gays and lesbians clearly see nothing wrong with this behavior, BobN. Are you really so hypocritical as to attack her for it while you practice it? Don’t you realize how foolish that makes you look? Don’t you realize that your support of this based on your sexual orientation makes it clear that gays and lesbians are irrational bigots who regularly tell lies about and make violent threats against other people?
posted by BobN on
y a w n
posted by Jorge on
Yawn is right. Basic lesson in living in a capitalist democracy: you don’t always get what you want, but you always get a fair chance to get it. But you disdain your fellow man without merit just because he disagrees with you. If there were actually a good reason for that, you’d have given it. What you’re really after is an entitlement gimmie gimmie gimmie complex that’s good for you without you having to compete with what other people want.
Fine. Continue to believe that Conservatives = Evil, Liberals = Good dichotomy. But it’s darned maladaptive if you ask me.
posted by BobN on
Oh, come on, Jorge. I “disdain” ND for his endless game of gotcha-by-means-of-the-example-of-someone-who-happens-to-be-of-the-same-general-side-of-the-world-as-you. It contributes nothing to the discussion and, at websites around the internet, has put an end to more conversations than anything else from any one individual that I can think of. He’s a one-trick pony and it’s a sad, sad emaciated pony at that.
posted by Tom on
Could you tell me one more time why I should care about … No, you won’t convince me.
Well, it would be a waste of time and effort, then, huh?
posted by Jorge on
Well he’s a bit like Ann Coulter sometimes. I only agree with about 25% of what he says, but there’s a good chunk of that I won’t hear anywhere else.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Put me down with HRC on this one. I’ll keep an open mind on Palin. But I’ll praise her when she earns it.
Of course, Rauch.
But when it comes to HRC, since they praise, endorse, and support FMA supporters, all you’re making blatantly obvious is your hypocrisy and double standards.
And this is why Republicans don’t bother. They know gays and lesbians irrationally hate Republicans and attack them for things that gays and lesbians support and endorse Obama Party members for doing. Gays and lesbians aren’t capable of thinking past their prejudices and are thus not even worth the effort.
posted by Carl on
At least there will be less hubbub over the whole gay rights at CPAC thing next year.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/17/cpac-will-prohibit-pro-gay-marriage-anti-dadt-sponsors-in-2012.aspx
posted by jann on
Sounds like she was talking about other groups at CPac, there are all kinds there you have no idea. The Ron Paul group is somethin freaky. But that’s ok, the more the merrier is what she’s saying. Her good friend is gay, she has said this many times. If we don’t correct this financial mess we are in and stop these big spenders no one will be doing much of anything. Have you seen the price of gas!!! $3.53 today for the cheap stuff!!!
posted by Jorge on
Sounds like she was talking about other groups at CPac, there are all kinds there you have no idea.
She was talking about GOProud. Sean Hannity asked her directly on his show why she was not accepting an invitation to speak at CPAC, and he mentioned the fact that other groups had refused to participate because of GOProud.
posted by Jorge on
Interestingly, Rick Santorum did attend CPAC. Or at least he said he would. Please tell me I’m remembering this right.
posted by psquared on
Honestly, I dislike Palin for so many reason I’ve never even needed to know what her gay rights position is. Please tell me no one here is asserting that if she was for marriage equality all of a sudden she’d no longer be an idiot.
posted by MD: What’s Next for Gay Marriage, Iowa Marriage Repeal Far From Done, Who’s Demonizing Who?, and more… » DailyQueerNews.com on
[…] HRC Hypocrisy? Read more […]