Is Hating On McCain Loving Gays “Intolerant”?

Homo-journo James Kirchick thinks the backlash against ManHunt founder and former John McCain backer Jonathan Crutchley proves how “intolerant” gay people can be:

The fact that Crutchley is a Republican ought not to come as much of a surprise then, especially considering that he’s a self-made millionaire. And he’s hardly a radical right-winger either. “I’m a Massachusetts Republican,” he wrote, “which is about the same as being an Alabama Democrat.”

But such nuance is apparently irrelevant to those who equate homosexuality with political liberalism.

For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don’t agree a “bigot” does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.

The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can’t come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people — and straight supporters of gay equality — need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.

While Republicans definitely do help with progressive politics – as we saw here in New York state – Senator McCain’s right-leaning ways go beyond his definition of marriage.

For example, he approves of Don’t As, Don’t Tell, a discriminatory measure that hurts the entire country, not just gay folk. Also, the candidate voted against expanding federal hate crime laws and also came out against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Whether a homo wants to support such policies is their business, but don’t be surprised if other gay people get their panties in a twist.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #jameskirchick #johnmccain stories and more


  • GoodBuddy

    I try and live by the saying “It takes all kinds”. I lot of people seem to think that doesn’t include Log Cabin Republicans.

  • mama

    so basically he’s greedy is what you’re trying to say

    putting your wallet before your rights

    nice one

  • emb

    I agree it takes all kinds, and there’s room for sure in the big rainbow tent for fiscal conservatives and probably even foreign policy neocons (though they’re gonna have to sit in the corner by themselves and be quiet).

    BUT I’m afraid there’s no room for the AFA or CWA or the GOP for that matter: any institution that has discrimination and inequality for homosexuals at the core of its mission is not ripe for change-from-within, and does not deserve inclusion –or toleration, for that matter.

  • Kevin M

    I applaud James Kirchick for talking about the big, pink elephant in the room (pun intended). In my experience, some of the most INtolerant people I’ve met have been GLBTQ people decrying tolerance for themselves.

  • ChicagoJimmy

    I recall the wise words of an older black woman when asked about Clarence Thomas. She said, “Well, fools come in every color.”

    Same applies here I think.

  • AJ

    The *real* truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays won’t come about with the help of Republicans.

  • Mr C

    Wait for it. Especially when McInsane appoints conservative judges.

    GAY WHAT???

  • mark

    For at least 35 years log cabin self loathing queers have rationalized their entire existance of being Republicans, to change their Party from within…YOU FAILED MISERABLY….own it.

    Your only useful function is to OUT the other cowardly repig closet cases, because you go to the same private parties and work in Congressional offices that OPPRESS US ALL.
    Even as snitches you aren’t doing much..IMO.

  • Alexa

    Being a Republican at heart is one thing – while it’s far from my views, I understand why people are fiscal conservatives, and don’t have a problem with people who think that way. If someone voted for Bush the first time, it’s no big deal, but times have changed. Bush has made it quite clear he wants us to have no rights, and McCain intends to continue that policy. If McCain is elected and a vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court he will fill it with a conservative who will vote to further eliminate our rights the first chance he gets. And, unlike the presidency, there is no do-over in four years.

    It’s not intolerant to be against McCain loving gays, it’s a matter of survival. Gays who care more about their wallets than their rights are pathetic.

  • emb

    Oh Mark, you’re gonna catch hell for that, but yay you. The whole “change from within” excuse withered and died from lack of evident progress a long time ago.

  • mark

    I’ll wait and see if after McCain picks Mittler as VP if these sniveling Log Cabinistas put a little starch in their spines of jelly, and say a G*D DAMN THING.
    The lying Mormon Ken doll who single handedly delayed LGBT equality (before Bush could stock the Supreme Court)and used a FILTHY RACIST 1913 Law to stop out state gays/lesbians from marrying in MA. Mittler who sold himself as gay-friendlier than Teddy Kennedy, Mittler who printed up his OWN gay Pride brochure…LIED through his too white perfect teeth.

  • John

    With the exception of Switzerland and Norway (two countries governed by multi-party coalitions and consensus anyway), no right-wing government has ever legalized same-sex marriage or civil union. So this mythical “support” we’re supposedly getting from the libertarian wing of conservatism is, quite frankly, a load of crap. Libertarians will always care about their pocketbooks more than civil liberties.

    Who legalized same-sex marriage in the Netherlands? A Labour-Green Party coalition.

