Like the Republican party at large, this week the gay conservative movement in the U.S. officially divorced itself from the more moderate wing of the party. Former Log Cabin Republican political director Christopher Barron and GayPatriot blogger Bruce Carroll are among the leadership of the new group, which believes that the Log Cabin Republicans are essentially a left-wing organization, especially after the recent revelation that the group is funded by Democrat Tim Gill. We wish the new group the best of luck, but after browsing the world of the conservative gay intertubes for whole hours, for the life of us, we can’t figure out what exactly gay conservatives stand for.
For the most part, GOProud appears to exist solely as a protest against the Log Cabin Republicans. Carroll writes that the main reason for GOProud’s creation is:
“LCR’s silence and unwillingness to stand up and be vocal on true gay conservative issues (outing of Republican staffers, increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted, peril gays face by Islamic extremists) has been mind-boggling. And LCR’s continued obsession in trashing Republicans, yet letting Democrats get a pass on their gay-related hypocrisies, has been infuriating.”
Presumably they’re against the outing of Republican staffers and the “increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted”, but I’m assuming they aren’t for gays being placed into peril.
If the Republican party has been branded the party of “no”, GOProud, thus far, seems to be the extremist wacko version of contrariness for its own sake. While we get that these conservatives are pissed off that LCR has moved to the left (last time we checked, they endorsed McCain) and as Carrol says, “there’s no voice for gay Republicans or gay conservatives in particular in D.C. right now.” However, it seems that gay conservatives have no issues of their own, just the desire to stand in opposition to the Democrats just for the principle of the thing.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
We’re very confused about the whole thing, really. GOProud obviously is meant to signal some sort of rebirth of gay conservatism, but thus far, these are the only issues that we’ve heard discussed:
Spreading conservative values to gays.
We’ll start with the most plausible option- that GOProud wants to sell the gay and lesbian community on kitchen sink conservative values. The problem with this is that much of the conservative platform is anathema to living your life openly. When it comes to social conservative issues, it seems impossible to for instance, turn the planks that marriage should be between a man and a woman or that faith-based groups ought to be free to determine who they provide their public services into something palatable to gays and lesbians. In fact, in doing so, they would risk turning into the Log Cabin Republicans, right?
Now, there are a host of other issues– gun control, various libertarian stances and fiscal conservatism that have no direct effect on LGBT rights, however, thus far, this doesn’t seem to be a pressing priority for the new group.
Protecting Republicans from being outed.
An issue the cons care about deeply is what they perceive as a witch hunt to out Republicans. Of course, if someone votes on an issue that denies LGBT rights and they themselves are gay or lesbian, that seems like the sort of information a voter ought to be entitled to. Ironically, many of the commenters simultaneously decry GOP outings while calling for more outings of Democrats. See why we’re confused?
The prospect of genetic manipulation to get rid of gays.
It’s strange that this is such a prominent issue for gay conservatives– or it would be if it weren’t such a transparent Rovian argument against abortion. The idea here is that sometime in the near future the gay gene will be able to be switched off during gestation, ridding the world of gays forever– and to protect that from ever happening, gays and lesbians must support a right to life. It’s an argument based more in logic than any actual on the ground facts– there’s no indication Gattacca is coming anytime soon.
Serving as a counterweight to liberal gays.
This is something we can get behind, in theory. Traditional left-wing gay rights group like HRC are not immune to mission creep and ideology trumping what’s best for the gay community at large and one of the things we do here at Queerty is stay resolutely skeptical of the Democratic party, which for the most part, has offered little more than lip service to the gay community.
However, good intentions aside, GOProud thus far doesn’t seem like much more than an organized hissy fit. Gays and lesbians are certainly in search of new political solutions, but when the biggest argument you have to justify your existence is that someone needs to watch out for the “increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted”, we can’t help but feel that GOProud is less a political action group looking to fight for gay rights on conservative grounds and more a support group for disaffected gays, finding themselves deeper and deeper in the political wilderness.
Monica Roberts
As a founding member of the Republican Party, I have always belie -7
(dial tone)
Disgusted American
What do Gay Conservatives want? thye want the Republicans to except them…but they never will. Gay republicans in 2009…what a joke…if you’re a Republican and Gay – you are one Fucked up person.
Nick
Whoever wrote that is one funny mofo
Mister C
What Exactly Do Gay Conservatives Stand For?, Nothing at all.
John in CA
(The prospect of genetic manipulation to get rid of gays)
Ugh.
This is yet another testement to the ineffectiveness of our educational system. If these people actually believe in such nonsense, they need to (1) stop watching those “Star Trek” re-runs and (2) take a remedial course in physical athropology.
Because that’s not how evolutionary biology works, my Republican friends. Genetic alterations on bacteria or a vegetable isn’t the same as doing it with a human. If they would read Dawkins, Diamond, and Gould with an open mind (instead of merely berating them as ‘godless’ scientists), they’d know that. Not only is changing sexual orientation well beyond our technological capability, there’s serious debate as to whether it is even possible. There are simply too many variables – social, environmental, biological – to account for.
Moreover, there are very strict laws against genetic engineering in most Western countries. Laws that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Alec
On what issues?
I mean, when you look at the nitty gritty, who has passed anti-discrimination laws protecting gay men, lesbians and the transgendered? Republicans? Or Democrats? Which party supports relationship recognition? Would marriage advocates in VT have overcome a REPUBLICAN governor’s veto without Democratic legislators?
“Little more than lip service” is a bit dishonest. While it is true that Democrats, including our Democratic President Barac Obama, have not signed on to full equality, they’re light years ahead of the GOP and have done far more than “lip service.” Not all Democrats are like former President Clinton.
sdandy
There is (or should be) a distinction between being conservative and being a republican. There are many forms of ‘conservatism’. Like many other things, political views are a bit of a spectrum and also not two dimensional. The current use of the term ‘conservative’ is pretty repulsive, but we need to be a little more precise in our discussions lest we insult (ha ha) others for no reason or muddle the discussion. As the current form of republicans stand, I definitely agree there doesn’t seem any logical or sane reason to be openly gay and openly republican. I don’t think they can co-exist.
John in CA
@Alec: There are many valid criticisms of Barney Frank’s tenure as Financial Committee chair, but that’s not the issue here. I think he was spot-on with regards to gay Republicans. I’m paraphrasing, but the gist of it goes like this:
“You have a right to vote Republican. You have a right to vote Republican and remain in the closet. You have the right to vote Republican, remain in the closet, and win election to a public office. But when you claim that Republican led governments – either state or federal – have been better for sexual minorities than Democratic ones, we reserve the right to call you a liar. ”
No amount of moral equivalency or spin-doctoring will change the facts. The few Republican moderates who don’t “get in the way” of history deserve some praise. But when gay Republicans decide to take credit for whole endeavor, as they often do, we need to call them out on it. We need to remind them that the impetus for gay rights legislation has come – almost exclusively – from Democrats. There’s a huge difference between one or two lawmakers (individuals) doing nothing to obstruct legislation and a party (the group) actually spending political capital to pass it.
Pragmatist
@John in CA: I have to agree. The Democratic party’s actions bring it nowhere near its self-promoted mythology as the protector of the little guy, or of the force behind progressive social changes. But if you’re comparing the two parties on that axis, there’s simply no comparison to be made. Republicans have done almost nothing to advance civil rights (in terms of social issues) since Lincoln pushed to end slavery.
Jonathan
DEAR EDITOR: This little piece is entirely disingenuous. This new right-wing outfit wants want what other groups of white, religious, conservative men in the US have usually wanted: protection for their own sexual hypocrisy; the power to discriminate against women, African Americans and Latino/as; wealth and privilege.
