Gay Republicans Unite!

[subgenius]

An estimated 1 million gay and lesbian Americans voted for President Bush in 2000, he said. The gay Republicans attending the annual convention, complete with get-out-the-vote workshops and congressional briefings, are convinced that gays and lesbians, if they don't vote for Bush, could be partly responsible for "losing the White House," he said.
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D7QUO6SO0_story
How does/can this play with the usual constituency of the GOP?

[Tony]

http://www.lcr.org/

Here is a gay republican web-site.

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius
An estimated 1 million gay and lesbian Americans voted for President Bush in 2000, he said. The gay Republicans attending the annual convention, complete with get-out-the-vote workshops and congressional briefings, are convinced that gays and lesbians, if they don't vote for Bush, could be partly responsible for "losing the White House," he said.
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D7QUO6SO0_story
How does/can this play with the usual constituency of the GOP?

What are you trying to ask here what do you consider the usual constituency of the GOP?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Baker


What are you trying to ask here what do you consider the usual constituency of the GOP?
Don't know. Conservative?
Just wondering what the average person feels about "them."

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by subgenius

Don't know. Conservative?
Just wondering what the average person feels about "them."

Wonder about how "Them" feel about you. :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Wonder about how "Them" feel about you. :D
I am known and loved wherever I go.:)

[Ladewig]

An estimated 1 million gay and lesbian Americans voted for President Bush in 2000.
[snip]
How does/can this play with the usual constituency of the GOP?

I'm sure the usual constituency is used to the Republican leadership pulling numbers out their asses, so they are not surprised by this announcement.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Ladewig


I'm sure the usual constituency is used to the Republican leadership pulling numbers out their asses, so they are not surprised by this announcement.


So you are saying they just made up the amount of gay voters for Bush?

[HarryKeogh]

a gay republican is as confusing to me as a black mormon

[RandFan]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
a gay republican is as confusing to me as a black mormon Ignorance in action. Thank you for the object lesson.

[Solitaire]

Oh? Do they have any petitions pending? (http://www.ConservativePetitions.com/
)

[RandFan]

Please forgive my repost. I realized that my last post might not have been clear.

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
a gay republican is as confusing to me ... Ignorance in action. Thank you for the object lesson.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Oh? Do they have any petitions pending? That there are examples of homophobia in the conservative movement does not mean that all conservatives are homophobic or intolerant. http://www.conservativepetitions.com/

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
That there are examples of homophobia in the conservative movement does not mean that all conservatives are homophobic or intolerant. http://www.conservativepetitions.com/
Is it fair to say that more conservatives than liberals disapprove of homosexuality, and that there are more conservative republicans than liberal republicans?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D7QUO6SO0_story
How does/can this play with the usual constituency of the GOP? I don't know. I do know that attitudes are changing. Wouldn't you agree that America would be best served if gays and lesbians were represented and a part of both political parties?

It would be wrong for gays and lesbians to abandon their ideology because a significant portion of their party were bigoted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Is it fair to say that more conservatives than liberals disapprove of homosexuality, and that there are more conservative republicans than liberal republicans? Sure, but is that a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sure, but is that a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Good golly, no.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Good golly, no. Cool, and my earlier question?

Wouldn't you agree that America would be best served if gays and lesbians were represented and a part of both political parties?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Cool, and my earlier question?

[b]
Absolutely.
The trick is being a part of an organization that furthers your interests, and is not antithetical to them.
There may be a preposition missing from your quote after the word "represented".
Is it "in" or "by"?

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by RandFan
Please forgive my repost. I realized that my last post might not have been clear.

Ignorance in action. Thank you for the object lesson.

so editing my original post in half makes things clearer? interesting.

[RandFan]

My point about ignorance had nothing to do with Mormons and I didn't want people thinking that I was referring to them (Mormons) in this instance.

Your confusion regarding gay republicans is the object lesson in ignorance. If you understood the needs, desires and diversity of humans along with the history of the Republican party and what it truly stands for and not some stereotype based on the bigotry of some of the members in the party then there would be no confusion. Your rhetorical question is also an example of fallacy of composition (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) which states that "a property (prejudice, bias, etc.) Shared by a number of individual items (in this case people namely Republicans), is also shared by a collection of those items (the Republican Party)"

Americans, both democrat and republican have historically held biases and prejudices towards gays and lesbians. Your statement could have read "a gay American is as confusing to me as a black Mormon" and would have been just as ignorant.

Now are we clear?

