The Log Cabin Republicans national office has issued a statement explaining why they aren’t endorsing Donald Trump, while acknowledging the fact (so cravenly misreported by the Democratic Party aligned LGBT media) that Trump is the best GOP presidential nominee on LGBT issues:
Mr. Trump is perhaps the most pro-LGBT presidential nominee in the history of the Republican Party. His unprecedented overtures to the “LGBTQ community”—a first for any major-party candidate in our nation’s history—are worthy of praise, and should serve as a clarion call to the GOP that the days of needing to toe an anti-LGBT line are now a thing of the past.
But Log Cabin Republicans have long emphasized that we are not a single-issue organization, nor are our members single-issue voters. Even if we were, rhetoric alone regarding LGBT issues does not equate to doctrine. As Mr. Trump spoke positively about the LGBT community in the United States, he concurrently surrounded himself with senior advisors with a record of opposing LGBT equality, and committed himself to supporting legislation such as the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act” that Log Cabin Republicans opposes.
Should Mr. Trump become our nation’s next President, Log Cabin Republicans welcomes the opportunity to work with his administration to ensure the advances in LGBT freedom we have fought for and secured will continue. Until and unless that happens, our trust would be misplaced.
LCR was in a difficult situation. Trump’s personality defects and dismissiveness toward certain liberty rights are what disqualify him, making it hard or impossible for many Republicans of conscience to give Trump their support. But being anti-gay is not one of his deficiencies.
As I’ve said, both Clinton and Trump are terrible choices. Hopefully, four years from now the country can rectify its mistake.
More. As noted in my last post, gay Trump supporters can make a legitimate case even if it’s one I don’t embrace, as others are doing. But LGBT progressives have gone off the deep end with anti-Trump fear-mongering, in service (of course) to the one true party.
38 Comments for “Log Cabin Makes Most of Bad Situation”
posted by TJ on
Again, what specific policy statements has candidate Trump (or his major party) made in favor of equality?
We can read the GOP platform to see it’s lack of support for equality.
We can see what Trump’s VP candidate thinks about several equality issues.
However, the only thing that I can see are some pre campaign statements from Trump, and a willingness to say that going to a gay bar should not be a capital crime.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But being anti-gay is not one of his deficiencies.
TPP may or may not be anti-gay, but his positions on issues are strongly anti-equality, closely aligning with the “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” (so dubbed by Log Cabin Republicans). I think that you and LCR have been duped by a fast-talking con man, Stephen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Corrected formatting:
But being anti-gay is not one of his deficiencies.
TPP may or may not be anti-gay, but his positions on issues are strongly anti-equality, closely aligning with the “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” (so dubbed by Log Cabin Republicans). I think that you and LCR have been duped by a fast-talking con man, Stephen.
posted by TJ on
When Trump says he wants more justices like Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, gay people and straight allies have reason to be concerned.
When Trump says that Muslims should not be allowed into America, people who care about giving LGBT Muslims a better life in America, should be concerned .
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… while acknowledging the fact (so cravenly misreported by the Democratic Party aligned LGBT media) that Trump is the best GOP presidential nominee on LGBT issues …
I wonder if the reason why “the Democratic Party aligned LGBT media” doesn’t make a big deal out of the fact that TPP is “the best GOP presidential nominee on LGBT issues” is that TPP is about where Democrats were on LGBT issues 20 years ago.
I mean, seriously, what the hell difference does it make that TPP is “the best GOP presidential nominee on LGBT issues” given his positions on same-sex marriage, Obergefell, judicial appointments, FADA and so on? The GOP’s “best” would set us back at least a decade.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As noted in my last post, gay Trump supporters can make a legitimate case, even if it’s one I don’t embrace, as others are doing.
The “legitimate case” for championing TPP as a supporter of gay rights must either, of necessity, (a) remain silent on TPP’s statements/positions with respect to same-sex marriage, Obergefell, judicial appointments, FADA, et. al. (as do the Republicans quoted in the article you link), or (2) dismiss TPP’s positions on those issues as unimportant, or (3) accept TPP’s positions on those issues as “gay-supportive”.
I don’t think that anyone on IGF is challenged LCR’s assertion that TPP “is perhaps the most pro-LGBT presidential nominee in the history of the Republican Party”. That’s almost certainly true.
But it is also somewhat sad in the context of where we are on LGBT rights at this point, a little like a kid dumping his rusted-out junker after inheriting his grandfather’s 1992 Buick. The 1992 Buick may have been a fine, state-of-the-art car 25 years ago (and certainly better that the rusted-out junker), but it isn’t even close to anything you’d find in a dealer’s showroom in 2016.
