Republican Named to Head Leading Gay Organization
Here is some very promising news in the “Maybe the Gay Community Is Seeing The Light” Department. Neil Giulano, the former mayor of Tempe, AZ, who also happens to be openly gay and Republican, was named earlier this week to be the President of Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
Neil G. Giuliano Named GLAAD President – GLAAD.org
This is an important step as it appears to be the first time since the November 2004 election that a major gay organization is actually *taking action* to adapt to the reality of America’s perceptions about gay America. Rather than the useless platitudes and phony outreach promises coming from the Human Rights Campaign, and the outright aggression against the will of the people by the head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force….
MATT FOREMAN: Well, fundamentally human rights should never be put up for a popular vote. Even today if we put the freedoms that we take for granted, like freedom of press or religion or speech, up to a popular vote, we would lose them in most of our states — maybe not most, but at least half of them.
GLAAD has actually done something.
Congratulations to Neil, who I have communicated with before wearing another hat, and perhaps we will have the chance to interview him here at GayPatriot in the coming weeks.
Related Story: Log Cabin Invades GLAAD - The Malconent
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good news.
Though… since GLAAD’s main purpose is to lobby the entertainment industry, it’s not clear that this makes perfect sense. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood GLAAD’s purpose?
It seems like it would make more sense to respond to Republicans in government jobs by recruiting prominent gay conservatives to head organizations that lobby that government.
Comment by Clint — August 19, 2005 @ 8:08 am - August 19, 2005
GLAAD is supposed to be also about lobbying news industry and anyone else who defames gay people.
I find their move here odd. Perhaps they want to get back to some constructive activism and do less of the left-wing-Hollywood focus. But the left-wing-Hollywood focus has been so successful for them (in terms of fundraising, nice parties to go to, etc.). I’m wondering if Giuliano is “becoming one of them”, more than them wanting to change their focus.
Comment by joe — August 19, 2005 @ 8:34 am - August 19, 2005
Actually, I think this is a very good idea. The reason is because GLAAD focuses on public perceptions of gays, and having a Republican in its top spot with a proven record of accurately reflecting conservative concerns will be a huge asset in blocking and countering pseudo-”conservative” hatemongerers.
In short, when the gay wingnut left opposes Dr. Laura, it can be easily written off as the fact that they oppose anyone who isn’t as insane as they are. When an organization headed by a gay Republican opposes them, people are more likely to listen, especially when said gay Republican lays out the facts instead of spittle-drenched broadsides that namecall the religious, conservatives, and everyone else.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2005 @ 9:09 am - August 19, 2005
I hope you’re right.
Comment by joe — August 19, 2005 @ 9:29 am - August 19, 2005
There’s nothing wrong with what he said, and if thats an example of “attacking the will of the American People”, I don’t think its a good one. For one thing, I think most Americans would agree with the statement. But if you want a real example, I’ll give you one.
I happen to be in the “Creator granted humans unalienable rights” camp of democracy. Governments and societies can choose whether to acknowledge those rights, but they exist regardless of popular vote. We have them because they are the manifestation of grace of Gods in human beings. You can’t vote this out of existence any more than you can vote your right hand out of existence.
So as far as having “aggression against the will of the people”; that is just fine with me. They can go screw themselves as far as I’m concerned. Now I realize it’s not always pragmatic or a good political move to make much of that, and also if you want to be treated with dignity you need to treat others that way too.
But if you lose sight of these basic facts all-together, you forget something very important. And that is when gay and lesbian Americans go to their countrymen and ask for the respect due to us, that we are on the right side of the argument. The quest for the recognition of our human dignity is a morally just and virtuous cause.
If you don’t believe in this, or in your own human dignity, then why make any case for equal treatment in the first place? Go crawl under a rock and accept 2nd class citizenship. Give up your seat at the table and go sit on the floor.
The “will” of the majority of Americans at one time also believed slavery and not permitting women to vote were good ideas.
But what is even worse is that the “will” of the American people also made TV shows like “Survivor” or “Idol” or even “Gilligan’s Island” top all-time hits.
Why would you want to trust the existence of your civil rights as a human being to people who did something so heinous and plainly stupid?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 19, 2005 @ 10:44 am - August 19, 2005
The problem is, Gryph, that Matt Foreman and his ilk use that as an excuse for attempting to end-run the will of the people by exploiting the court system. The current amendment and proposition success in our country has less basis, in my opinion, in increased hatred of gays, but much more in the fact that people who are not necessarily antigay, but who have serious qualms about gay marriage, are being offered one of two choices — ban or accept completely. Given the choice between an overreach on both sides, most people have much fewer concerns with banning gay marriage than they do with allowing it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2005 @ 11:11 am - August 19, 2005
Dear Lord! If anyone can decipher the main point of the previous post, please translate it into English. Thanks.