[Upchurch]

I have a friend that is about as conservative as they come when it comes to homosexuals. He dosen't think they should marry, doesn't think they should adopt kids, and isn't keen on inter-racial homosexual dating. He is a church-going Republican. And he's gay.

Don't think that gays are necessarily any more open minded than anyone else. They are, after all, just people too.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Absolutely.
The trick is being a part of an organization that furthers your interests, and is not antithetical to them. Do you believe that the Republican Party is antithetical to the interests of gays and lesbians? If so could you elaborate?

There may be a preposition missing from your quote after the word "represented". Is it "in" or "by"? Well thank you for pointing it out. Do you truly not understand my meaning or are you just being pedantic? I note a lot of errors of grammar and spelling on a daily basis and am wondering why this one was so important for you to point out?

Since I already said "part", to say "in" would be redundant. With that in mind I'll let you deduce the missing preposition. If the post in question was truly confusing then I apologize.

Again,

Thank you and I await breathlessly your future corrections of my mangled written communication.

[Kodiak]

As a conservative GOPer, let me officially welcome all homosexuals, minorities, and poverty stricken Americans into the fold...

(PM me for the address needed to mail your donation to the RNC...) ;) :D ...just kidding, moderators...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you believe that the Republican Party is antithetical to the interests of gays and lesbians? If so could you elaborate?

Well thank you for pointing it out. Do you truly not understand my meaning or are you just being pedantic? I note a lot of errors of grammar and spelling on a daily basis and am wondering why this one was so important for you to point out?

Since I already said "part", to say "in" would be redundant. With that in mind I'll let you deduce the missing preposition. If the post in question was truly confusing then I apologize.

Again,

Thank you and I await breathlessly your future corrections of my mangled written communication.
The difference between the two prepositions is my rather opaque point. Had nothing to do with caring to correct your post, or my putative pedantry.
Don't know if the party platform is antithetical to gays. Haven't read it.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have a friend that is about as conservative as they come when it comes to homosexuals. He dosen't think they should marry, doesn't think they should adopt kids, and isn't keen on inter-racial homosexual dating. He is a church-going Republican. And he's gay.

Don't think that gays are necessarily any more open minded than anyone else. They are, after all, just people too.
Is your friend openly gay? Is sodomy illegal in your jurisdiction?

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by RandFan
My point about ignorance had nothing to do with Mormons and I didn't want people thinking that I was referring to them (Mormons) in this instance.

Your confusion regarding gay republicans is the object lesson in ignorance. If you understood the needs, desires and diversity of humans along with the history of the Republican party and what it truly stands for and not some stereotype based on the bigotry of some of the members in the party then there would be no confusion. Your rhetorical question is also an example of fallacy of composition (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) which states that "a property (prejudice, bias, etc.) Shared by a number of individual items (in this case people namely Republicans), is also shared by a collection of those items (the Republican Party)"

Americans, both democrat and republican have historically held biases and prejudices towards gays and lesbians. Your statement could have read "a gay American is as confusing to me as a black Mormon" and would have been just as ignorant.

Now are we clear?

i certainly appreciate the explanation as to why you think i'm ignorant as opposed to just calling me ignorant.

perhaps i should have said that i find it odd for a gay person to belong to a party where they seem to consistently vote against issues that are important to them as a gay person and where many of it's most vocal members have on many occassions shown intolerance and disgust at their lifestyle.

...and don't get me started on those mormons.(yes, sarcasm!)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

Don't know if the party platform is antithetical to gays. Haven't read it.

Even if it is, why would that necessarily keep gays out of the party? What if someone agrees on all the other points in the platform, and disagrees with the Dems on just about everything? Perhaps such a person would
seek to change the Republican party from the inside (http://andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828).

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
perhaps i should have said that i find it odd for a gay person to belong to a party where they seem to consistently vote against issues that are important to them as a gay person and where many of it's most vocal members have on many occassions shown intolerance and disgust at their lifestyle. A reasonable finding. Hopefully those Republicans with such views will change. I think they will. It is in everybody's best interest that intolerance and ignorance be vanquished to history.

As is often the case, my response was visceral. I could have made my point in a less confrontational manner. Please accept my apologies.

...and don't get me started on those Mormons.(yes, sarcasm!) As a recovering Mormon I could tell you many stories.

RandFan.