I mean, come on: Are they really advocating that we support gay Republican staffers who want to fuck around on 18th Street (NW, of course) and stay in the closet? Nuff’said.
Aside from the glaringly obvious, though, what makes you write nonsense such as:
1. HRC is not (and has never been) a left-wing group. It’s a lobbying outfit. Its problem is that it is not left enough, not that it is “too left.”
2. The solution for HRC sell-out and the lack of support we get within the democratic party is to support groups that actually push for LGBT rights — not to support conservative groups that seek to prop up the party that has tried to amend the constitution to make us second-class citizens permanently.
InExile
I think self hatred is the cornerstone of the gay republicans as well as the greed and lust for money and the protection of the wealthy. They seem to hate themselves so much because they are gay that they will help and promote the party who seeks to destroy them. They seem to be OK with being second class citizens in this country, which proves self hatred!
Christine
While I can’t speech for LCR or GOProud, I did find this article rather annoying. I tend to vote Republican (not solely, but usually – I like Libertarians better, but they never stand a chance of winning), and am, in case you missed it, a lesbian.
Myself, while I am Christian, I believe that religion has no place in government and do get VERY annoyed with the GOP for the insertion of religion into politics, however, I vote Republican because I believe in smaller government; I think taxes should be lower and that the government needs to keep it’s big ugly nose out of everyone’s business.
I also usually feel that they are the better choice than the Democrats, who never come across as genuine to me. While I certainly did not agree with most things that Bush did, at least I felt that he was genuine and really believed in what he was doing. I don’t think Obama cares as long as he thinks people like him.
And, for the record, @Disgusted American and @Mister C, I’m not a fucked up person, and I do stand for things, very resolutely.
Landon Bryce
Gay Republicans and conservatives stand for one thing: selfishness. They are rich, believe themselves so fabulous that wealth is inevitable for them, or simply identify with the rich. They live exclusively for themselves, which includes hiding their sexual orientation when it is convenient and acting it without compunction at other times.
And, Christine, how did you feel about Bush executing more retarded citizens than any other governor in United States history? The Christian evangelist he mocked before having her fried? Did that seem genuine to you? How about his reversal on a gay marriage amendment?
If you are not embarrassed by having voted for the people who put us into an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of innocent lives and the economic mess we are currently in, you are indeed completely fucked up.
BrianZ
I have to say it’s somewhat annoying to find that “conservative” is always linked to Republican. That’s simply not always true.
Myself, I do find myself drawn to a more traditional conservative definition of limited Federal government, less taxes, limited social programs and limited Federal spending in preference for states and local responsibility. Do those things make me a Republican? No, they do not. I tend to align myself with Democrats as the social agenda fits more with my ideoligical thinking and Republicans have simply gone batshit crazy coddling the Evangelical community.
@Landon Bryce: Every president gives one a reason to be remorseful, given they do anything at all. I think less of G.W. than I would put to words here, but I’m not enamored with what I have seen from Democrats either. Let’s keep in mind that Democrats also had two years of majority in both houses of Congress and did nothing to reign in Bush or address the problems of the country. Idealouges on either end of the spectrum are problematic.
ousslander
@John in CA: but are there laws for say testing for “the gay gene” if it exist than purposefully aborting those babies!
Landon Bryce
@BrianZ:
You make my point: you do not believe yourself to be in need of social programs, so you want nothing spent on them. You are conservative because you are selfish.
And, yes, every president does indeed give reason for remorse. But no modern president has been half as destructive to general welfare as Bush Jr. Even Reagan did not authorize torture. Even Carter did not do what he did to the deficit. And if you look at his record, he has failed just as spectacularly at every other job he has ever had. What’s next for this guy? Pope? Movie star?
Chitown Kev
Yeah, the increasing threat of gays being aborted is pretty lame.
And highlighting the legislative hypocrisy of queens who would vote against our rights is a good idea.
Now, considering the rise in anti-gay bashing that has and will happen as a result of gay visibility, I disagree that gun control isn’t a “gay issue.” It’s all in how you sell the idea.
Since this new group hasn’t come out with any sort of platform, it seems, at this point, to be little more than a hissy fit.
Chitown Kev
I mean are we talking New England type here Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, or even Arlen Spector?
If this group was like those Republicans, I could really get behind this just as a counterweight to the Dems. But, oh, even those Republicans are considered to be RINOs.
InExile
For those Pro Republicans out there, how do you excuse your party for getting our country into the torture business? Also, how do you excuse the way the Republicans voted in lockstep with Bush for the last 8 years? And lastly, how do you excuse your party creating the largest financial mess since the great depression?
Mister C
Christine, Your reply to me was stupid at best. I never said anything about you. Just that movement and that is how I feel about it.
Thank you very much!
Mister C
Oh and one other thing Christine you said
With all the BULLSHIT and MADNESS that REPUBLICAN business owners have just done to this country. I think the damn gov’t at this stage should get in their business. How fucking American is it send jobs to India and now all these companies have squandered their funds to their personal pockets and left the companies to get HELP from where The Federal Gov’t! Unless your rich I understand your point if not…….CHILD PHLUEEEZE
rogue dandelion
about gay abortions-
several things in addition to what you mentioned
latest evidence points toward more hormonal factors in the womb, rather than any genetic differences.
I, however, completely disagree about gattaca not coming any time soon- people can already screen for blond hair and blue eyes in their children in one clinic(or so it claims)… it is very disturbing. There isn’t contradiction in my mind between supporting a woman’s right to choose yet be being against genetic screening for favorable genotypes. Genes and screening techniques are discovered each day, and I think it is becoming more of an issue.
I think the antigenetic discrimination law passed by congress was a good one, despite its obvious self aggrandizing purpose.
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: Ah, when all else fails go for personal attacks, yes? It shows a certain lack of maturity to require a personal insult, I think. Also, please stick to the facts of what was stated: I did not say I was against social programs, only that I was for limited spending on them.
It’s amusing that you are able to convince yourself that you “know” these people who disagree with you so well as to be able to stereotpye their personality and motives: Sounds a lot like the bigots who think all queers are over-sexed, godless miscreants. You have more in common with the radicals on the right than you might imagine, it seems.
Landon Bryce
I correctly stated that you were selfish– where’s the personal attack? I mean, outside of your message, which calls me immature and bigoted. No. I call shit shit, and people who are full of it hate that.
You want “limited” spending on social programs– where in practice has that not turned into slashing them?
At least you concede that Bush was a uniquely disastrous president.
RichardR
I am delighted to see further splintering and disarray within the Republican party, even among the tiny number of gay Republicans. (“Gay Republican” — is that an oxymoron or a non-sequitur?) That disarray, and its resulting ineffectiveness, is due chiefly to the not so GrandOP’s toadying to the religious right.
Thinking about “Gay conservative” may be a better way to try to understand why any gay man or woman would align themselves with the Republican Party.
As I’ve gotten older (and older and older) I’ve recognized that I’ve become more conservative — we need an economic climate favorable to business, and we need a strong and effective military. And any entity — family, individual, government body — needs to operate with fiscal soundness. Ideologically, government should stay out of private lives, and this is chiefly where the Republican party has prostituted itself and betrayed its own principles. Republicans have consistently maintained adherence to only one objective: to further enrich one another.
So I’m more conservative than I used to be, but I’m just as passionate about social justice and equality for myself and all Americans, gay and straight, as ever. There are those who say that supporting and electing Democrats won’t achieve those ends. To them, but I offer four words: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Landon Bryce:
She doesn’t care.
Republicans/Conservatives don’t care.
I had a similar convo with a guy yesterday who was praising Nixon and I countered his statement with what Nixon had done to innocent folk etc..
And he just shrugged.
