California’s Log Cabin Republicans are flexing their muscle. The gay group’s joined forces with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to smack down Proposition 8:
Today, Log Cabin sent a message out to its California membership announcing the creation of Republicans Against 8, a coalition of concerned Republicans who believe in limited government and individual liberty. Our goal is to reach out to that 5-6 percent of persuadable Republican voters and convince them that, regardless of how they feel about marriage, protecting fundamental freedoms for all Californians is more important.
In 1978, when the Briggs Initiative threatened to take away the fundamental freedom for all Californians to teach in Public Schools, Governor Ronald Reagan stood up and opposed it. Today, another Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is fighting for the rights of all Californians once again.
This here image is a mock-up of the ad. We think they should feature Arnold in his not safe for work body building days.
CitizenGeek
Those Log Cabin Republicans are right; Ronald Reagan was such a swell guy! I really loved how, when the US was in the grips of a massive plague, killing 70,000 people in a very short amount of time and when many people were suffering through dreadful stigma and ignorance, good ‘ol Reagan just ignored it because he hated gay people. Yup, that was really great of him!
Ugh, Log Cabin Repubs make me sick to my stomach. How DARE they continually laud Reagan after how disgustingly he behaved during the AIDS crisis. Like I said: ugh!
Timothy Kincaid
CitizenGeek would rather hate Log Cabin than defeat Proposition 8.
I really truly sincerly hope that CitizenGeek doesn’t live in California. That hateful spiteful attitude is the very last thing that those of us who genuinely care about equality and rights need to have holding us back.
ggreen
Log Cabinites have the right to do what all those voices inside their heads tell them too. Especially the one that says: “don’t vote at all that’ll teach those liberal fags!â€
Paul Benedict
I think it is a shame that Log Cabin Republicans have proven that they are single issue voters. Emotion has gotten the better of these voters. They don’t seem to care about the laws that we all must live under. Proposition 8 must pass in order send a deceptive court ruling that undermines the constitution of California to a timely grave.
Gay unions are not marriage. There is no reason to claim that they are. Marriage has an old and traditional gender positive meaning. Same sex unions have no history and they are gender neutral. When the George Court orders all Californians to say same sex unions are a marriage, he does so knowing that a. the word “marriage” in California is no longer “marriage” (so what victory is there in this?) and that b. most people will still think “marriage” is “marriage.” (p.117-118).
This is a deceptive mess any self-respecting Republican should stay far away from. Additionally, a vote for the sort of government that can redefine marriage into meaningless drivel is a vote for a government so massive that it is beyond dangerous. Here’s a great article on the subject: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2939396.html
Tyrants are arbitrary and evil. Log Cabin Republicans may have gotten the smallest taste of this when the Court waved off their motion to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot without even a hearing. That’s nothing… consider the advance of slavery under the Caesars, the murder of homosexuals under the Nazi’s — the industrialists loved Hitler, and the senate loved Caesar… then what happened? Don’t be stooges of this monster – vote “Yes” on Prop. 8 — Vote “yes†for the old California, the California that has been so tolerant in the past.
mark
what’s California without gays and lesbians?
IDAHO
mark
I agree Reagan is spinning on a spit in a napalm-fueled white hot corner of Hell, for saying and doing NOTHING as hundreds of thoiusand of us died in the streets. log cabin = vichy queers, who would sell their souls for a few measley tax breaks.
mark
Log Cabin members don’t speak for lesbians….they don’t know any.
John
I see Paul Benedict has extended his ignorance to the realm of ancient history as well.
The Romans – regardless of their Republican or Pro-Emperor allegiances – would’ve been horrified by this “Greek” voter initiative nonsense. Roman society was strictly hierarchical. And the Republic was little more than an ogliarchy of wealthy nobility. The charge of “tyrant” (as used by the likes of Cicero and Brutus) meant that the ogliarchy thought Julius Caesar was hording all the power for himself. It had nothing to do with “arbitrary and evil,” since they themselves treated the lower classes far worse than Caesar ever did. Nor was it some idealistic cry for greater democracy. Perish the thought. Who do you think you’re dealing with? Those sophist Athenians?
In fact, any Republic era noble who would try to overturn a court order by using the mob as a sledgehammer merely invited disdain and ridicule from the other “Republicans” (see Publius Clodius Pulcher). One of the main complaints against the emperors was they allowed ***too much*** input from plebians and freedmen. So, contrary to your ridiculously ill-informed analysis, the Imperial government did not represent any substantively greater repression to the “average Roman” than what was there before. Quite the opposite. It was the nobility that loss much of their power and influence.