[HarryKeogh]

randfan...your apology is unnecessary but gladly accepted. thank you (plus i'm glad that even though our exact opinions differ we both view intolerance with such disdain)

[Dancing David]

Randfan: Thou art truely eloquent in the defens eof the Republican party. I agree is would be nice if everyone was more tolerant. Once upon a time , it was the Democratic party supporting segregation, no less.

I think what those of us who question the GOP are wonderingis this: It seems that the GOP had sucked up to some really repressive elements, say Jerry Falwell for example. These very opinionated people seem to truely believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it is a scourge upon our nation. So while I belive that Randfan and other moderate(ook theres a label) Republicans exist, there is this real scary-boo stuff being promoted by the religios zealots.

So the question is, how does someone who wants to vote for a fiscally conservative policy reconcile that with such repressive views.

Peace

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by subgenius

Is your friend openly gay? Is sodomy illegal in your jurisdiction? Yes, he is openly gay, but he's not flaming. For example, I don't think many people at his place of business knows he is gay because it is unprofessional to discuss one's sex life at the office.

And yes, I think sodomy is still illegal here in Missouri, but I'm not certain.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, he is openly gay, but he's not flaming. For example, I don't think many people at his place of business knows he is gay because it is unprofessional to discuss one's sex life at the office.

And yes, I think sodomy is still illegal here in Missouri, but I'm not certain.
Reason why I asked (I think questions are more telling than answers).
He is apparently not a law-abiding conservative, since he's picking which laws to obey (assuming he has a sex life). Although the definition of sodomy varies wildly, I assume it would cover the usual homosexual acts in Missouri.
Not clear, from your description, to what extent he tries to conceal his orientation, which would suggest fear of rejection by his party, church and employer.
Your previous point about not generalizing about people is very well taken.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Randfan: Thou art truely eloquent in the defens eof the Republican party. I agree is would be nice if everyone was more tolerant. Once upon a time , it was the Democratic party supporting segregation, no less.

I think what those of us who question the GOP are wonderingis this: It seems that the GOP had sucked up to some really repressive elements, say Jerry Falwell for example. These very opinionated people seem to truely believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it is a scourge upon our nation. So while I belive that Randfan and other moderate(ook theres a label) Republicans exist, there is this real scary-boo stuff being promoted by the religios zealots.

So the question is, how does someone who wants to vote for a fiscally conservative policy reconcile that with such repressive views.

Peace Republicans aren't monolithic and progress is being made. We are much more than our extremists just as the Democrat party is more than ALF, ELF and PETA. The good aspects of the Republican party far outweigh the negative ones to many Gays and Lesbians.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by subgenius

He is apparently not a law-abiding conservative, since he's picking which laws to obey (assuming he has a sex life). Although the definition of sodomy varies wildly, I assume it would cover the usual homosexual acts in Missouri.I've never asked what he and his boyfriend do behind closed doors. One, because it is incredibly rude and, two, because it is absolutely none of my business.

However, assuming that they do break the official, yet uninforced, sodomy laws here in MO, I would consider him a law breaker as much as I would consider a jay walker a law breaker or someone driving 56 mph in a 55 mph speed zone a law breaker. Is he any worse a law breaker than any of are?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've never asked what he and his boyfriend do behind closed doors. One, because it is incredibly rude and, two, because it is absolutely none of my business.

However, assuming that they do break the official, yet uninforced, sodomy laws here in MO, I would consider him a law breaker as much as I would consider a jay walker a law breaker or someone driving 56 mph in a 55 mph speed zone a law breaker. Is he any worse a law breaker than any of are?
Certainly not. Just an observation, as conservatives are usually more "law and order" types, and you noted the things he's against (gay marriage, etc), which he would presumably be against legalizing. Interesting.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you believe that the Republican Party is antithetical to the interests of gays and lesbians?

Not anymore (http://www.theonion.com/onion3112/stromchange.html).

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Not anymore (http://www.theonion.com/onion3112/stromchange.html).
Can always count on the onion.