Fair enough.
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: If it’s fair game to term one “selfish” based on one small aspect of their opinion I don’t see why you would have a problem with immature and bigoted.
I think you need to spend a lot more time formulating factual arguements to support your opinions rather than attacking other people for theirs. Oh but why bother, I’m sure you are doing just fine educating people on the finer details of your socio-political imaginings.
Landon Bryce
@RichardR:
Richard, you make the case for conservative values about as well as one possibly could. There should be nothing wrong with being conservative. But the word has been co-opted by those whose primary goal is enriching themselves and whose secondary goal is enshrining senseless patriarchy wherever it is still possible. Brian would have been right to object when I accused him of wanting no spending on social programs because he said he wanted limited spending on social programs if it were not the case that for thirty years “limited spending” on social programs has been Republican code for eliminating them. Before Reagan was elected, it was not unusual for intelligent, moral people to vote Republican. As the party was swayed further and further away from sanity, though, it is no longer responsible to vote even for a moderate Republican because of the craziness of the party she would be giving power to.
But not all traditional conservative values pass muster. Fiscal responsibility is good. Limited government is fine. States rights is bullshit, always an excuse for majority tyranny or provincialism– find a place in American history where the people crying,”States rights,” were not on the wrong side of both history and morality. Giving legal force to tradition just because it is tradition is virtually never a good idea. And, although the safety of our own citizens must be our primary military concern, we should never kill others for ideology or without regard for the safety of the world’s population as a whole.
John, what else can ya do but shrug? Mussolini made the trains run on time, too.
Chitown Kev
@BrianZ:
Well. Do you think that social programs should be cut, period, because they are not necessary? That would be selfish.
Now if you think funding should be slashed in a way consistent with the goals of “limited government” and trimming bureaucracy then I might be able to go along with you.
Or, are you one of those faux acolytes of Adam Smith that simply says fuck the poor?
Or are you a true acolyte of Smith (like Bill Gates) that would use his wealth advantage to help those less fortunate than yourself?
ConservativeGay
Not everything has to revolve around sex. A man can be fiscally conservative, believing in minimal government interference of the marketplace and still be gay. Being gay and Republican does not mean one advocates hiding and oppression. The present global debate about gay marriage was started by gays who were disillusioned by the revolving bedroom door lifestyle that was the norm. Adoption rights for gays, widower pensions are all traditional values that some gays think are worth achieving through peaceful, political participation. We respect your right to casual sex, recreation drugs and such, but you must respect our right to live by a moral, ethical and spiritual code.
Landon Bryce
Brian:
I believe that you are male, which means you are about half as likely to need social services than a woman. I am assuming that you are also an employed, white adult. I could be wrong on any of those things, so let me know, but if my assumptions are right, you are very, very unlikely to benefit from social programs other than health care, and you probably have health insurance that is better than what the government could ever provide (although I could be wrong on that, too) and social security.
In other words, I assume from the demographics of the site that you oppose spending on programs that would benefit other people and society as a whole because you are unlikely to need them. Yes, that could be construed as “bigoted,” but I would correctly make most of the same assumptions about myself, so I don’t think that’s really fair. I think you have to be pretty cold-hearted in your politics to vote Republican these days. That makes it very tempting to label those of us who insist on doing the right thing immature. That doesn’t make it fair or accurate.
Chitown Kev
@RichardR:
Well, it depends on the Republican. Too bad the moderate ones (Whitman, Collins, Specter, in some respects Giulaini) are drowned out by the parties Dixiecrat racists and the religious right.
Landon Bryce
Conservative gay:
Wow– if that’s how you show “respect,” you must be very comfortable in Republican company. Do you have anything other than contempt for gays who enjoy recreational drugs or casual sex? Your message conceals it if that is the case. You are dripping with scorn, are you not? Because if that is not the case, you really need to express yourself differently.
And if that is the case, if you despise those whose lives you claim revolve around sex as much you appear to–
how can you then have the gall to demand our respect?
I will start respecting conservative gays when they stop parroting Republican talking points about the wickedness of party gays.
Maybe.
Chitown Kev
@ConservativeGay:
But you don’t have to be Republican or even a conservative to have those values or to live by a more “traditional” (for lack of a better word) moral, spiritual, or ethical code, either.
Chitown Kev
@ConservativeGay:
“Being gay and Republican does not mean one advocates hiding and oppression.”
True. But does it mean that you advocate the hiding and oppression of others?
Bruno
In my experience, being a Log Cabin Republican (and really generally a gay republican) means trying not to talk about it all that much. Geoff Kors, obviously a person who’s not ashamed to be gay, is a Log Cabin Republican, and you can see how that affected his decisions regarding the prop 8 fiasco. “We want equality, but we don’t want to gross you out too much so we’ll behave and not say too much.”
And perhaps a pure conservative believes in limited government, but I’ve rarely seen this in practice. Conservatives like to use big government when it suits there needs (the drug war, “defense” i.e. offense), and it’s always been that way. There has never been such an example of pure, across-the-board, limited government in our history.
BrianZ
@Chitown Kev: While I understand that people have a propensity to speak in tongues when it comes to politics, I prefer to just say what I mean. 🙂 I firmly believe in the need for social programs: Life in a greedy, capitalistic society can be harsh on those who, for whatever reason, stumble. I feel it’s in everyones best interest to help those people stand back up. I just don’t believe that the Federal government is necesarily the best vehicle for dispensing that assistance and I don’t believe that assistance should be infinite. Situations are different from person to person, state to state: How can the behemouth that is the Federal government react to such individual needs? They can’t. The States do not perform much better, but they are certainly more accessable and to some extent accountable than the far-removed Federal representatives.
Fuck the poor? Define poverty in the United States? I agree that there is simply no excuse for any citizen of this country to be homeless (except by their choice) or be unable to feed themselves and their family. Beyond that, we’d have to talk.
How can you not be in awe of what the Gates Foundation has been able to accomplish? The institution runs lean and efficiently and is very successful in its endevours. Compare those dollars spent and their effectiveness versus and social program run by the Federal government and you see some of my logic. No institution is without problems, certainly. But there are higher standards than what we strive for in our government.
Personal accountability has to enter the equation at some point, which is another conversation. And that applies to both the individuals who need assistance and the armchair politicos that will advocate higher social spending all day but wouldn’t be caught dead working the soup line at the homeless shelter.
Attmay
@BrianZ: Well said. I’m appalled at people’s idea that if the government doesn’t help people then no one will help people. Did churches and synagogues suddenly give up the idea of charity when the welfare state was formed? Did all the privately controlled charitable organizations give up?
@ConservativeGay: Gay marriage IS socially conservative. Is anything more conservative than devoting your life to one person and raising a family?
This article is the same typical left-wing smears with nothing backing them up.
But I have no respect for GayTraitor and his appease-the-breeders style of gay rights. Being nice to the breeder bigots didn’t make Prop H8 go away.
niles
Actually, the problem is that they are being “excepted” by the Republicans.
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: I’ve always believed that the road to hell is paved with assumptions, rather than good intentions.
You assume that my reference to limited spending is “code” for slashing spending. You assume that being employed today means I was not unemployed last week, etc. I get it, really, I do.
However, assumptions are made out of arrogance that you know your audience, and you understand their motives and ideas better than they do. I did not identify myself as a Republican. Nor did I indicate that I tend to vote Republican. I did not advocate for slashing spending on social programs. There apparently was no room in your mind for my real opinions: They were crowded out by all the assumptions. So, out of your assumption you placed a label on me that I soundly reject and my own statements do not support. I’m all for calling people on their bullshit (even me), but I also believe that there has to be more to it than just calling names.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Chitown Kev:
Exactly. This is what they are like. They only care about THEMSELVES.
