GOProud’s LaSalvia Is Delusional About Party’s Stance On Gay Rights

GOProud director Jimmy LaSalvia was on MSNBC yesterday, talking to Thomas Roberts about how there’s growing support for LGBT issues in the Republican Party.

Exsqueeze us?

Jumping on the news that hedge-fund billionaire and Republican bankroller Paul Singer founded a gay-marriage Super PAC, Roberts was musing on the possibility of a pro-LGBT streak in the GOP. And LaSalvia was only too eager to agree:

“Everyone in America is having this discussion and thinking about these things in a personal way, and many people, including many conservatives, are coming to the conclusion that supporting same-sex civil marriage is the right thing to do.”

When reminded that the GOP’s platform, not to mention its presidential candidate, is against same-sex marriage, LaSalvia dug himself in deeper.

“When I’m across the country talking to young people, almost all of them either support same-sex marriage or think like i do, that the state should decide it, and so it’s very much a generational thing.”

Wait a minute—GOProud isn’t even outright in support of federal marriage rights? Jeez, how little are they willing to accept from the Grand Old Party?

Not to mention that LaSalvia is ignoring those millions of young religious conservatives who aren’t evolving or “having a discussion”—they’re fighting tooth-and-nail against our basic rights. Of course, he’s not likely to encounter them at one of his talks.

We have to wonder what Roberts was thinking.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #goproud #jimmylasalvia #msnbc stories and more


  • DMI

    Being delusional is a prerequisite to being a gay RepubliKlan. Therefore, the article title is redundant.

  • Hyhybt

    For the statement that there is growing support within a group to be true, it is not necessary that the official positions of the group or its candidates to reflect that. THAT change only happens when the support has reached a level too high to ignore or hits in just the right places.

    I don’t doubt that there are many Republicans who are further along on the gay=evil/gay=neutral scale than they have been. There aren’t enough to make stated gay-friendly positions safe in most elections yet; it hasn’t been that long since that became safe even for Democrats. And those who are actually viable candidates for office, I would suspect, are going to be further behind than average anyway. But there really are people who used to be genuinely anti-gay at heart who no longer are, and who remain Republicans not because of that party’s gay-related positions, but despite them. And as that number grows, slow though that growth is, unless there is a party split or something in the meantime, at some point those official positions will begin to flip. There may always be 10-20% of the population against us, but that’s not enough to sustain a major party.

  • Clockwork

    Solid thinking.

    You can’t survive on 49% forever.
    Somebody has to help pull it over to 51%.

  • Big Effing Patriot

    Ironic how Queerty is forever trying to convince its readers that gay Republicans are our enemies. Just because GOProud’s priorities are different does not make them our enemy, it only means they’re fighting for things other than what mainstream gays feel is most important (and yes, marriage proponents, I’m talking to you, because the only group who will benefit from gay marriage are divorce attorneys).

  • tjr101

    @Big Effing Patriot:”Just because GOProud’s priorities are different does not make them our enemy, it only means they’re fighting for things other than what mainstream gays feel is most important”

    Yeah like protecting the tax cuts of those who don’t need it by helping to elect stodgy bigots to public office. It’s all about their personal bank accounts.

  • 1equalityUSA

    Two words: “NOM pledge.”

  • Hyhybt

    Democrats’ moving on this issue should speed the Republican party along as well. Obama’s “evolution,” especially if paired with an official plank in the platform, makes room for at least some Republican candidates (those either in relatively liberal districts or without primary opponents) to spread out a bit on gay issues. Next election cycle, they can say they’re in favor of some form of ENDA and civil unions while remaining to the right even on those issues than the alternative.

  • Hyhybt

    @1equalityUSA: Yeah, what about it?

  • Big Effing Patriot

    @tjr101: In a sense, you’re right. I’d much prefer to see my earnings go into MY bank account rather than into the government’s coffers where they will proceed to waste it in myriad ways.

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt, Nearly every one of the Republican candidates signed the NOM pledge, including strap-the-family-dog-to-the-roof-of-the-car (until he blows diarrhea and vomits) pin-a=gay-kid-down-with-the-help-of-cruel-friends-and-chop-his-hair-off-Romney. In case the content of the NOM pledge has been forgotten, here is an excerpt:

    “The NOM pledge commits signatories to fight for “a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and to back the Defense of Marriage Act” should they be elected to the office of the presidency.

    NOM’s pledge also requires signatories to put the existing marriage rights of gay and lesbian families in Washington, D.C., up to a popular vote, in other words, vote to overturn the laws already made in the few states that allow same-sex marriage.”