Ditto for TPP’s “gay supportive” positions.
Yes, it is a big step for a Republican Presidential candidate to schedule any openly gay figure to speak at the convention, but that is a step that was taken by the Democrats in in (I can’t recall which) 1980 or 1984. Yes, it is a big step for a Republican Presidential candidate to allow gays and lesbians to become members of his business’s golf club, but that is a step most business took 15-20-25 years ago. Yes, it is a big step for a Republican Presidential candidate to say anything favorable about gays and lesbians at the national convention, and yes, it is a major break with many in the party’s hard-core base to suggest that gays and lesbians should be protected from being shot down and/or blown up by foreign terrorists, but huh? And so on.
The LCR statement one thing clear, at least tacitly: It is possible to be “the most pro-LGBT presidential nominee in the history of the Republican Party” and be an opponent of “equal means equal” on the issues:
I wish Republican-aligned homocons would just get off their collective ass and get to work to change the party, instead of wasting everyone’s time blasting away at the rest of us for failing to genuflect to TPP. TPP’s positions on gay and lesbian issues just don’t cut it given the advances gays and lesbians have made in the last 25 years. His positions are “your grandfather’s Buick”.
posted by TJ on
Oddly enough about the only thing candidate Trump said (and didn’t detract) was that going to a gay bar should not be a capital crime.
He backed away from support for civil rights legislation, he choose his VP, and (news reports) suggest that openly gay employees are brutally harassed at Trump run businesses.
He has not distanced himself from the GOP platform and we shouldn’t ignore his nods to white supremacists (who don’t particularly like gays).
posted by TJ on
I think that the first openly gay speakers at a major party was back at the 1973 . The Democratic party. McGovern had been willing to look at gay rights as a civil rights issue.
I think it (at the Democratic party convention) was a man and a woman. The platform committee was not keen on dealing with gay rights beyond a general right to privacy.
Im sure other openly gay speakers were part of the convention schedule in 1980, 1984 and 1992.
posted by TJ on
The Green party wasn’t around in America till the 1980s and didn’t attempt to develop a party structure until much later.
The Libertarian party first had a gay rights commission somtime in the mid – late 1970s. The party views on gay rights are much like their views on other civil rights questions.
I have heard that their was a Socialist party that almost adopted a gay rights plank in the 1940s or 1950s. Otherwise, the Communist and Socialist parties were often nervous about “going there”, until the 1970s.
posted by Kosh III on
The first major Democratic candidate for President who was pro-gay was Paul Tsongas in 1992, driving a shiny new Buick.
posted by TJ on
Really,
posted by Kosh III on
“But being anti-gay is not one of his deficiencies.”
Big fraking deal! Bush43 was supposedly not personally anti-gay–we see how that worked out didn’t we?
posted by Kosh III on
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/10/24/trump_harassment_suit_andres_lawsuit_for_anti_gay_discrimination.html
posted by TJ on
I have generally liked the local and low level people in HRC and LCR, more then the big wig leadership.
Granted, what I know about the big wigs is limited to gay press reports and commentary.
However,I’ve never been that impressed with what the national HRC or the LCR does.
Part of the problem is that it been very difficult to get the Congress to pass equality legislation.
Few Federal success stories come from Congress. Why? Yes, Its partly a partisan issue, but it’s also a geographical issue.
Their are some States (for Senate seats) and Congressional districts where both major candidates are probably going have avoid voting for the “gay agenda.”
Yes, the Democrat will probably be a bit nicer about it…However, the bottom line is that they (office holder) risk losing an election if they vote for equality.
I think this gets overlooked because the major LGBT rights groups don’t want to put the time and money into changing attitudes among voters in these type of districts.
So, we have a situation where getting enough votes to actual pass an Equality bill is almost impossible……
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Politico Magazine has an absolutely fascinating look at how TPP courted the White Nationalist movement during the course of the last several years and won them over, little by slowly.
posted by TJ on
Yeah. The Trump campaign has been catering to white supremacists and anti-Semetics.
That he feels entitled to peep and assault women, ain’t surprising.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Trump campaign has been catering to white supremacists and anti-Semetics.
I think that the available evidence points in that direction, to be sure. It is none of it explicit — for example, TPP harps on and on about rampant vote fraud in “certain neighborhoods” rather than come right out and say that African-Americans will steal the election — but the message is clear.
posted by Lori Heine on
Staffers at the Arizona Republic have gotten death threats because the paper endorsed Clinton. So have writers at National Review.