@Chitown Kev:
I know! Why do Conservatives get on their high horses and JUDGE everyeone?? The only diff is WE don’t judge, why the HELL would that mean sleeping around OR doing drugs?? They have NO fucking clue in live in the 19th century!
Jesus, I have the most lefty friends who BARELY touch drink, let alone..do drugs BUT and this is a BUT what makes them democratic is that they don’t JUDGE.
If someone is paying the taxes, helping the poor and all, who am I to judge what they do to relsease from this farce that is imposed society values??
@ Everyone
Why is putting more money towards INFRASTRUCTURE (schools etc)really UNFISCAL??
Bush’s govt spent soo much!
@Landon Bryce:
“Before Reagan was elected, it was not unusual for intelligent, moral people to vote Republican. As the party was swayed further and further away from sanity, though, it is no longer responsible to vote even for a moderate Republican because of the craziness of the party she would be giving power to.”
Yep.
Wellcome to Friedmanite world. The freemarket revolutionary who’s got us in this mess.
Reagan and Thatcher both adapted to his policies and his ‘doctrine’ as Rumsfeld loves to say!
Kris
I’m proud to be a gay Republican, a Log Cabin Republican.
I just don’t believe in the Chocolate Jesus the Democrats are praying to.
Chitown Kev
@BrianZ:
I am in awe of the Gates Foundation, actually.
In fact, I find myself in general agreement with much of your post. But ah, those pesky details.
Chitown Kev
@BrianZ:
I am in awe of the Gates Foundation, actually. In fact, I wasa citing Bill Gates as an example of capitalism in the sense Adam Smith foresaw it (capitalism + civic responsibility + philothanthropy)
In fact, I find myself in general agreement with much of your post. But ah, those pesky details.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@BrianZ:
Why do Conservatives…(not you) have this odd perception that we don’t want businesses to flourish or to put money into the private sector?
Why do they have this old fashioned idea of what a Democrat truly is?
I don’t get it at all.
I just feel that private sector companies/businesses…(mine included) need more ethical regulations and greater CSR..esp to the area/land that their business is in..
The bottom line for me is that I know my going to good school has enabled me to think the way that I can AND to have the opportunities to at least attempt a foot through the door…
BUT what I HATE is really rich, priviliged conservatives who feel their job at Uncle/Daddies friend company is a GOD given right and gives THEM the superior right to cut public spending for those who NEVER had the chance cause dad or mum physically/sexually abused them so much that they are plain and simply fucked??
I’m not saying it’s you…but whenever I pose this to Conservatives, they ignore the question all together and go on the attack.
It’s like they deeply HATE the fact that THEY have to care about people who are not relatives OR issues that don’t effect them (mummy had cancer..so I give money to cancer charities..)
?
Landon Bryce
Brian:
Please notice that you said nothing to contradict any of the assumptions I actually made (as opposed to those you made up). Attack Reagan and his followers for making “limited” mean “eliminated”, not me for calling you on your use of coded language.
You have done nothing to convince me or anyone else that you are not as selfish as I initially assumed, have you? Why is it not selfish for white adult males to attack spending on social programs? Why single that out of one of your beliefs if you are so opposed to standing behind it? Have you done anything in your response to me other than call names and play word games? I don;t see it if you have.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Kris:
That’s cool.
I don’t think anyone believes in those corrupt bastards that start wars for no reason, for simply the cause to get richer and to kill.
Funny how Cheney earned 3 times the amount he ever has after the War?
Nice jesus’s you pray for.
The sociopathic murky white one.
Chitown Kev
@Kris:
Well, jeez, that sheet came off of your head mighty quick didn’t it, Kris?
Chitown Kev
@Landon Bryce:
You know, the funny thing about this is that I could probably make the case for a gay Republican myself, were I so inclined.
Well, maybe a gay libertarian actually. I mean, why should anyone care what anyone toots, smokes, or drinks? Legalize it, there goes much of your “drug war” money (that is my actual position on drugs, by the way).
Or if a gay Republican chooses to be more “moral or ethical” then the rest of the heathen gay liberal Dems (as if the “gay conservatives” don’t like their circuit parties too!) then offer up a platform of those values.
Bruno
@Kris:
So what color is your Jesus? Eggshell or ivory?
Excaliber
@Kris: “Chocolate Jesus”?…Hummm…spoken like a true Republican but also revealing something else quite insidious. Why am I NOT surprised???
Ousslander
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): You judge people who don’t march lockstep with your political beliefs and morality as is exampled by your many “eat the rich” type comments@Landon Bryce: is it not selfish of the people who demand more n more in social services but do little to help support but expect others to so? We should help people in need but there should be limit.
Ousslander
I doubt kris is who/what he says he is.
Chitown Kev
@Ousslander:
Then how do you propose that those who receive the support help to support others, in turn (assuming that they are able, once they get on their feet?)
For example, if an inner city (OK, African American or Latino) teacher is smart enough (e.g. 3.5, tough curriculum, 1300 SAT’s, etc.) wouldn’t it be in the best interest to subsidize his education [by the way, the “Chocolate Jesus” (I am assuming that Kris was referring to Barack Obama) has proposed revamping affirmative action to account for income levels, an idea long overdue]?
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Ousslander:
That’s crap I don’t judge them, HOW do I judge them?? Did you read what I said?
I’m asking questions…simply answer them!
I have had some great arguments with really racist, rightwing guys and guess what, I didn’t judge them! Why? Because they were honest.
Just admit who you are.
Conservatives live in a world were a Jewish guy (jesus) who existed in times were I don’t think he so much snow, so would therefore be pretty DARK is erm white, with blue eyes and existed ONLY for white consrevatives, when actually Jesus was anti rich and all about helping the poor!
By god what would we think of him now the Communist!
And they live in this world were they can’t see corruption embedded within the concept of less givt control and greater private sector room..
Also, they seem incapable of actually looking back at past arguments and seeing that things DON’T work. We did it the conservative/repub way since…well since forever..
And look at the mess the US and the UK have done to the rest of the world in terms of the financial crisis?
And guess WHO not only has the shortest rich to poor divide and who’s come out pretty unscath from this mess the right wing have put us in…
The Scandanavian countries.
I’m pragmatic and I look at facts.
I’m also the FIRST to admit that welfare-at least in my country-has many holes that has created a nanny state. And I don’t agree with raising benefits for the sake of it.
Like EVERYTHING we need more regulation, higher training levels and more transparency.
I don’t care if your dream is to be a billionaire….but please tell us what ethical methods occured for you to occur those billions fairly..
Ousslander
@Chitown Kev: The government should offer subsidies for education. The better educated a populace the better off the country. It short term with long term benefits. Should it be a free ride? No. But where most likely do you think she will wAnt to teach? The suburbs. Just like with bailout money there should be conditions. We pay you work three years in undesirable school
The goverment, taxpayers should not be supporting people for life.
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: LOL You see absolutely nothing other than what you want to see. I said “limited spending” and you insist that I mean slashed funding. You’ve made up, and I stress “made up”, this whole person you assume me to be in your head and you believe the onus is on me to “prove you wrong”?
Let me be perfectly blunt: I’m not going to take responsibility for proving you right or wrong on your silly assumptions about me. You’ve already insisted you know my true motives , so why would I bother arguing with that kind of crazy? As I have stated, in this thread, I’m perfectly capable of speaking my mind and stating my opinions. If you don’t see the problem with making assumptions about people you have zero knowledge of, then chances are not I or anyone else will ever make that point clear to you. I don’t live by your rules. I simply take issue with people improperly label me.