[subgenius]

GOP leaders warned to shun agenda of gays

Top Republicans "flirting" with the agenda of homosexual activists are endangering President Bush's re-election bid next year, social conservatives have told the White House.
In a sometimes-stormy private meeting at Republican national headquarters, 11 of the most powerful social conservative leaders passed their message to the president through Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot, one of the targets of their concern.
The leaders were appalled that Mr. Racicot addressed the March board meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, a group promoting legal protections for homosexuality.
"We were concerned that Bush didn't really know what his party operative was doing in flirting with that group and he could put Bush's entire re-election campaign in jeopardy," Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich said in an interview after the meeting with Mr. Racicot.
Religious conservatives strongly oppose the drive by homosexual activists and their allies to win marriagelike legal status for same-sex unions, an issue that Mr. Bush may be forced to confront later this year.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030515-96731156.htm

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Religious conservatives strongly oppose the drive by homosexual activists and their allies to win marriagelike legal status for same-sex unions, an issue that Mr. Bush may be forced to confront later this year.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030515-96731156.htm I honestly hope Bush pushes for the civil union staus of gays and lesbians. Even if it costs him the election. I have often wondered if there is anything to the notion of the compasionate conservative. I think there is. This would be a great way to show it. It is an ideas whose time has come. Clinton realized that about welfare reform and other issues that angred some Democrats.

We will see.

[Frank Newgent]

A review of the book The Attack Queers: Liberal Society and the Gay Right

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp03/berens.htm

In his introduction to the book, Goldstein describes his intended audience as "Straight people who know little about the queer community, and gay people who know even less about the progressive tradition." His "main aim is to reach those who aren't aware of the rich connections between radical thought and queer sensibility." The other, presumably less desirable audience for the book is composed of "heterosexuals willing to acknowledge their anxieties about homosexuality." If Paglia and Sullivan do exert a disproportionate media influence, I think part of the reason can be traced to statements like this. They would never make this kind of implied demand on their heterosexual readership. One could argue that this reluctance illustrates their fundamental allegiance to the status quo; mostly, though, it attests to a healthier relationship to the non-gay world than Goldstein's. There is room for adversarial politics, but to view every heterosexual as a candidate for deprogramming and reeducation, to assert the necessity of their "[examining] their anxieties," is to invite an oddly legitimate kind of backlash.

"As a gay man in an ostensibly tolerant age . . . every encounter with a heterosexual involves expectations that arise from my sexuality. If my identity becomes known to the straight man with whom I'm conversing, his words will carry a certain formality beneath which I can read anxiety." Further evidence of a kind of heterophobic paranoia can be gleaned from Goldstein's comments at a panel discussion held at the New School last June: "It's about how all of us are regarded, beyond the handshake and beyond the smile. In my book I mention an old joke about Jews, which is: What is the definition of a kike? The Hebrew gentleman who's just left the room. I think we are all subject to that joke. I think that when we leave the room the homosexual gentleman becomes a faggot in the mind of our friend and . . . there is a lack of self-examination and that that examination that people, that heterosexual people must do is absolutely crucial to the future of gay liberation."

We are faced here with a rather cynical assumption of pervasive homophobia, even on the part of his "friend." (Goldstein should maybe consider getting some new ones.) Again, we have a righteous injunction to all heterosexuals to 'fess up to their homophobia and to get to work and fix it, divorced from any realistic awareness of how much time heterosexuals will ever be willing to devote to such a project; or, for that matter, any respect for the privacy and sanctity of an individual's personal beliefs, no matter how conservative. Again, a rhetorically convenient denial of the kind of politically correct fear liberal heterosexuals have of offending the delicate sensibilities of potentially oversensitive homosexuals. (Couldn't that account for some of the "certain formality" Goldstein speaks of?) And it is here that Goldstein exposes, inadvertently, what is so inviting about the worldview that Sullivan and Paglia offer to a younger generation of gays and lesbians, one that has developed beyond a reflexive assumption of heterosexual fear and disgust.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Not anymore (http://www.theonion.com/onion3112/stromchange.html).
From the Onion Article:
Though reluctant to discuss more personal, intimate details of the encounter, Thurmond did say that "you have not lived until you have brought another man to climax using only your lips and tongue."
:D :D :D

[subgenius]

Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives
By SHERYL STOLBERG


ASHINGTON, May 31 — On a rainy Friday in early May, 200 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a political advocacy group of gay men and lesbians, boarded buses at Dupont Circle, a popular neighborhood among gays here, for a pilgrimage of sorts. Their destination, the White House, was about a mile away. But for many, it had long seemed out of reach.

To gay Republicans, the visit, which included a policy briefing with senior administration officials in the Old Executive Office Building, symbolized their progress under President Bush. Although Mr. Bush did not attend, gone are the days when Bob Dole, a Republican candidate for president, refused a campaign contribution from the Log Cabin group, founded 25 years ago to promote the interests of gays in the party.

"In '96, Bob Dole returned a check," Randy Boudreaux, 33, a Log Cabin leader from Louisiana, said as the bus rolled through the streets of the capital. "Now we're going to the White House."