Neither one of those, historically, could be said to have been left of center politically. Both simply made the “error” of crossing Trump.
There is something deeply wrong with a lot of Trump’s followers. I feel like I need a shower every time I have to talk with any of them. Does that mean that they have no valid concerns? Of course not. But nobody wants to listen to thugs.
posted by Jorge on
The “legitimate case” for championing TPP as a supporter of gay rights must either, of necessity, (a) remain silent on TPP’s statements/positions with respect to same-sex marriage, Obergefell, judicial appointments, FADA, et. al. (as do the Republicans quoted in the article you link), or (2) dismiss TPP’s positions on those issues as unimportant, or (3) accept TPP’s positions on those issues as “gay-supportive”.
Change unimportant to irrelevant and I would agree. I do not know what FADA or et al refer to.
I wish Republican-aligned homocons would just get off their collective ass and get to work to change the party, instead of wasting everyone’s time blasting away at the rest of us for failing to genuflect to TPP.
I’m afraid in my case the sentiment is mutual, if not quite in direct opposition. For example, I wish BLM-aligned SJWs would get off their collective ass and work to change their movement from within, instead of wasting everyone’s time blasting away at the rest of us for failing to genuflect to BLM.
Since that will not happen, I spend my time, when it is worthwhile to spend it, explaining the conditions that are necessary for me to genuflect to BLM and the conditions that have been met for me to blast my selected oppositions.
In the fantasy rule book Pathfinder: Ultimate Magic, the highest guardians of the heavens are described to issue outrageous demands for their service even when the cause as a negotiation tactic when powerful wizards summon them. It’s a little like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I do not know what FADA or et al refer to.
Of course not. Ignorance is bliss.
posted by Jorge on
H. R. 2802: “To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”
It is a truly sad commentary on the state of this country that such a law is even needed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is a truly sad commentary on the state of this country that such a law is even needed.
You think it is “a truly sad commentary on the state of this country” that a law is needed to permit discrimination against gays and lesbians by business owners and government officials serving the public?
posted by TJ on
And a fictional table top RPG (meant to be played with fellow nerds while drinking) has what to do with real life?
I love LARPing and table top RPG games, but they are fiction. They don’t reflect the reality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is something deeply wrong with a lot of Trump’s followers. I feel like I need a shower every time I have to talk with any of them. Does that mean that they have no valid concerns? Of course not. But nobody wants to listen to thugs.
Some of them, but not all.
The TPP supporters I know fall into three broad categories: (1) Tea Party true believers, the kind who sport “Don’t Tread on Me” bumperstickers and warn about the coming revolution, (2) blue collar guys (working, semi-retired or retired) who are barely making it and willing to try just about anything to get a change, and (3) dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who don’t like TPP, but can’t stand Clinton and think “Libertarian” and “Green” are code words for “kooks”.
I have a lot of empathy for the blue collar guys I know who are planning to vote for TPP&P. I grew up with them, and been friends with them all my life. They are in a bad situation, and don’t have a lot of prospects for the future, for them or their kids. I don’t have any respect at all for the dyed-in-wool Republicans who feel compelled to vote for TPP despite the fact that they know he’s a train wreck. I think that they should grow a pair and refuse to vote for TPP. The Tea Party true believers shout at me in ALL CAPS to the point where I’d like to take a stick to their butts out of simple frustration.
I don’t know any Alt-Righters (they’re ones that make my skin crawl) personally, but I suppose that would be a fourth category if I did.
Interestingly, the “Bible Christians” I know personally aren’t planning to vote or are planning to write-in. Clinton is the devil incarnate to them, but they can’t bring themselves to vote for TPP because of pussygate. I’m wondering if we are going to see a dropoff among conservative Christian voters this election cycle, simply because TPP is such a sleezebag.
posted by Kosh III on
“major LGBT rights groups don’t want to put the time and money into changing attitudes among voters in these type of districts. ”
Exactly. LCR and HRC are invisible in deep red states like Tennessee, Alabama, Mississppi etc etc.
The only HRC shows up is to swoop in once a year, have an fund-raiser that’s too expensive for most folks, then they disappear. They and LCR are certainly NOT around when legislatures are cranking out hateful discriminatory legislation each session.
Instead, they (like some around this place) flounce around in comfy blue areas where Democrats have done the heavy lifting for equality, and whinge and whine about how awful Democrats are for having done what they REFUSE to do.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LCR and HRC are invisible in deep red states like Tennessee, Alabama, Mississppi etc etc.