Yes, word games. Sometimes it’s an exercise in dealing with people to see just how entrenched people are in their beliefs about others. I understand that people don’t like it when they are told they are bigoted on a certain subject, but as you say, shit is shit.
Landon Bryce
@Chitown Kev:
Of course you could offer up a defense for being a gay Republican. So could I. But neither one of us would.
We are still at a point where the pendulum has swung dangerously far toward complete laissez faire capitalism, and we are seeing the disastrous results.
Today, no one sane is singing the praises of the free market. If we actually move away from right wing extremism in our economic principles (which not even Obama is truly advocating at this point) then it will make sense to talk about the advantages of fiscal conservatism. So long as Republicans offer tax cuts for the rich as their solution to every economic problem (and are not laughed out of office), there is no need to fear socialism in the United States.
Ousslander
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): You judge all conservatives to be selfish and racist.I think youvwould find the self identfied repubs/conservatives give more money n do more volunteering as a whole than their counterparts.
What is wrong with judging something good or bad? This entire moral equivalency is crap.
If i ever did make a billion and it was legal what concern is it of yours? You want a billion go make your own, don’t try to take mine. Now if i can just pick the lotto numbers!
Landon Bryce
No, Brian. You have attacked me for calling you selfish because you pointed out limited spending on social services as a place where you agree with Republican values. I hold– and you have done nothing to counter this– that that is a selfish point of view for a white adult male to take. You have taken offense, you have attacked and insulted, but you have not explained why it is unfair for me to call you selfish for wanting to limit spending that will benefit others more needy than yourself. You have not done that because it is logically impossible to do so. You can’t justify the opinion you expressed, so you attack me for accurately describing it. I hope you’re having fun, because you are not making yourself (or your opinions) look reasonable when you attack me rather than defending what you actually say.
BrianZ
@Chitown Kev: Yes, the details. Those little things really do get in the way sometimes don’t they? I can’t bring myself to vote Republican, but that doesn’t mean I can’t identify with some aspects of the party ideology (or what was the party ideology anyway). And I can understand how other gays could feel that it is worth putting their civil rights behind other priorities: Do we not see the same thoughts espoused here on Queerty when discussing DOMA, DADT, etc and the current administration inaction on those fronts? It infuriates me because I don’t agree with people sometimes, but that does not mean I don’t understand.
Thanks for the direct and intelligent conversation, btw. 🙂
John in CA
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s):
If you’ve been to the Sistine Chapel in Rome, you’d know that “God The Father” is a bearded old white man floating around up there in a pink robe. So, of course, he’d have a blue eyed, blonde haired son. It makes perfect sense (to the Catholic Church anyway).
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: You haven’t even taken the time to ask what “limited” means. Let me guess, you already know because you’ve assumed.
So, then, you support unlimited social spending, since you don’t support limited spending on those programs?
If you feel attacked, that’s really too bad.
Ousslander
@Landon Bryce: i am selfish in that i wish to keep the majority of the money that i work for. Do you live simply and donate what th government does not take? If so you are selfish by looking after your needs and wants first.
BrianZ
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): Honestly, I think that it comes down to the two extremes, the left and the right. One side picks a plank for the party so the other party seems to default to the opposite: It isn’t because it’s the best, it’s just the opposite. It’s not that you can’t be pro-business and pro-regulation, it’s that the politicians want everyone to believe the “other side” is going to ruin your country. Everything is in the extreme, all exagerated just to scare the feeble minded into voting one way or the other.
It’s sad, to me, that the only two things that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that Christianity and not allowing gays to marry.
Landon Bryce
@BrianZ:
Brian, if limited means something other than you think we spend too much on poor people, please explain. Also, please explain what you think your last message did to clarify your position or disparage mine. You created a straw man (I must support unlimited social spending) but have shed no actual light. Again, you identified “limited social programs” as a place where you agree with conservative ideology. I believe that that is a selfish position for an able-bodied, white, adult male to take. Beyond the parsing of words, it is wrong for the strong to resent the pittance that is still spent on the weak after it has decreased steadily for three decades. If it were 1978, I could make allowances for you. But I have watched as one safety net after another has been stripped away, watched it get harder and harder for the disadvantaged to make a living. If you have not seen this, then you haven’t been looking. And if you look around at the tremendous need in our country today and still trumpet “limited social programs” as what we need– how on earth can you claim not to be selfish?
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Ousslander:
Dude I don’t want YOUR money. I’ve never been on welfare etc because like I said BEFORE, I went to a lovely posh school were I boarded.
AND I also have my own business…so pleeease, I’m all for not taxing the HELL out of me…
BUT I realise I WAS lucky and if that means helping people to be AS lucky through cheaper education, further training, more mentoring, more help and support to the abused..
Then yeah, I don’t mind the tax.
But I’d rather THAT then using MY hard earned cash to bail out YOUR allies because of their selfish greed on Wall Street and the Stock Exchange in the UK!
What the HELL have Goldman and Sachs et al done FOR me?
Exactly. Such hypocrisy from Conservatives/Repub. They FUCK up their OWN greedy financial economy and I HAVE to pay for it!???
The cheek!
Jared
The problem with this is assuming “conservative” is the same as “Republican,” which is not the case. The last real conservative in the Republican party was Barry Goldwater, and he died a decade ago (he was also for gay rights near the end of his life, by the way).
It’s partly why I registered Libertarian–they take the best out of both parties and remove the bullshit. IMHO.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@BrianZ:
Agree with that and it really makes me mad. People are such sheep and desp to be lead.
I’m currently working on campaigns for this political party and the amount of smart people I have spoken to who are like ‘your policies are just like the right…or our Labour now ‘right’ party..
And I’m like, have you actually BOTHERED to read the actual policies..and then I tell them..and they are like ‘oh’…
And I’m like damn, you should all know better seeing that you are educated folk!
Right and Left wingers are sooo fundamental in their opinions..!
I was arguing with this ‘hippie lefty community worker’, who was trying to make me out like I was the devil because I was doing an MBA and because I said people re inherently not that nice, so why waste the resrources supporting for ever and ever?
Just cause you’re poor, black or gay doesn’t make you a nice person..
BUT is you put effective training instead of handouts…
Ousslander
@John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s): I don’t think they should have been bailed out. You think it’s okay for one group to have their hand out but not another. Whats the dif between a banker who screwed up and an unwed teen mother, they both created their problems
I’m all for a good education n more job training. They problem is people whoneed want the gov to fix every little hang nail, they have. Why not take care of your own problems?
There are opportunities out ther but they arent going to be handed to you
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: You’ve not read one post here that suggested I believe we spend too much on social programs. Nope, not a one. And you couldn’t be bothered to ask for clarification, to have a discussion, because your ego insists you’ve assumed correctly, you already know. There was no room in your mind for alternatives: You saw what you believed to be a buzz phrase and ran with it and labeled me, not the belief, as selfish. You even try to validate your your assumption using some laughable Reagan-era nonsense. How rediculous is that in 2009? You are solely responsible for your assumptions and actions, and have been judged accordingly. Nothing was made up about you, your own words are enough. Oddly you judge me based on 2% my words and 98% your imaginings of what they mean.
You complain of a straw man when that’s exactly what you’ve created for me to argue against other than yours is some supposition of who I am and what I think that exists only in your mind and with the only purpose to justify your actions and beliefs. One of my psych professors wisely noted that arguing with a crazy person is not dangerous, but beginning to agree with them is. This is, more or less why I do not address your assumptions: They are the musings of your mind and nothing more, to acknowledge them, respond to them is to grant them validity in the conversation when they hold none.
You fail from the beginning because you assume, and you stand behind your assumptions even when confronted with information to the contrary which simply leads you to continue to fail.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Ousslander:
Ok…a banker…
SHOULD know better. He HAD to be educated to get a degree no? He HAD to go to a good school to go into banking at Lehrmans or Bearns?? My sister worked for Goldman Sachs and they even had to know what secondary school my dad went to!