  • Hyhybt

    @1equalityUSA: Yes, they did. What were you intending to say by bringing it up in this thread?

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt, The “shift in opinion” is not registering with the candidates of the Republican party, evidenced by the ink not yet drying on this heinous pledge from NOM.

  • Timmeeeyyy!!!

    Even LaSalvia apparently isn’t for full equality. His stance of marriage being a state’s right leaves married same-sex couples without over 1,000 federal benefits that come with opposite-sex marriage. Without a federal law, my husband and I are either married or legal strangers depending on where we drive, visit family or vacation. I’ve had to turn down a great job opportunity in Philadelphia because I refuse to give up my marriage and legal rights. Even in states that recognize marriage equality, we realize that we are still not equal.

  • Hyhybt

    @1equalityUSA: Of course not. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is unimportant.

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt, Talk is cheap. The same thing the Democrats have been harassed about when they were dragging their feet in support of LGBT, the Republicans need to spend some political capital and stop accepting hate dollars from organizations that want to undo our progress. The Republicans need to realize that their ship is sinking slowly with the weight of evangelical religiosity, Tea party nut-cases, and organizations incorporating the word, “family” that promote LGBT animus and have no qualms about slandering our lot to fulfill their goals. Forcing Presidential candidates to sign a pledge that swears that they will consider only justices of the SCOTUS who will be anti-gay is not progress. Presidents come and go, but Justices serve for life.

  • LittIe,Kiwi

    my favourite thing is how the Gay Republicans who come on here to defend themselves can never put a face and name to their comments or statements

    yeah. you’re gay republicans and you’re so empowered and strong. and yet you hide. at some point you wimps need to get over the fact that your families are ashamed of you and actually grow a spine and a pair of balls.

    gay republicans are the biggest wimps in America.

  • Hyhybt

    @1equalityUSA: Making up numbers because the actual ones don’t matter: 60% of Republicans (that’s all Republicans, not candidates for office) against us is progress from 70%, even if it’s not enough, yet, to shift official positions. It’s movement. It’s not a good reason to *vote* for them, but it’s progress of the kind that does yield results eventually. And it’s the same kind of progress we’ve made among virtually all groups; that they’re behind doesn’t mean they’re not coming along.

    Has anyone in this thread (other than #4) even *hinted* that their current official positions and candidates are acceptable?

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt, Forgive me, please restate the question. What is it that you are asking?

  • Hyhybt

    Sorry, I’ll try to be clearer.

    I’m trying to get at exactly how you intended bringing up that pledge to fit into this topic. Did you mean it as a way of saying that Republicans are not moving on this issue? If so, how did you intend it to serve that purpose by itself with no reasoning attached, and would you mind attaching that reasoning now?

    If not for that reason, did you mean only to say that, however many individual Republicans are progressing, their candidates still hold anti-gay positions? But why, when everyone knows that already and nobody (again, except #4) has said, or even hinted, otherwise?

    If something else, then what?

    I don’t know if you’ve run into this, but on some sites, certain people will plop a Bible quote down into a conversation, with the quote being their entire post. A quote that, in the context of that thread, might be taken more than one way, or sometimes doesn’t seem to apply at all. Almost invariably, if asked what they mean by it, they will either say “what it says” or “I was perfectly clear” or some such and leave it at that non-answer, or will act all offended that you asked, or will call you names for not reading their mind, or will claim your not knowing is proof they’re right.

    Your bringing the NOM pledge in in the manner you did seems very much like those Bible verses, though (I cannot overemphasize) I do appreciate that your response since then has been very different than theirs.

  • UsualPlayers

    The core of the GOP base, which is Christian evangelicals down South, will not accept any Presidential candidate or leadership that’s not anti gay. The social issues are what drives both parties, because on the economic front, there’s not much difference (both parties are variations of Neo-liberalism, which means they both contemplating cutting Social Security for example, but its a question of how much) so they make up for that lack of difference through the social issues. With Obama, on gay rights, that has worked in o ur favor. With the GOP, because of their base voters, there is zero chance of that happening. Anyone who thinks other wise, is delusional and does not understand American politics. Most voters are going to automatically vote for their party or their team so long as you don’t shock them into changing votes. The last time that “shock” happened was in the 1960s with Johnson voting in favor of the Civil Rights Act, creating the Dixiecrats, who later became the modern REpublican Party base down South. I keep mentioning the South because without it- the GOP would cease to be a national party. Without it, the Democrats would become the dominant party. If you don’t believe me, look at the electoral map for the Presidency. There is now way for Romney for example to win in the fall without the South. None. Whereas the Obama has several “win” options. Some include Southern states he picks off from Romney. So long as this dynamic is true, any gay Republican expecting change in the party is delusional. Finally, if you look at interacial marriage- decades after the laws change, there is 30 percent of the GOP base that still favors laws against different races marrying. That should underscore to you why the conservatives are conservatives. So please go back and forth discussing what you think should happen. But please also match that against reality. THe GOP base will not change for the next 20-30 years until well after the gay rights movement has won major rights.