Your invocation of some post-Caesar shift from freedom to slavery is equally obtuse. The practice was never illegal under the Roman Republic. And as the Spartacus uprising illustrates, some of the most vile abuses occurred during the Republican period. In fact, it was the emperors themselves who gradually reformed the legal code to mitigate some of the worse excesses of slavery. Augustus ended the practice of forcing slaves to fight in the arena (although this change didn’t apply to prisoners of war or those enslaved as punishment for criminal acts). Hadrian ruled that slave owners could be prosecuted for murdering their own slaves. Antoninus Pius decreed that slaves may bring legal action against cruel masters.
If you can’t even get your history remotely right, why would anyone think your analysis of current events would be anymore insightful? You sir, are an intellectual lightweight masquerading as some sort of constitutional scholar. You’re a fraud of the worse order.
CitizenGeek
“CitizenGeek would rather hate Log Cabin than defeat Proposition 8.”
I never said anything of the sort. Yes, I’m glad they’ve decided that they’ll support gay marriage but I understand they mean nothing. Nobody takes the Log Cabin Republicans seriously; not other gays, not Democrats and especially not Republicans. So they don’t matter, really.
And they will continue to disgust me as long as they continue to speak positively about Ronald Reagan who, as we’ve established, hated gay people and done nothing as a great many of them died and suffered through horrific ignorance and stigma.
Jaroslaw
Thank you John! AND my Bud CG – you know many folk don’t READ on this post – it is knee-jerk response to one word or phrase! 🙂 We’ll keep trying though…
ousslander
How did Reagan hate gays. In the same ways the certain gays fought to keep bath houses open and go at it with multiple partners without condoms. That sounds hateful. Was he supposed to put the rubbers on them himself?
Even now after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on research have we seen a cure or vaccine. So there really isn’t much he could have done.
mark
ousslander,
GO F*CK YOURSELF! and your attempt to white wash Pontious Pilate Reagan with your revisionist HISTORY.
I was there, it was my friends dying, and they are dying STILL. Were bathouses killing Hatians, were bathouses killing Hemophilliacs?
Reagan didn’t give a F*CK about them or the heterosexual spread of AIDS in Africa,….EITHER!
Charley
The logs send out press releases and no one cares except gay blogs in order to stir up gay comments. The logs are certainly meaningless to the California Republicans. They don’t have money muscle enough to make a difference.
Charley
Of course when Prop. 8 is defeated, they will take full credit in a press release.
crazylove
It’s one thing to say one agrees with some aspect of the Republican idealogy in theory (like say Barry Goldwater), and quite another to say one supports people who were clearly bad for the gay community like Reagan. I don’t agree with the Republican idealogues in anyway, but at least, that can be understood as not expressly anti-gay. However, supporting Reagan is. That’s why so many of us look at the Log Cabin types as not just being about whatever idealogy they have, but also about hating on their own kind. Whatever one thinks of the Democrats, they are imperfect, I can’t say they have been the instrument of fanning hatred over us in the greater hetero majority. Even the worst of them, Clinton, didn’t regularly use us as a prop to win elections. That’s the modern GOP. I just don’t get how one goes from saying one isn’t a single issue voter to saying one is willing to destroy one’s own group. Why not simply be independent if you don’t agree with the Democrats rather than endorse people like Reagan?
emb
I absolutely welcome the LCR’s support of defeating Prop 8. The republican city council in Laguna Beach voted unanimously to oppose 8 too, so yay on them. I’m all for ANYONE opposing Prop 8, as long as they’ve got the right to cast a vote–I’m pretty easy that way.
Where I draw the line is at continuing to deify reagan (or wallow in apologetics for the current bush). They’re ignoring the damage rr did to the nation as a whole, not just the gays and lesbian part of it, applying the same aggressively laissez-faire approach to the AIDS crisis as he did to the economy, the homeless, the workforce, and the environment.