So you’re surrounded by muppets who all think, dress and wanna marry a blonde type A who lives to compete with ALL her other same of the same friends..
AGAIN you are in an ENVIRONMENT of people who all aim, wanna get there and have been brought up to KNOW they WIIL get there.
And I’m supposed to compare YOU’RE worthless dumb conformist ass with a teenage pregnant girl who more likely then NOT lost her virginity to her dad at 11…
Grew up in an ENVIRONMENT were she is told she will NEVER amount to anything..goes to a school with teachers who don’t give a crap and is around people who make HER feel like if she dares to get away, that they will disown her.
Now, this girl could just put her head down, put up with the beatings, abuse, solitary ways and somehow..not sure how as you guys don’t have the same benefits as we do in the UK…get OUT of her hell hole?
Why should she? OR how? It’s all she knows.
Just like those fucking creeps who work in banking and think they are above it all.
All they’ve done is exist within a conveyor belt existance…BOTH parties..
But at least that twit in banking can just jump off the belt and do the ‘right’ thing…were as the girl…well..
disclaimer, the voluntary mentoring work I do is with ‘at risk’ 8 year olds,who act like they are 25, have dead eyes and don’t even understand what being a kid is.
I have a longterm strategy. If somehow I am able through mentoring, make them realise not only will they get out of the HELL that is their family life but that the world, it’s all a game and you never stop playing it..
At least maybe, we will stop them growing up to be angry older teens or young people who think nothing of pulling a knife out you or robbing you blind with a gun..
You may say I’m idealistic but it’s worked for plenty. For an ex boyfriend of mine…friends…and also me, who despite a good school went off the rails due to other personal shit..
Simple.
Oh and it’s only 4 hours a week out of my life.
Ousslander
I don’t know what imaginary world u think i live in that i run in a crowd of rich bankers and that i’ve had an easy life. You’re example of the 11 yr old is not the norm or majority of pregnant girls but girls who did know better.
Yes and be mad at people who had caring and encouraging parents, the nerve of them. There are plenty of people who grow up in a hellish family but don’t go off the rails just as some little aristo twit with all the advantadges falls into heroin with their uni pals spouting about injustice
Please don’t care about my dumb ass, i’m better off without
Landon Bryce
@BrianZ:
Brian:
Okay. Some day maybe you will notice the lengths you have gone to to avoid addressing the basic contention you have gone so far to obscure: you said you want limited social programs. I think that’s a selfish thing to say. I have tried to engage you in discussion about that, not in a friendly way, but your initial comments to me were far from friendly. I mention Reagan because I’m old enough to know where the jargon you spouted and that I objected to comes from. Calm down. Read what I actually read. Why is it not selfish for a white adult male to object to spending on social programs? I get that you have backpedaled from what you wrote originally and claim that you do not support the conservative drive to limit social programs (although that is exactly what you wrote and what I objected to). But how is it unreasonable to label as selfish the desire of the advantaged to limit programs which help the disadvantaged?
It isn’t.
That’s the basic fact you are unable to acknowledge, and the reason you need to demonize me.
Chitown Kev
@Jared:
Bingo.
(For the record I am a registered Independent and have been since I could vote. 85-90% of the time I vote Dem but I have voted Green and, on a few occasions, Republican.)
BrianZ
@Landon Bryce: I haven’t backed off any of my contentions. I do support limitations on social programs. I don’t think that the resources we devote to the poor should be limitless. The FACT is you have zero idea of what that actually means to me, only what you interpret it as. You jump from one assumption to the next, based on your generational experience. Those assumptions make your logic weak and your arguements flawed. I understand that the only thing that would suffice in your mind is to hear the confirmation of your deeply-routed belief that only selfish people could possibly want to place limits on social programs. That’s just too bad, because I don’t believe that to be the case.
Happy Easter, though! I sure hope you have a good week ahead of you 🙂
Landon Bryce
But, Brian, rather than explain or clarify what you meant, you have tended simply to attack me. This is mostly my fault, because of the extremely argumentative way that I began and continued this discussion. I should not have labeled you as selfish, only the belief that I believed you were expressing, and I should have asked you to clarify that belief before attacking it. Of course, there will always be limits on social programs. Of course, there should be. There is, however, importance in emphasis, and we are very much at a swing of the pendulum where social programs have only been cut for thirty years. That is not my opinion; it is at the very least a majority interpretation of facts if not fact itself.
Happy Easter to you, too.
Frank in Miami
@John in CA: Don’t be silly, John. Republicans don’t believe in science. Don’t you know evolution and climate change are liberal plots to soak the rich, or something like that.
Juanita de Talmas
Republicans are a lot a things, but “conservative” is not one of them. Those on here who claim to vote for Repugs because them “believe in smaller government,” have you been asleep for the last eight yeras?
audiored
HRC is left wing?!!?!??! Really?! For real? I mean really? HRC? Left wing? Really?
Chitown Kev
@Landon Bryce:
Landon, there’s a reason I’m asking Brian to clarify his position.
In the early 90’s I worked with the social service wing of a faith-based organization. The federal government distributed the funds directly to the state. The state, in turn, distributed the funds to the social service agency. A new innovative program was begun at lesser cost that was able to deliver direct services to the communities more efficiently. Also, a number of the employees hired by that organization were from those impoverished communities.
I was one of those employees.
So you can “limit” spending and deliver social services more effectively. But…
I went through a change in management and was subjected to behavior that could be construed as homophobic. With no ENDA staute on the books in my state at that time, I had little or no recourse to combat the harrassment (to be fair, I didn’t make the situation any better in trying to respond to the harrassment)
(And even now I am unsure as to whether there is a religious exemption in the Illinois ENDA. That’s something I have to research.)
A position consistent with conservatism, as I understand it, is that an organization could have every right to harass and terminate me for whatever reason, consistent with its’ employment policies. The reason that Barry Goldwater did not sign on to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that he disagreed with Title II.
(But Goldwater also railed against the Religious Right near the end of his life, though. I respect Goldwater).
So I want to see what other protections would Brian afford for a person like myselfor any person who is impoverished, discriminated, or disadvantaged in anyway.
BrianZ
@Chitown Kev: Whhhaaat? You didn’t ask me to provide you with my thoughts on comprehensive non-discrimination policies as it inter-relates with poverty and social services!
I would have leave you hangin’ in the wind man! We don’t need no stinkin’ non-discrimination policy! Ok, I’m kidding, I’m kidding 🙂 I couldn’t resist.
For the record, I don’t believe in distributing government aid through organizations that would be unable or unwilling to serve all citizens equally if they are in need. I’m not a fan of the faith-based initiatives + government in any sense, for that matter. There are significant gains that can be made through improving existing governmental institutions and their processes.
Whatevs, I’m tired. Have a good week.
Chitown Kev
@BrianZ:
LOL. I actually agree with you about faith-based initiatives, and that would actually be a “conservative” position that you are taking, as I understand conservatism.
Solmonese made that point to the shrieking harpie Maggie Gallagher.
John in CA
In this country, “anti-Republican” conservatism is as much of a farce as “anti-Democratic” liberalism. Every other conservative I know seems to declare themselves libertarian. If I took those declarations at face value, there must be tens of millions these people. Yet, they never get more than 1-2% of the national vote. And that’s a pretty generous assessment. In the last presidential election, the so-called libertarian candidate, former GOP congressman Bob Barr, received 0.40% of the vote.