    Who legalized same-sex marriage in Belgium? A Liberal-Socialist Party coalition.

    Who legalized same-sex marriage in Spain? The Socialist Party.

    Who legalized same-sex marriage in South Africa? The African National Congress.

    Who legalized same-sex marriage in Canada? The Liberal Party (with support from the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois).

    All 12 of the American states that have same-sex marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership are “blue” states. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

  • mark

    “Oh Mark, you’re gonna catch hell for that,”

    I fear the wrath of Log Cabins, slightly less than I fear an attack killer worms. Those aging altar boys with their gowns stuck up their bloody butts…haven’t the self esteem to punch their way out of a damp cheap paper bag.

  • The Guy By The Door

    Since the sodomy laws fell and we are no longer guilty of a status crime, we have moved full force into the public arena. What people confuse is politics when it embraces market driven capitalism. It is not the abstract of civil rights that moves us but the simple concept that you do not give money to people that use it against you. It is just that simple. It is not intolerance but a simple market reaction.

  • Kevin M

    Isn’t it shameful that there are those of us who are comfortable demonizing public leaders? “McInsane?” “Mittler?” The former plays back to a misconception that Senator McCain is “too old” to be an effective leader, that he’s senile and mentally incompetent. To study his career, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that he’s mentally incompetent. The latter is just too horribly hyperbolic to warrant discussion.

    Look, I disagree with the Republican platform. Yes, of course gays should have equal marriage and adoption rights. There are plenty of Republicans who disagree with the platform, and to label them all bigots, haters, and selfish totalitarians is driving away the chance we have to cooperate with other people. When we close the doors to the “Big Rainbow Tent,” we effectively close off opportunity to change the way other people think. _That’s_ how we get social progress.

    Oh, and by the way, if any of you are going out to vote in November on a single issue — gay marriage, and nothing else — please, stay home. Our nation deserves a better class of gays than that.

  • Ryan Marvin

    The problem is that economic conservatives have to deal with the American dichotomy of the gay-friendly, big government team or the anti-gay small government team. You really can’t win.

    Since the Libertarian Party is largely impotent, many choose to side with the GOP as the lesser of two evils, with an understandable justification: The right to marry, for example, is completely irrelevant if you lose all control of your own assets and medical decisions. At that point it becomes just another piece of paper, right?

    The problem lies in the two-party system.

  • Jaroslaw

    To answer the quote in the above article directly (and I do like most of the posts already made) – the author is confused. “Civil rights will not come without help from the Republicans….”

    The confusion here is the Rethuglicans and other conservative groups are always 2 to 10 steps behind the progressive or liberal groups and always will be. That is their nature to protest change until the momentum become inevitable for force that change. They espouse the state, status quo, whatever and only grudgingly accept anything modern.

    Even though (oddly) one time Rethuglicans abolished slavery – which was the party of Abe Lincoln. What happened?????


    The answer to the headline: Is 16 answers above.

    When I see the California ruling and the DNC leadership and their lack of support for us I know we need to be everywhere and that blindly following a party just for tradition’s sake or for the novelty of a candidate who in the end doesn’t support us and its no better than his rival will get us no where.

  • Mark

    “Oh, and by the way, if any of you are going out to vote in November on a single issue — gay marriage, and nothing else — please, stay home. Our nation deserves a better class of gays than that.”

    Um, Kevin, when you found your own totalitarian state, you can give directives like that. Until then, shut the f*ck up.

  • Ston

    There is a difference between having different views on Tax Shelters for Capital Gains and supporting a candidate that lent his image, support and appeared in Ads in Arizona supporting a state consitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

  • liberal

    Great posts.

    Can someone explain to me how we can still refer to Rethuglicans as fiscal conservatives? We have a 10 Trillion dollar deficit – how is that fiscally conservative? It was a Democrat who balanced the books (Thank you President Clinton).

    It was a Rethuglican who destroyed the economy.

    Amazing, isn’t it, how self loathing fags seem to think that being Rethuglican will make them more acceptable? Like Mr. Crotchly or James Kirchick who wants us to buy into our own oppression and be happy about it.

    When they want to do something good for the LGBT community let me know and I’ll welcome them into my tent but until then, well, I guess I’ll just have to be intolerant of the people trying to strip me of my rights, demonize and oppress me.

    Do you really think there is one Rethuglican blog or paper printed in this country that has ever had a fair or balanced discussion about LGBT issue? Wake the fuck up.