LCR and HRC are invisible just about anywhere outside a few urban areas, red state, blue state or purple state. LCR is next to dead in Wisconsin, with a small chapter in Milwaukee (e.g. 6 guests at the September monthly meeting, according to the group’s FB page, which boasts a few hundred “likes”) but otherwise non-existent. HCR sends someone into the state once in a while for a rally, and shows up at PrideFest in Milwaukee each June, but doesn’t seem to do much else.
We don’t need either, so its no loss. A statewide group, Fair Wisconsin, is active in bringing change, having pushed hard (and successfully) for non-discrimination ordinances covering transsexuals (state law has covered gays and lesbians since 1982), and does good lobbying work in the state legislature.
… Democrats have done the heavy lifting for equality …
In Wisconsin, that is certainly true. Gays and lesbians inside the party pushed hard and (mostly) smart for many years to bring Wisconsin’s Democratic Party to where it now is. I know that personally, having served as an LGBT Caucus officer from 2006 to 2014, and having led the Caucus from 2009 to 2013. I can attest to the hard work that gay and lesbian Democrats did at both county and state level during that period, and I know many of the gays and lesbians to led the fight before 2006, because we built on the work that they did. Others are now building on the work that we did. None of it was easy, but it got done, and gay, and lesbian Democrats working in other states laid the foundation for the work we were able to do in Wisconsin.
As far as I can tell, LCR is totally useless, even at the national level, where it considers itself in the clover if it gets to speak to the Platform Committee. HCR isn’t useless, exactly (the equality index research and reports that it produces are valuable), but it hasn’t been a change agent in the Democratic Party, either. As far as influence within the Democratic Party goes, HCR is just another lobbying group.
… major LGBT rights groups don’t want to put the time and money into changing attitudes among voters in these type of districts …
That’s true enough, but I’m not sure that it makes much difference. Research from the marriage equality battles suggest that the single most (and perhaps only significant) attitudinal change-driver is whether or not a person knows a gay or lesbian in the family, neighborhood or workplace, and the one-on-one conversations that ensue. I’m not sure whether effort from outside would change anything much. It still comes down to what Harvey Milk figured out close to 40 years ago — come out, come out, come out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I note, in passing, that our Republican friends in Congress are up to their old tricks.
posted by Jorge on
(3) dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who don’t like TPP, but can’t stand Clinton and think “Libertarian” and “Green” are code words for “kooks”.
Gee, what does that make me? I like Clinton.
(That’s because you’re from New York.)
I don’t have any respect at all for the dyed-in-wool Republicans who feel compelled to vote for TPP despite the fact that they know he’s a train wreck. I think that they should grow a pair and refuse to vote for TPP.
Well, that’s much of why I think you’re more problem than solution right now. You seem to completely reject the notion people come to enduring political positions for reasons that reflect genuine socio-political concerns.
There are serious risks and problems to electing Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general. The necessity of checking these problems more than justifies a vote for Donald Trump.
posted by TJ on
Jorge ;
Hillary Clinton has made mistakes and done annoying things. Beyond any jabs about her personality or being a centrist Democrat.
However, the ethical and legal problems committed by Trump are more serious and demonstrate more serious ethical and legal problems.
posted by Jorge on
Donald Trump has forcibly sexually touched 11 known women, maybe 40 total at this rate. A crime.
The Black Lives Matter Movement is indirectly responsible for the assassination of 5 police officers in Texas and the maiming and assassination of perhaps a score more. Not a crime, not even negligent. But as a movement it has aided an abetted a trend that has rippling, wide-reaching social effects. Race relations have worsened on both sides. There are articles arguing that “Police are not people” while at the same time overall trust of the police in this still majority white country has increased.
Asked to choose between affirming “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter” in an early primary debate, Hillary Clinton chose the former. Only in her crowning pageant did she approach a Sister Centrist moment, when the much-anticipated speech and presentation by the “mothers of the movement” was done in a tasteful and measured fashion. But this hides serious weaknesses. It took days to bring the Sanders supporters to heel at the convention floor. Clinton will have to do something to placate the grass roots, and that something will involve real power.