Libertarians are the conservative version of the Greens and Socialists on the left. They vote with “their side” 99% of the time. But they don’t even have the courage to actually admit that they’re part of the old guard, so they create this ridiculous fiction that there’s this magical “third party” that they are a member of (but apparently never vote for). When push comes to shove, when has a self-proclaimed libertarian not been willing to sell the Bill of Rights to a Republican in exchange for tax cuts?
Have your deluded “rebels fighting against the power” fantasies if you must. But who are you all kidding, really? At the end of the day, Bob Barr is still a Republican. Just as “Socialist” Bernie Sanders is a Democrat in all but name.
Chris
@Christine:
So you vote GOP to get gov’t out of your business? Since when does the GOP want to anything but tell us not to be who we are?
Christine, they take away your rights employment, housing, sppech and liberty in a second if they could…..and yet you vote for them? Sorry, but if that’s the case you are at least self-loathing.
sdandy
@Jared:
@Juanita de Talmas:
Oh, come on guys. That’s not constructive…you are supposed to be throwing around sweeping generalizations and personal attacks! How are you supposed to be having a discussion or a debate with comments like that! Ha ha.
The Gay Numbers
It does not matter what gay conservatives stand for, because no one will care ultimately in the actuall political process what they think one way or other. The left will be uninterested in them becaue they spout crazy shit. The right because they are fags. Unless that dynamic changes, I can honestly say who cares.
The Gay Numbers
@John in CA: It’s not even like libertarians are any better. Having dated both conservatives and “liberterians” they both are a little nuts. Libertarians are like communist, escept in the reverse. Whereas one believes in the ability fo the state to solve all problems, the other beliefs too much in the mythic individual. As Aristole (or was it Plato) wrote, “man is a social animal.” From there, ends libertarian thought.
Brandon
Being a gay republican is like being a jewish nazi. Self-hatred is douchey
The Gay Numbers
@Brandon: I prefer the line it is like the chicken supporting Cornel Sanders.
Pragmatist
@Landon Bryce: Hi, Landon.
I don’t agree with conservatives on most issues, but I think you’re wrong about so-called “states’ rights” (I prefer the term ‘federalism’, since “states’ rights” is indeed a politically charged term with its roots in slavery and racial discrimination.)
I think we are actually entering a period now in which deference to state policy choices can lead to MORE progressive social policies rather than fewer. The “states’ rights” debate originates from a time in which leadership on civil rights and progressive causes came from the federal government.
But these days, the roles have reversed. If you want real progress, you HAVE to look to the states. Want same-sex partnerships recognized under the U.S. tax code? Forget it. Want the right to use medical marijuana? Move to a state in which it’s legal, and then pray that the Feds have something better to do than to tromp in with the Supremacy Clause and an arrest warrant.
It’s often suggested that federalism allows states to act as “laboratories” in which to try variant policy choices, with the best practices spilling across state borders. While I think it’s anachronistic to attribute that particular design to the founders, I do think it’s quite a benefit in practice.
The Gay Numbers
@Pragmatist: Your comments are incorrect as to legal analysis, history and present likely political outcomes.
The argument you are making has nothing to do with states rights arguments at the federal level. These arguments as legally applied are meant to stop equal protection analysis amongs other techniques for advancing rights nationally. Your wised for impact is just that- wishing. I will explain more below as to how it was recently applied in terms of gay rights.
States rights does not address the multiple legal issues that arises between states and at the federal level as well as between states regarding marriage rights. The decision in Iowa, for example, however laudible, will have no impact in Florida if a couple should move from Iowa to Florida.
Historically, the same pattern of individual states providing partial rights happened with marriage between blacks and whites, but the process of rights spreading eventually stalled. I know Nate Silver put up some graph recently claiming eventual acceptance, but his argument is flawed because he assume progress based on a trendline that reflects liberals accepting gay marriage.
Your argument also makes no logical sense regarding equality at the federal level. States rights is not an argument in favor of pushing at the state level while ignoring the federal issues on marriage because ultimately those federal issues will have to addressed regardless of what the states do individually. This is simply a matter of law.
As to historical analogies, by the time of Loving, 60 percent of the American public was still against interracial marriages. This was decades after the first set of state based cases including the California decision. I expect the same result of gay marriage in certain regions of the country. Probably the same regions as before.
There are some states- especially in the South- that will never accept gay marriage within the next decades. Your argument would consign the citizens of those states to accepting second class status or force them, if they are financially able, to move to other states. States rights is not an argument in favor of laboratory of democracy. Its an argument in favor of denial of federal influence to increase rights.
States rights also in practice do not address discrimination against gays in housing and jobs. For example, one of the principle reasons cited by the Bush Administration for not supporting the non-binding UN resolution regarding decriminalizing homosexuality was that it would harm state’s rights. In other words, it would harm the ability to discriminate in housing and jobs (the reasons given by conservative Christians who fears they would have to hire gays). This is in direct contradiction of your claims here that it will lead to more rights. You may wish that to be the case, but that’s not the way it translates in reality.
Pragmatist
@The Gay Numbers: There are some good points here. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply that we’re entering a phase in which all civil rights issues fare better under a federalist approach than a nationalist one. I just wanted to point out (as always) that there’s more than one side to the issue.
I’ve been particularly incensed (har, har) about the status of medical marijuana. Several states now have legalized it with overwhelming popular support, and yet those efforts have largely been meaningless because of the conflict with rigid federal law. In my opinion, the federal government never had the actually had the power to regulate locally grown and distributed drugs, much less to supersede the states’ Tenth Amendment prerogative to explicitly legalize them. (Obviously, history put me on the losing side of both my Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment arguments about 7 decades ago. Thanks, FDR.)
I was greatly encouraged when the new administration stated it would pursue a policy of deference to the states on this particular issue. Mysteriously, however, the raids of California dispensaries continues…
Pragmatist
@The Gay Numbers: Anyway, you’re right that conflicts between state and federal authority aren’t too big an issue on most current gay rights. I think my original message probably conflated two distinct ideas: (1) the idea that states are the real drivers of expansion of GLBT rights these days; and (2) the idea that federal supremacy can interfere with state policymaking.
To be honest with you, I’m surprised that Republicans have exercised as much restraint as they have in letting states pursue GLBT equality. DOMA is bad, but if they’d struck at the right moment it could have been worse. It could have tried to preempt state authority on those issues (and for all I know, Republicans might have found 5 votes in the Supreme Court to allow it).
The Gay Numbers
@Pragmatist: It’s not Republican restraint. It’s a lack of ability to do anything more than they have done. what more do you expect them to be able to do? Restraint suggests they an do more.
Thom
The fallacy in the post can be summed up in this quote:
“…Now, there are a host of other issues– gun control, various libertarian stances and fiscal conservatism that have no direct effect on LGBT rights…”
These other issues DO affect GLBT folks. The right to protect oneself (2nd Amendment rights) is *particularly* important to any group that is routinely harassed, beaten, and treated as ‘second-class.’
Libertarian Issues like privatized pensions are PARTICULARLY important for GLBT folk, who can NOT leave their social security retirement funds (or even survivors benefits) for their partners under the Clinton-Signed DOMA legislation.
Fiscal Conservatism is PARTICULARLY important to GLBT folk, because the same two people might pay $10,000 or receive back $2,000 in federal taxes, depending on whether they file ‘jointly’ or as singles (once again, a Clinton legacy).
These other issues DO AFFECT US, and we need to broadly address ALL of our issues, not just the ones that HRC wants to highlight, or take liberal stances simply because we’ve gotten in bed with some other vested interest.
Bill Perdue
@Alec: Alec asks “ who has passed anti-discrimination laws protecting gay men, lesbians and the transgendered? Republicans? Or Democrats?