    Jeez, I thought we’d gotten past the Boys in the Band stage of things, but apparently not.

  • Flex

    Right-wing Christian, lunatic republicans are absolute in their obsession with the intimate lives of gay people. Forget about the republicans, and the democrats. The only solid equality advances come from the courts. California’s prop 8, pass or fail, is a failure. The right to marry the person of your choice has been cemented in the law. The right-wing bible thumpers can have as many ballot measures that their cult needs. If prop 8 is approved by the California voters, a stay will be granted. Their constitutional amendment will be subject to judicial review. It is subject to the highest scrtiny because gay people are a protected class, thanks to the California Supreme Court. No thanks to the legislature.

  • erik11

    I recently tried to make friends with a Log Cabin dunce boy. He was staunch McCain, and when asked “why”, his response was due to a tax that McCain has committed to abolishing.

    A Tax.

    I quizzed him on social medicine, on inheritance rights, on education, on medical representation, on immigration for gay partners. His oblique response was “not my problem.”

    So they aren’t complete idiots, they just feel no social responsibility. They feel that even though big business has raped America, there is nothing owed in return. They have allowed their mommies and daddies (this one worked for his republican dad as a mortgage broker) to program their channel in life. And as long as they hold on to the apron strings of mommy and daddy or big businesse’s purse… they are chained to the ideology. Oh sure…they say it’s about not wanting government mandated education, or about fiscal conservatism, but in reality its about ignorance and selfishness.

    I quoted him anti-gay rhetoric McCain has said…he told me… all liberal blog bs. I sent him links to the AP, with actual news quotes… he didn’t read them. He said it was irrelevant.

    Ultimately it’s about selfishness. Either you think it’s your duty to help kids get insurance and education, or you don’t. Either you think it’s appropriate to help everyone get equal rights, or you don’t. But you won’t hear the log cabin folks take this stand, because, well…it would be rather embarrassing.

    McCain represents division. As did Bush.

    Obama? Who knows what he will do? There certainly are a number of people that seem to think highly of him and his abilities. And he’s never been involved in scandals or in breaking the established laws of our country. Can’t say that about McCain…regardless of the laws he’s signed his name to. And when asked about Gay Rights, Obama hit it out of the park – “all people should have the same rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

    Works for me.

  • Gregoire

    You cannot be tolerant of intolerance. I love when people say crap like this. “I demean you and spit on your rights, but oh what a hypocrite YOU are for not accepting that.”

  • Vinman

    Well put John #12. I had not heard that evidence before!

  • John Smith

    The Democratic agenda for gays includes the following 3 items: 1) Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and let gays serve openly in the military; 2) repeal Defense of Marriages Act; and 3) enact ENDA (Federal Anti-Discrimination Law). With a Democratic majority in Congress, none of these measures have been passed or gotten anywhere. Sure Bush would veto them, but Democrats won’t even put anything on his desk and dare him. That’s how change is made.

  • mark


    bite my queer a$$
    MITTLER deserves a whole f*ckin lot more than his name being altered to a NAZI.

  • Chris

    speaking of manhunt…

  • Timothy

    Sigh… it’s so depressing to see so many in my community motivated by undiluted hatred.

    Sorry, guys, but frankly it disgusts me to be on the same side as people who say things like:

    log cabin self loathing queers
    cowardly repig closet cases
    sniveling Log Cabinistas
    lying Mormon Ken doll
    aging altar boys with their gowns stuck up their bloody butts
    Log Cabin dunce boy

    Some in our community often accuses those who oppose us of being “haters”, but here I see real evidences of hate.

    And I have to wonder if all of those above who are so quickly sharing their opinion about Log Cabin even know that LC hasn’t endorsed John McCain. Or care.

    Now I know this comment will only generate more of the same, just directed at me. And that’s fine.

    But oh how I wish that our community’s first response was thoughtful consideration and intellectual analysis rather than villification, partisanship, and hyperbolic invective.

  • Robert

    Jonathan Crutchley made a contribution to a conservative political campaign. He should not have been taken to task for it just because the majority of the people who use his website are liberal. Especially since the website does not bill itself as a place of leftist political discourse (or a bastion for liberal ideologues).

    He’s allowed to support any candidate he wants; and, while we may be confused by that support, he is entitled to it.