But the emergence of gays as a more vocal presence in Republican politics is angering some leaders of conservative groups. In recent weeks, those groups have been sending pointed messages to the White House warning that President Bush's re-election is in jeopardy if he continues to court what they call the "homosexual lobby."
....
Like President Bush, Senator Smith opposes gay marriage and requiring benefits for domestic partners. But he is promoting legislation to permit hate crime prosecutors to consider the victim's sexual orientation, a stance that won him the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign in his last Senate race.

Though he has faced threats from conservatives, Mr. Smith said, "I gained more votes than I lost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/politics/01GAYS.html?pagewanted=2

You see for them its not about principle, its about power (votes).

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives
By SHERYL STOLBERG


ASHINGTON, May 31 — On a rainy Friday in early May, 200 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a political advocacy group of gay men and lesbians, boarded buses at Dupont Circle, a popular neighborhood among gays here, for a pilgrimage of sorts. Their destination, the White House, was about a mile away. But for many, it had long seemed out of reach.

To gay Republicans, the visit, which included a policy briefing with senior administration officials in the Old Executive Office Building, symbolized their progress under President Bush. Although Mr. Bush did not attend, gone are the days when Bob Dole, a Republican candidate for president, refused a campaign contribution from the Log Cabin group, founded 25 years ago to promote the interests of gays in the party.

"In '96, Bob Dole returned a check," Randy Boudreaux, 33, a Log Cabin leader from Louisiana, said as the bus rolled through the streets of the capital. "Now we're going to the White House."

But the emergence of gays as a more vocal presence in Republican politics is angering some leaders of conservative groups. In recent weeks, those groups have been sending pointed messages to the White House warning that President Bush's re-election is in jeopardy if he continues to court what they call the "homosexual lobby."
....
Like President Bush, Senator Smith opposes gay marriage and requiring benefits for domestic partners. But he is promoting legislation to permit hate crime prosecutors to consider the victim's sexual orientation, a stance that won him the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign in his last Senate race.

Though he has faced threats from conservatives, Mr. Smith said, "I gained more votes than I lost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/politics/01GAYS.html?pagewanted=2

You see for them its not about principle, its about power (votes).

Does the article say which conservatives are upset?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Does the article say which conservatives are upset?

I'm just waiting for the first gay pres.

[Fade]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I'm just waiting for the first gay pres.

You mean open :D

It wouldn't shock me if there were more gays in the government than statistics would have you believe, being that it is politically dangerous to be out.

Anyway, as has been said before, homosexuals fall under all parts of the political spectrum. When it comes to the conservative parts, homosexuals (the open ones) just never make an issue out of it. It's really not an important facet of their life, just as it is about the least important facet of my own.

I don't see either party being more or less progressive than the other in regards to this issue at all. The democratic party isn't pushing for huge gay rights bills. In fact, I would hope that these bills never come to pass. The best thing for me, as a homosexual, is for it to simply NOT be an issue. Release all laws restricting gay marriage, perhaps put up a gay work protection law for a few decades, and have it fall into a state of irrelevance.

The rest of the civilized world has already gotten over this, and it confuses me that the US has not.

[subgenius]

So let's hear from all the gay Republicans out there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade


You mean open :D

It wouldn't shock me if there were more gays in the government than statistics would have you believe, being that it is politically dangerous to be out.

Anyway, as has been said before, homosexuals fall under all parts of the political spectrum. When it comes to the conservative parts, homosexuals (the open ones) just never make an issue out of it. It's really not an important facet of their life, just as it is about the least important facet of my own.

I don't see either party being more or less progressive than the other in regards to this issue at all. The democratic party isn't pushing for huge gay rights bills. In fact, I would hope that these bills never come to pass. The best thing for me, as a homosexual, is for it to simply NOT be an issue. Release all laws restricting gay marriage, perhaps put up a gay work protection law for a few decades, and have it fall into a state of irrelevance.

The rest of the civilized world has already gotten over this, and it confuses me that the US has not.

Do tell, who has been a gay pres? My guess is Theodore.

As for gays being conservative or not, the fact is the fundies that Bush is courting are anti-gay.

[subgenius]

Not Theodore, there was a never married pres. I'll research it again and get back.

[subgenius]

Yep, James Buchanan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html

http://www.apbpress.com/jamesbuchanan.html

http://www.stanford.edu/~lindholm/buchanan.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


.... fact is the fundies that Bush is courting are anti-gay.
Yep. He's trying to play both ends against the middle.