Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Party Favors

Hey NC, Oregon Says You Don’t Have To Be A Total Homophobe To Be Republican

With their party shriveling on the vine in the Beaver State, the Oregon GOP voted to delete anti-marriage-quality and anti-civil-union language from its 2012 platform, in addition to removing wording that described gay couples as unfit parents.

State party spokesman Greg Leo told Oregon Live, “We want the public to take another look at the Republican Party and our policies. It’s fair to say we’re more centrist.”

Well it’d be almost impossible to move any further in the other direction, wouldn’t it, Greg?

Even with Oregonians leaning more and more Democratic—the party has owned the Governor’s office for 24 years—the changes to the platform barely squeaked by.  Xander Almeida, who introduced the motion, said it was “first shot down 2-1 by a caucus of members focusing on the ‘family’ section of the platform.” But party chairman Allen Alley told him to bring the measure to a full floor vote, where it passed with a bare majority of the 230 delegates who attended.

Hey, we’ll take what we can get.

 

By:           Dan Avery
On:           Sep 14, 2011
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 10 Comments
    • Riker
      Riker

      Now, how long will it be before Little Kiwi and the other gay liberals show up to chirp about how Republicans hate us?

      Sep 14, 2011 at 7:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Elloreigh
      Elloreigh

      @Riker: Maybe not all Republicans hate us, but the party as a whole cannot be honestly portrayed as supporting our equality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being dishonest with themselves.

      The plain fact is that gay-neutral/gay-friendly Republicans serving in public office are very much a minority in the party. As a result, I will not vote for a Republican – no matter how gay-positive they claim to be – because it’s clear to me that they don’t make a difference. Argue all you like that they keep the more radical members in check or that their behind the scenes work matters. I frankly don’t care. Until I see it manifested in the party actually moving away from the tin-foil hats, dominionists and regressives, they aren’t getting my money or my vote.

      And no – I’m not a fan of Democrats either, so save your breath. If my only choice is between the two, I’m going with the party that is less likely to end up sending me to the gas ovens in the name of their God.

      Sep 14, 2011 at 10:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Skeloric
      Skeloric

      Just because some Republican smiles and says he is my friend and now supports my issues does not get that political party a free pass.
      The NATIONAL platform is still pretty much the very agendas that America entered WWII to oppose.
      I’ll not accept this “trojan horse” as some have called it.
      We are entering the era where people publicly claim to be our friend yet privately remain our enemies.
      I WILL NOT accept the wolf that has taken to wearing the fur of a sheep.

      Sep 14, 2011 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Elloreigh:

      Yes, the Democratic party — as a whole — can honestly be portrayed as “supporting our equality.” But what has that “support” accomplished for us? The military gay ban, DOMA, no ENDA, and basically fuck all is what. Some really nice speeches. Whoopdiedoo.

      Until they start working together as a party, “Democrat” is really nothing more than a slightly better brand. So I’ll prefer the politician who will actually help me over a politician with the “right label” every goddam time.

      But the reality is this: we haven’t won, and we’re not going to win playing politics. Only majorities are represented in legislatures, and when it comes to the public vote our Christian neighbors will never love us as they love themselves. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.

      Our wins happen inside courtrooms when we’re provided an impartial judge, a level playing field, and issues are decided on the merits.

      Sep 14, 2011 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • doug105
      doug105

      @Riker
      Do they all hate us no but given the number that think we should be put to death I wouldn’t trust one behind me with a knife.
      Which is the only reason I could never join the log cabin republicans .

      Sep 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @Elloreigh: Gay-friendly Republicans don’t make a difference? Tell that to State Senators Jim Alesi, Mark Grisanti, Roy McDonald and Stephen Saland, without whom we would not have same-sex marriage in New York. Or to Senators Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, without whom DADT would still be in force.

      And you tell me you still would prefer a Democrat who’s opinions are “evolving” over one of these fine gentlemen or ladies?

      Sep 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xander Almeida
      Xander Almeida

      Hi. This is Xander, the one they quoted in the paper.

      I understand how easy it can be to fall into cynicism in regards to the GOPs sordid history when it comes to equality involving the queer community.

      However, this wasn’t simply a marketing tactic. Every little step in the right direction. Had we young Republicans tried to get language within the platform that said we 100% support gay marriage, do you really think it would have passed? No. And we did try. And it didn’t pass.

      This was a compromise, to be sure. But keep in mind how bad the platform USED to be. It clearly stated that civil unions ought to have no legal standing or rights, it explicitly named gay marriage as terrible, and that gays were unfit for adoption and parenting. Now that was pretty bad. And now it simply affirms what the Oregon Constitution states and that’s it.

      All that to say this… there is a change and growing movement toward acceptance and equality within the party. This proved that. We didn’t do this for marketing. We did this because it was the right thing to move toward.

      Sep 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Skeloric
      Skeloric

      @Xander Almeida: OK, I’ll give you the Internet Cookie Award for a job well done.
      I just hope you realize that the GOP has a lot of other stuff equally puke-worthy about them (such as their belief that the wealthy deserve any rights whatsoever) to prevent them ever getting my vote.

      Sep 14, 2011 at 7:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @Skeloric: Of course the wealthy deserve rights. Everybody deserves rights, and people who work hard to earn their money shouldn’t be penalized for their good fortune.

      If you lot had your way, the wealthy would be hanged and their accounts drained to give to the poor and the lazy

      Sep 15, 2011 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dubbz
      Dubbz

      The shame of the Republican party is that they used to support gay rights but were led astray. Example: Barry Goldwater. Goldwater supported gay rights throughout his political career. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell saying, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

      He also said, “The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can’t see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else. [...] legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”

      Say what you will about Goldwater not supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he did it for Constitutional reasons. The fact is that the Republicans supported the Act by a much wider margin than Democrats- roughly 80/20 versus 60/40. Overwhelming Republican support was the case even for the ill-fated Civil Rights Act of 1958, proposed by Eisenhower, which was blocked by Senator Byrd (a Democrat who tried to block the ’64 bill). Ironically, the Senate Majority Leader at the time was none other than LBJ himself.

      Historically, Republicans have supported civil rights for everyone in a sort of Libertarian way. It is only in the last 40 years that things have gone awry. After LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many Southern Democrats became disillusioned with their party. These were the same bigots that were lynching African Americans and supporting segregation. Come the election of 1980, they found a nice religious conservative- Ronald Reagan. And with that exodus to the Republican party went any hope that the support of civil rights would continue from them.

      In any case, while I don’t think of myself as a Republican (I can’t see how any gay man could), I do think that they should get some credit for supporting civil rights for all Americans in the past. Unfortunately, the likes of the Tea Party took a road less on the path to those libertarian conservative traditions and more towards the clinic Michele Bachmann’s husband runs. Oh well, they won’t have my vote anytime soon.

      Sep 16, 2011 at 4:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.