  • Robert

    No. 24:

    I understand the sentiment, and I agree wholeheartedly. But Clutchley didn’t demean anyone by making an unpublicized contribution to the McCain campaign. [Unpublicized until someone else made a big deal about it.] He–an individual–expressed his personal support for a campaign by making a personal contribution. While I can’t conceive of doing anything similar, and in spite of my own disgust for McCain’s policies and governing style, I think Clutchley exercised his own freedom in making this contribution. We have to accept that sometimes people make decisions and take stances that we don’t like.

  • Alexa

    Exactly. They are entitled to support and donate to whomever they want. And others are entitled to take their business elsewhere because of it. Capitalism at its finest, and as Republican voters they should appreciate that fact.

  • Nickadoo

    “Manhunt and sites like it have revolutionized one formative aspect of gay culture, taking what was once a public activity to the privacy of one’s home.”

    In other words, gay men can hookup from the safety of the closet. Conservatives like to keep gays in the closet, and Jonathan Crutchley likes to profiteer off closeted gays. Maintain the status quo.

    Crutchley has the right to his political views and support any candidate he chooses. Just as I have the right to an opinion on the matter.

  • emb

    It doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the LCRs endorse mccain. They resolutely associate themselves with a party whose platform and members are loud and proud with their bigotry, discrimination, and loathing of gays and lesbians. They’ve “endorsed” the republican platform, and that’s good enough for me.

  • seitan-on-a-stick

    We could all use McLovin but not for homophobic John McCain. Manhunt just has too many hustlers besides taking gay money and Republican tax loopholes for the rich. I would have sex with a Log Cabin Republican but tell him to “Shut the Fuck Up!” Now, what was the question…?

  • mark

    “Log Cabin even know that LC hasn’t endorsed John McCain.”


    I’ve seen these sniveling cowards endorse more putrid Republicans than McCain, (like two who did NOTHING as hundreds of thousands of OUR brothers died in the street) and I have no doubt they will this year too, even with Mittler on the ticket.

    so when they endorse, remember who told you so

  • mark

    undilluted hate?

    What did you call 2004 election repigs put anti-gay innitiatives on 13 G*D DAMN battle ground states, to re-elect Cheney/Bush?
    By motherf*ckin closet cases like Rove, Mehlman, McClellan?
    What do you call queers who worked for SANTORUM?

  • Brian Miller

    John McCain is indeed a poor choice for president, but I do think it’s funny that Queerty has declared him unfit due to his support for the anti-gay military policy.

    After all, both Hillary and Barack have persistently refused to support legislation to repeal that law.

    They can say whatever they want, that’s meaningless.

    The reality is that based on actions, they’re as every bit as supportive of the anti-gay military policy as Rick Santorum, George W. Bush, or McCain.

  • crazylove

    I sometimes question whether I really am progressive. Not because I agree with the bullshit argument that we are intollerant for not accepting the intollerant. I question my liberal cred because I don’t full for such bullshit arguments. Grow the fuck up. This guy is just playing to what he thinks will manipulate progressives/liberals. And like complete idiots- liberals/progressives- fall for these arguments everytime.

  • marco channing

    It is amazing to me that in this world, any heterosexual would have the time or energy to be bothered by what rights gay people have. Anyone putting energy into suppressing equality at this point in history is either rich and bored, or has drank some religious kool-aid that leads them to believe that they have right to judge the worlds morality.

  • Terry

    Who “legalized” marriage in California? It was the Republican appointed judges on the Supreme Court.

  • mark

    WHO vetoed it TWICE
    a repig governor who NEEDED a dyke Lt Governor to save his dismal career.

  • mark

    WHO’s funding EVERY anti-gay innitiative on marriage and adoption and ENDA?


  • M Shane

    Kirchick is a bonified lier. What point does it make to change the Greed based Pig party into Democrats and compassionate people.
    Even if they support rich gay people the Repiggies are still what they are. They promote class devisiveness , the exploitation of other people(including gay people and now the undoing of the Constitution and democratic form of Government.They don’t have any greater sense of decency for being gay; indeed they are hypocrits for claiming they do when they just don’t.. Best cure for them is a bullet in the head” There is tolerance.

  • Terry

    It was a mistake to think that there would actually be any debate by Mark. I give. You are right – all Republicans are bad and all Democrats are good.

  • John

    Enough with the lies of omission already.

    What you left out (significantly) was that the Democrat controlled California Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Twice.

    It was vetoed by a Republican governor. Twice.

    Hence, the need for all of those lawsuits. It wasn’t as if retarded Democratic lawmakers were sitting around sucking their thumbs while heroic Republican judges “saved” same-sex marriage all by themselves.

Comments are closed.