  • UsualPlayers

    I have a Republican friend- or did since I ditched them about 3 years ago. She relayed a story to me of being at a Republican event. THere were signs for different activities. One of which included anti gay orgs. ANother was abortion. There were others for anti poverty (as the GOP saw it) events etc. She said the standing room only events were the anti gay and anti abortion events. The rest were small crowds. I mention this anecdote to underscore the social conservatism driving the GOP. Even the Tea Party is really, at base, a racism movement that hides behind economics. If you read enough about them,t hey aren’t against welfare for themselves. They are just against welfare for the “other” Meaning brown people. The GOP can not win without this dynamic. Just like the Democrats can not win without taking these dispossessed groups and making a lot of promises that the Dems won’t keep unless we pressure them. The difference being that we can pressure the Democrats, but given the GOP base, its almost impossible , outside a state like NY, to pressure the GOP. NY state is not the normal. Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska, etc, are teh GOP norm.

  • Hyhybt

    @UsualPlayers: That base (or at least the portion consisting of anti-gay individuals) is shrinking, though, if slowly… and those not part of it are moving faster on this. There will be a point at which the GOP must choose between appealing to that particular base *on gay issues* or attracting enough voters outside them that, combined with the base they keep by a combination of appealing to them in other ways and there not being another viable alternative, they can actually win elections.

    We’re not at that point yet. Nobody knows exactly when it will be. But it’s approaching, and it’s not right to those who are moving our way to deny their existence or pretend it’s unimportant.

    Now, the GOP *could* choose to continue to appeal to that base even to the point where doing so alienates almost all other voters…. but to do that would be suicide. Possible, but it doesn’t seem likely. Unless, of course, there’s a party split.

  • Name (required)

    Your headline was complete after the word “delusional”. The remainder of the sentence isn’t necessary.

  • Belize

    @Name (required): I love that. Made my day. :)

  • 1equalityUSA

    Post 19 hyhybt, “many individual Republicans are progressing, their candidates still hold anti-gay positions” This one. It was response to LaSalvia pontificating about how much the Republicans are evolving.

  • Belize

    @Hyhybt: “That base (or at least the portion consisting of anti-gay individuals) is shrinking, though, if slowly… and those not part of it are moving faster on this.”

    I love your way of thinking. It’s like saying “at least we’re using a bike in this car race as supposed to using decrepit, three-legged horses like we did before.” :)

  • UsualPlayers

    I just got flagged. I have no idea why

  • UsualPlayers

    what I wrote

    THey have been appealing to the base that’s racist down south in dog whistles since the 1960s and winning with that strategy. So good luck sitting around waiting for the GOP base to find their better angels on identity politics. We all have identities. Some of us define it according to what we are. Some of us according to what we hate. The GOP base is the later. Like I said, they keep using the exact same approach year in and year out and have been doing so for decades. Its delusional to think thats going to change. What will happen, at best, is that you will get some Republicans to say they support gay rights long after its been in law and say but they didn’t like the way the Democrats did it (if they even mention the Democrats at all). Its like they both taking advantage of the the halo around MLK Jr now while also attacking the movement that he started with their base. gays will get the same treatment. I await the lines about “special rights” when it comes to issue like ENDA and housing. The other part of this is “who willcome out to vote” While they may want to change, the base that will support them against the bases own economic interests are the most virulently racist and homophobic.

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt wrote in post #22,

    “There will be a point at which the GOP must choose between appealing to that particular base *on gay issues* or attracting enough voters outside them that, combined with the base they keep by a combination of appealing to them in other ways and there not being another viable alternative, they can actually win elections.”

    I believe that it should not be contingent upon votes, but rather the principle of equality for all Americans. The party who is guided by this principle will eventually be thought of as leaders and will be given credit for siding with equality at a time when the risk was/is very, very real. I will never forgive the Republicans for what they have done. Just last week DOMA is being supported and bandied about as a viable prospect by fi’thy Republicans. Their ship is sinking. They are so entitled that they have lost sight of the fact that the world is progressing faster than they.

  • Sansacro

    @Big Effing Patriot: Really! The only people who will benefit are divorce attorneys?!