I don’t understand the log cabinettes; never have, never will–but I love their vote on this issue!
greybat
Of course, no-one says you can’t dislike the log cabin club and still work to defeat prop.8!
nikko
But Mark, you haven’t proven ousslander wrong, you just ignored his claim: we gays are responsible for practicing safer sex, it’s not up to government to put the rubber on for us. Promiscuity always had veneral diseases looming overhead: it was never really safe to be promiscuous in the first place. Though I hated Camille Paglia’s early anti-gay rants, she’s right on for claiming that gays blame everyone for their plague but themselves. And don’t give me this bullshit that the government gave you AIDS: you did. Nobody is free from the dangerous consequences of sexual promiscuity.
crazylove
Turning AIDS into a morality play rather a disease is exactly why it spreads. Diseases aren’t interested in morality plays. They are interested in spreading according to the dictates of their biological imperative– infect human cells, reproduce, repeat the process.. Hence, it’s spread into the hetero communities that tried to label it the gay disease because people were so busy trying to moralize a disease.
mark
NIKKO
You don’t get to pick and choose which STDs are evil and promiscuous, because more gays initially contract the disease. ONE in FIVE f*ckin heteros have genital herpes…if they started dying in the streets would you be satisfied with your government NOT METIONING it for 3 years?
You also have to go back to the late 1970s when having multiple sexual partners was the NORM, cocaine and Studio 54 had BOTH gays and straightsin full orgy mode. Gays had no fear of unwanted pregnancies, that straights faced, and OUR relationships America still refuses to sanction or respect with marriage…of course we had many partners. You ignore non-gays who were infected by needles and blood transfusions and clotting serum.
Bottom line…it’s a virus, it doesn’t give a good G*D DAMN where it spreads and grows.
mark
mentioning …typo
mark
NIKKO
CDC just announced a 40% INCREASE in NEW HIV/AIDS cases.
This is the tip of the iceberg, that Bush creted by gutting 1/3rd of Ryan White Funds and promoting FAILED abstinence-only “sex”-education. Which they found failed in 85% of Senior High School girls, and they were four times as likely to have oral sex, and SIX f*ckin TIMES more likely to engage in anal sex….this is the highest risk AIDS transmission mode. They also restricted any gay books in Libraries where students have to ask a librarian for a gay title held in stacks…trust me NO 13yo boy is going to ask for those books.
Bush thugs also stripped any mention of gay sex from AIDS brochures.
REAP what you’ve SOWN.
Half the new cases are young gays, half are Black and latino/as, 30% are under 30 years old.
mark
created…typo
Charley
Logs are similar to NAMBLA. They are attached to the apron strings of the gay rights movement to raise funds and get members, but no one wants them in their parade.
crazylove
I honestly don’t have a problem with conservative gays, but I don’t like all the baggage that comes with them. I’ve tried to date a couple of them in the past. It just didn’t work out. Inevitably we would have a disagreement over politics– ie, I am for universal healthcare and would prefer a individual state based program similar to medicaid for all. When I stated this to one guy, he said I was saying it because I am black. I looked at him dumbfounded by all the baggage that came with that comment. Part of me, especially with issues like Reagan has come not to trust what motivates them.
mark
In Minneapolis where i lived the first 50 years the only queer repigs you’d ever see, is two pathetic trolls sitting at the Log Cabin booth at Pride.
But down in New Orleans you actually meet folks like this at cocktail parties and fundraisers…mixing just as if they were normal folks.
I miss Minneapolis
seitan-on-a-stick
Could the Log Cabin Republicans be tried for Hate Crimes against Gays?
Timothy Kincaid
The “logic” evident on this thread:
1. ignore what LCR actually says or does
2. gay Repulicans are evil
3. evil people deify Reagan
4. evil people hurt gay equality
5. therefore Log Cabin must both deify Reagan and hurt gay equality
6. because Log Cabin deifies Reagan and hurts gay equality therefore they are EVIL
7. drink more Kool-Aid and start again at 1.
I really am embarassed at how hateful and ignorant are some members of my community.
Chris
CRAZYLOVE:
If you let politics put the kibosh on a potential relationship, then maybe, just maybe, you might be taking life a little too seriously…
crazylove
Chris, you seem confused. Let me repeat- he said I held my views because I am black. That’s not politcs. That’s racism.
crazylove
Timothy – just because you use the word logic doesn”t mean you are applying the principles of logic. And, yes, if you supporting someone who hates me, I am going to have a problem with you. That’s call the logic of common sense, which apparently in all of your “logic” you lack.
mark
Timothy
“I really am embarassed at how hateful and ignorant are some members of my community.”
Thats what we’ve been saying about the Vichy queers…pay attention!
dfrw
I guess I take life too seriously.
My husband is an out and proud liberal and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
When I was single and dating, I had to determine the other guy’s political views. Of course, I don’t think I ever dated a Republican, but it would have been over if I had. Why on Earth would I want to date someone who votes against his and my own interests? Money isn’t everything and besides, it is the Republicans who have been spending like drunken sailors as evidenced by the last 8 years.
visit now
I really like the layout and colors that you chose for this website! It certainly is incredible! 🙂