Just today and yesterday there’s news that the Justice Department did a major shakeup of the federal civil rights investigation into the death of Eric Garner through an apparent chokehold by NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo, in which the investigation has been transferred from Manhattan to Washington. It is strongly suggested the local FBI and/or DOJ team recommended against filing charges, while Attorney General Loretta Lynch is in favor of charges. Politicizing what should be an open and shut no-indictment because of racial publicity is not acceptable to me. And while Lynch herself was gracious enough to admit being burned when she met former President Clinton on the tarmac during an open investigation into Hillary Clinton, I had far less confidence in the integrity of her predecessor. I am very, very concerned that Hillary Clinton, who has chosen to make her strongest stands on the economy, labor, and foreign policy, may not have the political capital to resist actions such as appointing another nut to the most powerful criminal and civil justice position in the country, just when this country most needs needs a steady hand.
I don’t think Donald Trump’s criminal past means that he will harm the country as a whole.
The chance to persuade me arrived in the third debate, and Hillary Clinton nailed it, but even she cannot control Trump’s defense. What do you believe Donald Trump will do if he is elected president?
posted by JohnInCA on
The Black Lives Matter Movement is indirectly responsible for the assassination of 5 police officers in Texas and the maiming and assassination of perhaps a score more.
Do you really want to open that can of “indirectly responsible” worms? You really think BLM have done more to influence society’s attidue towards police in two years then right-wing folks have done since the nation was founded? Is that really the argument you want to make?
posted by Jorge on
Do you really want to open that can of “indirectly responsible” worms?
No. And I’m quite serious: no, I am not interested in whether or not you agree with how I look at politics or why two weeks before this presidential election. I want to make this absolutely clear. I am not giving you permission to critique my political opinion just because I happened to share it with you. I expect you to tolerate it.
I am only interested in your opinion of Donald Trump.
posted by JohnInCA on
My opinion? If you think someone needs “permission” to critique your views, no wonder you like Trump, who has spoken multiple times about how he wants to loosen libel laws, letting him sure people for critiquing him.
Tolerance doesn’t mean not critiquing, and that you think it does puts you in very bad company.
posted by Jorge on
My opinion? If you think someone needs “permission” to critique your views…
I do not need you to remind me that politics is a blood sport.
But I mistook you for TJ, so I’m sorry for confusing the matter. If you would like to open up a can of worms unsolicited, feel free. And I may call you out for changing the subject.
posted by JohnInCA on
Unsolicited. Really.
The Black Lives Matter Movement is indirectly responsible for the assassination of 5 police officers in Texas and the maiming and assassination of perhaps a score more.
That was unsolicited. Me pointing out that poking a can of ethical and moral worms was 100% in response to what you said. And to put it simply… if you don’t want people questioning your “indirectly responsible” moral framework, then you shouldn’t put it out on the table.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The chance to persuade me arrived in the third debate, and Hillary Clinton nailed it, but even she cannot control Trump’s defense. What do you believe Donald Trump will do if he is elected president?
Sticking to LGBT issues, I believe that TPP will, at an absolute minimum:
(1) Rescind Executive Orders granting non-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians, as he has promised to do.
(2) Appoint Justices from the list of ultraconservative judges (many of whom stand to the right of Justice Scalia in terms of judicial philosophy) which he has pledged to use for Supreme Court appointments, and appoint t judges of a similar bent to lower courts.
(3) Sign FADA into law, effectively gutting RFRA “substantial burden” protections applicable to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
That, as I said, is the absolute minimum. I expect P&TPP to do a lot more (such as remove “substantial burden” entirely from RFRA) if elected with a majority in Congress. I certainly expect absolutely no forward progress from TPP.
posted by TJ on
In Minnesota, as an example, the LGBT community only has the resources and political connections in a few parts of the State.
The statewide group is active in the Minneapolis/St Paul region. As is the HRC and the LCR.
In the Western and the Central parts of the State, most people are still in the closet, if a gay community exists it has a tough time keeping the lights on and most city and county and school board and legislature elected officials don’t want to be seen as backing the “gay agenda “.
In terms of equality legislation….This has been OK with statewide legislation, but a problem with federal bills and a nightmare dealing with local issues.
Granted, if you live in the “big city”, it’s easy to ignore the reality in greater Minnesota.
posted by Jorge on
Sticking to LGBT issues, I believe that TPP will, at an absolute minimum:
(1) Rescind Executive Orders granting non-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians, as he has promised to do.
I would question this one more closely if his most vocal LGBT (oh, who are we kidding? Gay) supporters were more conservative than libertarian. The critique against Obama’s use of executive orders in general is strong, and it’s one that built up before the LGBT-supportive executive orders in question. Nothing will stop Trump from throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There will be no friendly whispering in his ear that he should not repeal them.
The other two I think are correct, though I actually expect less with a Democratic Congress.