    Um, what about hospital visitation, parent-child rights, adoption, property rights, and–as a money-centered person that you are–taxes and other very real federal economic and social benefits.

    I guess str8 marriage should be made illegal as well, as attorneys are the only ones benefitting.

  • Erik

    There are very few Republicans in elected office who support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Support for full equality is nearing party wide unanimity among elected Democrats.

    If you want to advance gay and lesbian equality, the choice is easy.

  • Hyhybt

    @1equalityUSA: Thanks. I understand, and apologize for being dense today.

    @Belize: Not quite. It’s only a race in the sense that we’d do best to vote for people currently further along; most people *will* reach the destination eventually, even in groups that on average are further behind. And that’s important for the health of future (not even distant future) society as a whole. Won’t this country be a better place when there are so few anti-gay people, and they’re so far separated from everyone else on that matter, that they’re not worth courting politically and they mostly behave and keep their mouths shut in public as the remaining segregationists do today? It’s something I’m looking forward to seeing, both in day-to-day life and in politics where, though I lean heavily towards the Democratic side anyway, I’d like to be able to choose on other issues without having it weighted by “but the other guys hate me.” Especially living in a heavily Republican state; I can vote for whoever I want, but all that’s going to make a practical difference is those people on bicycles and three-legged horses straggling across the finish line.

    @1equalityUSA: Wouldn’t it be nice if things worked that way? Individuals may act on principle; candidates rarely do if it’s going to cost them votes and/or money. That’s true of any party. Once the balance shifts, then either those elected will change their positions or they’ll be replaced by others who hold the new position for whatever reason they do.

  • Clockwork


    Kiwi, I have told many people to their face I plan to vote for Romney and I watch them choke on their drink as they go into some spiel about Mormons running every state west of the Pecos. I am also a transwoman and have gone to many Republican and Democratic events. I ask questions, tell politicians and supporters what I believe in and impress and persuade them with intelligence and a knowledge of the issues. Big deal…

    Most GLBT web sites are political wastelands of one liners and insults. In which I gladly participate. If you would ever like to debate me in person on the overall record of the Obama presidency, we can record it and post it on youtube. Bring your facts, you’ll need them.

  • 1equalityUSA

    Hyhybt in post #31 said, “Individuals may act on principle; candidates rarely do if it’s going to cost them votes and/or money. That’s true of any party. Once the balance shifts, then either those elected will change their positions or they’ll be replaced by others who hold the new position for whatever reason they do.”

    I realize you said “rarely” regarding candidates risking votes while acting on principle. This is exactly why I consider President Obama a hero to the gay community. At the end of the day, he acted on principle, for whatever motive, at a time when it was/is considerably risky to do so. He has shown leadership on this divisive, hotly contested issue. I will never forget it. I thought for sure the Democrats would dangle the carrot for a few more election cycles and wait for at least 50 % of the States to recognize all Americans as entitled to equal representation under civil law before coming to support our community. I’m proud of President Obama and will support him with my vote, money, and prayers. He inherited a huge mess from the Bush administration. He has a lot on his plate. He’s aging before our very eyes and I appreciate how hard he has worked to try to turn this situation around. Deregulation harmed us and now Republicans want to pull us back into this greed-swamp again. No way! And No way to going back to discrimination too. This country will pull through this mess and this country will have met the challenge of bigotry once again. The U.S.A. will have been made stronger for having overcome bigotry once again.

  • UsualPlayer

    @Clockwork: Yeah, I am going now call you delusional if you think there’s any intelligence behind what you write here.

    The reason people don’t call you on your shit in person is that they are taught to be civil and polite rather than call someone like you nuts to your face. In other words, what you consider “insults” are probably your first exposre to someone being honest.

    WHat you writing is the equivalent of the chicken voting for KFC. Now, I am sure you think its rational, and I am sure you have all sorts of rationalizations. It doesn’t mean squat.

    What matters is that what you are saying consider Romney’s position makes litle sense at all.

  • UsualPlayer

    I wrote here the following

    The core problem is that anyone who understands U.S. politics understands the nature of why those claiming the GOP is changing are delusional.

    The polling data, which I don’t believe anyone has mentioned, speaks for itself.

    They tell the GOP leadership who butters their bread.

    If you look at that data, the party as national party cannot win Congress or the the Presidency without the South.

    In the South, there the data indicates that today, 40 years after the Loving case, there are something like 30 percent of the Republican bass who thinks interracial marriage is wrong.

