The Wall Street Journal reports:
Rep. Nan Hayworth has spent much of her first term in Congress alongside her boisterous, tea-party-backed fellow Republican freshmen, fighting earmarks and trying to slash government spending. But the 52-year-old ophthalmologist from Mount Kisco, N.Y., is tip-toeing down a lonely road largely untrodden by other Republicans on a sensitive social issue: gay rights. Ms. Hayworth, who has a 21-year-old gay son, joined the congressional LGBT Equality Caucus in November, making her one of three Republicans in the largely Democratic group. She’s one of six Republicans backing a bill to give the health benefits that same-sex partners receive the same tax treatment as those that straight couples receive.
And this:
Democrats are trying to tie her to Mr. Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. “Congresswoman Hayworth has chosen a presidential candidate who would reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” said Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Which, despite Romney’s other, real flaws on gay equality issues, is a big cheap partisan lie that some Democrats keep repeating.
11 Comments for “Yes, Indeed: ‘Gay Rights a Tricky Issue for Republican’”
posted by Yes, Indeed: ‘Gay Rights a Tricky Issue for Republican’ | QClick Radar on
[…] Rights a Tricky Issue for Republican’ Independent Gay Forum Fri, May 4, 2012 7:42 PM UTC Independent Gay Forum Rate Loading … Share (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); […]
posted by Houndentenor on
Typical of Romney. In 2007 he was for keeping DADT. Now he’s against it. Well as of the last time he was asked. That’s the problem with Romney. No one knows what he’ll think on any issue in 2013.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The three Republicans alluded to in the WSJ article are Richard Hanna (R-NY), Nan Hayworth (R-NY) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
All three deserve support from pro-equality conservatives. It takes courage for a Republican to be affiliated with the LGBT Equality Caucus.
The thing that I find problematic is that more Democrats aren’t members. The Caucus has only 99 Democratic members, which is slightly more than half of the 190 Democrats in Congress. Where are the others? I’m going to check the Wisconsin members, and get members of our DPW LGBT Caucus on the butts of any Wisconsin representatives that aren’t members of the Congressional caucus.
As to Josh Schwerin’s statement, he should retract it and clear the record. Political hype is one thing, intentional misrepresentation — lying — is another.
Romney has hedged, to be sure (“I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage…” falls short of a statement that he will not reinstate DADT), but Romney hasn’t said that would reinstate the policy, either.
Romney’s positions on LGBT issues is so bad that nobody needs to misrepresent his positions.
posted by Carl on
“That’s already occurred and I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.”
The key words are “at this stage.” I don’t see how this means he will fight an attempt to bring back DADT.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s also not a statement that he would veto a bill to reinstate DADT either.
And they called John Kerry a flip-flopper. Romney has taken just about every position available on about every issue over his career.
posted by Jorge on
What? People lie about politicians during election campaigns? Stop the presses!
Ros-Leitinen, eh? I give money to her already when someone here identified her as voting for the DADA repeal compromise. Her campaign letters are very nice.
I really must write up the list already.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. It is refreshing to see a ‘Tea Party’ Republican who actually seems to have a brain, at least on gay rights issues. If you look at the liberal/center-left minded history of the GOP, it is pretty amazing where the party has gotten to, when it comes to civil rights issues.
2. Again, Federally elected officials in a State or Congressional District are unlikely (even if they have some interest) going to support gay rights if they think it is going to hurt their chances for reelection.
Granted, the pressure from the party leadership and the party base matters. This is why we tend to get more gay rights progress with Democrats in charge then Republicans. But, it is also why we can have the Democrats in charge and it can STILL be a challenge to get gay rights bills passed.
Aside from what the party in the minority can try to do (in terms of slowing stuff down), you have to deal with elected officials in more socially conservative States or Congressional Districts.
posted by Houndentenor on
Also, Romney favors a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In the same sentence he said that he said it should be left up to the states. It’s rare for a politician to contradict himself in the same sentence. But that’s Romney. I don’t think even he knows what he believes. I’m aware that Bush promised such an amendment and never did much about getting it through Congress, but Bush didn’t have the base of the party breathing down his neck the way Romney would. Romney also donated $10,000 to Prop 8. That ought to be enough by itself to turn any gay person or anyone who cares about gay people to oppose him.
posted by Aphlywgh on
Pleased to meet you http://oryenyqol.de.tl teenage underwear models
O MY! I love the way they bonded..Wish I could have them both. Lick there Pussy and nibble there nipples. I’f they were actresses WOW.
posted by Kmdrpbdo on
I’m from England http://jeiehiruda.de.tl model kailyn This is one of my all-time favorites. This dude is lucky as fuck. He’s the one banging Denise K in some college gangbang video.
posted by Mark F. Fulwiler on
Most analysts don’t think the Amendment Romney supports would get through Congress with a 2/3 vote, let alone pass in 3/4 of the states. It’s just pandering to his base; don’t worry that it has a chance in hell of passing.