On the federal level the answer is neither, Alec. Have you been off planet. Did you just miss the whole ENDA thing. In spite of being reformist ENDA was a big step forward because in included GLBT folks as a protected class and because it eliminated restrictions for everyone, making it easier to lay charges and sue.
It was so successful in fact that it scared the bejebuz out of the Chamber of Commerce. Barney Frank, point man in charge of gutting ENDA, dropped transfolk from coverage and accepted every amendment offered by rightwing Democrats and Republicans, including one that forbade ENDA being used to undercut DOMA.
Maybe you should say that some local and state Democrats (and a few Republican) legislators and some judges and mostly Re4publican dominated Supreme Courts have enlarged our rights. But that’s not because they like us, it’s because they’re afraid of the destabilizing force and example or our movements.
Then, instead of saying that Obama’s a bigot, you say “President Barac Obama, have not signed on to full equality”. You sound like some insurance company lawyer in a malpractice case. You fail to mention that both parties are pig head opponents of SSM, that the Democrats gutted ENDA and then shelved it and the Hate crimes law.
You claim that Not all Democrats are like former President Clinton.” Where is you proof of that? In the votes on DOMA, DADT, and the shelving of ENDA and the hate crimes bill just before the last election?
Actually Obama is a Clinton Clone. His economic and military advisors are Clintonites and so are his policies. And his stab-in-the-back, “gawd’s in the mix” is just the beginning.
Alec
@Bill Perdue: Right. So what about in the states, Bill?
Maybe you should say that some local and state Democrats (and a few Republican) legislators and some judges and mostly Reublican dominated Supreme Courts have enlarged our rights. But that’s not because they like us, it’s because they’re afraid of the destabilizing force and example or our movements.
Setting aside the compromises on ENDA, which I did not support, what about the federal representatives, including those that opposed the final bill because it was so watered down?
Your speculations on motives are just that. You really have nothing to bring to this conversation unless it fits in with some vague, Marxist revolutionary critique. You bring up the Chamber of Commerce but fail to mention that they switched their position to neutrality when the ERISA issues were addressed in the final bill (their primary concern). I mean, I despise the Chamber, but you’re not even being coherent. Just ramblings. Justices Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter were instrumental in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and “Republican” judges in CA and MA on the issue of marriage, yes, but then again, they were also instrumental in deciding Bowers, in the New York Court of Appeals, etc.
I get that you’re a radical, but you are not entitled to your own facts, nor are you entitled to ignore the changing face of the Democratic Party or, for that matter, the Republican Party (as though Justices Roberts and Alito were not a world away from JusticesGinsburg and Breyer, or that there is no difference between Obama and McCain on this issue). Bleh. Did they close down all the Marxist coffee shops or something?
Bill Perdue
@Thom: Thom’s ideas about equality are wrong because they’re partisan and Republican. Like Democrats such as Alec, Thom’s partisanship trumps his loyalty to LGBT equality.
Thom says “The right to protect oneself (2nd Amendment rights) is *particularly* important to any group that is routinely harassed, beaten, and treated as ‘second-class.” That ignores several facts. One is that over 110,000 Americans have died in homicides since 9-11, most of them from GSWs. Clearly widespread private gun possession is not a good idea. side.
What would work is to arm organized, trained trade union, minority and GLBT self defense groups and give them substantial powers to defend us and prosecute thugs, racists, and managers who use violence in strike situations. That’s an idea that terrifies right wing liberals and conservatives, even though it’s right out of the playbook of the American Revolution.
Thom says “Libertarian Issues like privatized pensions are PARTICULARLY important for GLBT folk, who can NOT leave their social security retirement funds (or even survivors benefits) for their partners under the Clinton-Signed DOMA legislation.” Clinton championed and signed DOMA and in general acted like a bigoted pig, but it was a Republican written law. The solution is to combine and enhance SS and RRT benefits with private benefits, to make them equal to the highest annual earnings of the individual covered, but not less than $3,000.00 (adjusted for inflation) and to cover everyone with socialized medicine.
Then Thom says Fiscal Conservatism is PARTICULARLY important to GLBT folk, because the same two people might pay $10,000 or receive back $2,000 in federal taxes, depending on whether they file ‘jointly’ or as singles (once again, a Clinton legacy). Wrong, it was a Democrat and Republican bipartisan legacy. The solution is to demand that the bigots who passed it, Democrats and Republicans, repeal it and institute progressive tax equality for all citizens, irrespective of marital status and to lay confiscatory taxes on all incomes over $150.000.00 per year. There is no reason why single people should be treated as second class citizens in tax matters.
The way to solve these problems is not to adapt to the backwardness of the looting class but to challenge it.
Alec
@Bill Perdue: You’ve already shown that you are the one committed to ideology over LGBT rights (although I assume you see no contradiction, despite our little chat about the attitudes of the early communists to LGBT rights). That I’m a pragmatist and you a radical is simply a reflection of a difference in strategy, presumably with similar ends (at least on the issue of LGBT rights; I want nothing to do with Marxism, sorry).
You debate in a very intellectually dishonest way.
The Gay Numbers
@Thom: You really shouldn’t use words like fallacy becaue it’s clear from your arguments you do not know what the word means.
Bill Perdue
@Alec: What a lawyer! You ignore the facts. The Democrats are panderers at best if not outright bigots and then you proceed to other delusions. Like your silly idea that we have to win over centrists.
You’re right about one thing, though. Both parties have a changing face, but it’s just new makeup. It’s cosmetic. Their core values of being lap dogs of the rich, supporting wars and pandering to bigots remain the same. That’s the reality of what you support and proves that you’re not a pragmatist. At best you’re just an accommodationist following the path of all the middle class capitulators who preceded you. Better start building your little log cabin so it’ll be ready when the dynamic of your march to the right ends up in the LCR.
“although I assume you see no contradiction, despite our little chat about the attitudes of the early communists to LGBT rights”. I quit when I ran into anti-GLBT prejudice. You embrace it. You want to dedicate yourself to the right centrists who run both parties.
Alec
@Bill Perdue: Yes, Bill, the revolution is just around the corner, I’m a right centrist (the only one I know who thinks that employment, housing and health care should be judicially enforceable rights, but apparently a “right centrist” nevertheless). And there’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Heard it all before, Mr. Perdue. You offer nothing new. But hey, maybe there’s an ANSWER protest you can attend to make yourself feel better.
Attmay
@Alec: He can also join Queers for Anti-Gay Muslim Terrorists.
Unfortunately, he is right about the Democrats being panderers. The GOP position on gay rights (except for Meghan McCain’s) is indefensible, but the Democrats being “less bad” does not make them good. And I refuse to ally with them on that one issue because, quite frankly, they sicken me on so many others. Especially Obama for associating with swine like Donnie McClurkin and P. Rick Warren.
The Gay Numbers
@Attmay: Yes, I agree there is no difference between someone who gives you 1/4th of what you want, and another aiding and abedding in actively denying you equality domestically and jailing an dmurdering you internationally.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@Attmay:
Oh get a life and a grip.
Have your ever heard of politics??! Or god for bid for the greater good?
Are you doing anything, i.e being more political to help your flock of irrational ‘bad man bad, good man good’ people?
Pity you’re not British, one of the campaigns I am proposing is to get compulsory politics and economics education to GCSE’s (14-15 yrolds)..
It does my head in that peopple continue, through their own judgmental lack of doing so, have crazy opinions about liberal govt.
John in CA
@The Gay Numbers:
Indeed, it is a strange theory of politics that advocates running off with the people who want to utterly destroy you simply because your natural allies don’t give into every demand. But then I’ve never claimed to understand conservatism. I’m sure they’d call it “moral clarity” (or something appropriately holier-than-thou and pompous). I simply find it incomprehensible and irrational.