    This data, if you bothered to read it, has only recently- as in 30-40 years changed. In the 90s, 30 years after the case, it was a majority of Republicans felt that way. We are discussing something that’s even more virulently endorsed by the GOP base.

    The truth is, however,if you are delusional enough to believe the party is going to change due to some outliers you are too far gone to talk to here.

    THat’s not disrespect. its intervention. What I mean is if you are babbling on about a few outliers while the rest are virulently against you it shows a level of desperation that can not possibly solved through logic. Blunt facts won’t work either. One expects you will have to hit personal rock bottom. So intervention- being firm but honest is left.

    I mean- read t he comment about by someone who claims (key word is claim since I think on some level its fake) that they are accepted by Republicans.

    Let’s be clear- GOProud – the Kapos of gay organizations (i don’t even say that about the Log Cabin REpubicans) were rejected by several REpublican organizations. They got a gay memeber of Romney’s staff fired.

    But this loan trans person here annymously on a blog is clai ming that against all this data – there was no problem with the trans issue.

    If anyone believe sthat- I got a bridge to sell you.

  • UsualPlayer

    @1equalityUSA: While the GOP sucks as a choice, you must be kidding with pushing Obama as some great hero. He had to dragged to where he is. We can thankfully due to party dynamics of who breads his butter drag him unlike the craziness of thinking we can drag the GOP, but economically he’s essentialy the same as the GOP.

    Yo want to know why both sides ultimately don’t want the American public to think to hard about economic policy? because they are both Neoliberalism. How anyone can pretend otherwise- is beyond me. You need to stop confusing passing a bill that’s so watered down as to be deregulation with actually passing bills that are going to change Wall Street. Look at JP morgan for god sakes.

    And as for his “aging” two things. the man is at an age that you start to look like that and I doubt he’s sweeting anything since win or lose he will be given like clinton was 100 million for a job well done.

    He had a chance to be Roosovelt. He choose to be Bush 2.

  • Clockwork

    Dude, I’m not claiming the GOP is GLBT friendly;

    I am claiming that Barack Obama has been an economic disaster for this country. Any competent person would have had the economy flying like an eagle by now.

    Call me delusional! Trust me I am so far ahead of you when it comes to political experience and insight.

  • Clockwork

    By the way I am impressed that you read PPP polling data.

    Here is the link to the actual data:
    I suspect you read it in the Huffington Post or some other cross link.

    And since we are speaking of GOP crackpots on interracial marriage try this one on the Donkey side.
    “42% of Democrats think Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen”

  • UsualPlayers

    @Clockwork: You aren’t helping you case for regarding being delusional.

    As I said above, Obama is a Neoliberal. Romney is a Neoliberal.

    If you were remotely aware of economic arguments, you would know that. That’s why Obama’s health care plan is essentially what Romney did in Massachusetts. Its why they are both talking about cutting entitlements like Social Security, but talking about it in differing degrees. Its why Bush supported the exact same bail out of the banks as Obama later endorsed. Its why Clinton cut regulations, only to have Bush weaken them further, and Obama only followed up with weak regulations that he knew would be toothless against companies like JP Morgan, and why Romney is promising more of the same.

    What you are is the typically ignorance that pervades the American public. You know nothing about the economic issues other than Democrats v. Republican rather than subtantively understanding that in actuallty there is very little difference on economic policy choices , not just in the U.S. but in most Western countries right now.

  • UsualPlayers

    Which is why by the way, they play the social card in both parties. Neither give a shit about gays other than how they can use us. That’s why the Democrats come out marginally better. They support us for political reasons. So, any gay person supporting either party over economic issues is fucking idiot and too stupid to vote.

  • Clockwork


    >You aren’t helping you case for regarding being delusional.

    Nice try. Let’s meet in person sometime and see who comes out ahead in a face to face debate.

  • UsualPlayers

    @Clockwork: THe problem with people like you is once some calls you on your stupidity, you play games. The thing is you lost the argument. But rather than admitting that you try to make it about other things. Here, I suppose you assume I wouldn’t call you an idiot in person. I would. The problem is that I think there’s something wrong with you, and that you are likely a liar, and not what you claim to be. in other words, I think you are troll. I would never meet a person like you in person because I would never be sure if you aren’t just some nut job who would harm me if I said something that you delusional thinking did not approve of.

  • Clockwork

    >and that you are likely a liar, and not what you claim to be
    >I think you are troll.

    Let’s bet money on your claim. I’ll go $10,000 like Mitt does.
    And I am 110% serious.

  • Clockwork

    I hold no grudge or venom for you.

    By the way what do you think I am not?

  • Dirty Ole Man


Comments are closed.