Comment by glisteny — August 19, 2005 @ 11:12 am - August 19, 2005
Sorry, ND30, you got between us. I was referring to Gryph’s rambling.
Comment by glisteny — August 19, 2005 @ 11:13 am - August 19, 2005
NDT-
Good point. I’m a bit more hopeful now — we’ll see when he actually does try to do something like that, how it goes over in the media. But you’re absolutely right that countering right-wing anti-gay media figures is indeed part of GLAAD’s mission.
Comment by Clint — August 19, 2005 @ 11:32 am - August 19, 2005
No problem, Glisteny….but please keep in mind my opinion of Gryph when you comment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2005 @ 11:43 am - August 19, 2005
Gryph-
While it may be fun to bask in the manifest rightness of our cause for a while, at some point it would be useful to actually persuade other people that we’re right. The fact that we are so manifestly right ought to make this easy. The fact that most gay lobbying groups spent only pennies opposing 2004′s slew of anti-gay state ballot initiatives is strongly related to the fact that they all passed. And the head of one of the groups that should have been fighting this battle sneering at the idea of fighting it is deeply disturbing.
You wrote: “Now I realize it’s not always pragmatic or a good political move…”
That’s really the whole point. Telling the voters to go screw themselves has never gotten anyone elected or any measure passed.
“Why would you want to trust the existence of your civil rights as a human being to [the American people]?”
At the end of the day, of course, our rights are only fundamentally secured by our own willingness to fight for them.
The entire practical advantage of Democracy over other systems is that we can have that battle without the human tragedies and economic disruptions of fighting a civil war. And the rules of the battlefield are really quite simple — convince other people that you’re right.
We don’t have a direct democracy (thank God and the Founding Fathers!) — but really all of the indirect systems (like the filibuster, the incumbency advantage in Congressional races, and even the Supreme Court) really just work on a slower time constant. Thus, we get agreement from all the relevant bodies when the consensus of the American people has been constant over a decade or two. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the slower forms of representation don’t still fundamentally reflect public opinion. They just have the rapid fluctuations and political fads smoothed out.
If most Americans were convinced that speaking the word “Zazbot” should be punishable by death, and this belief was maintained for twenty or thirty years, we’d have a Supreme Court that would produce convoluted opinions explaining why such a law was not in violation of the First Amendment. You’d be right that they were wrong, but this wouldn’t help keep you from your execution.
Comment by Clint — August 19, 2005 @ 12:00 pm - August 19, 2005
Just a question. What does him being a Republican have to do with what results he may achieve with and for the organization? Does being a Republican somehow imply automatic success in areas where someone who was a Democrat would fail?
Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 19, 2005 @ 12:03 pm - August 19, 2005
From what I have read of his accomplishments in Arizona, I am amused that the usual suspects here have not declared him a RINO. A fiscal conservative with a wildly progressive social agenda usually denotes a conservative Democrat. Whatever it takes, THESE are the kind of Republicans we liberals can support.
Nevada was the last state to decriminalize sodomy before it was mandated by Lawrence. The entire gay community of Nevada is beholding to Republican state senator Rick James who lead the coalition. A fiscal conservative and a social progressive. A RINO is a RINO. And I love ‘em.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 19, 2005 @ 12:29 pm - August 19, 2005
Wow Chandler, you said something positive. I’m stunned!
Comment by joe — August 19, 2005 @ 1:04 pm - August 19, 2005
Interesting post, Chandler, but I find “conservative Democrat” to be as useless a term as “liberal Republican”. By your definition of a RINO, President Bush would qualify. He may be a social conservative but he’s certainly a fiscal liberal. Even without wartime costs, he’s approved more spending in four and a half years than Clinton did in eight. Unfortunately, the social conservatives who seem to hold sway over the Republican Party these days aren’t as dismissive of fiscal liberals as they are of social liberals. I know these people would classify me as a RINO, but I prefer “Goldwater Republican”. I long for the days when conservative ideals meant government out of my wallet/bedroom/religion/life.
Comment by Andre — August 19, 2005 @ 9:30 pm - August 19, 2005
Andre, thanks for noting the fiscal liberalism of GWB. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it pointed out as clearly as you just did.
Comment by Reader — August 21, 2005 @ 9:02 am - August 21, 2005
Good for GLAAD. Neil Giuliano is an excellent choice for this position. I’m sure he was hired for his leadership – not for being a token Republican. Giuliano spoke out against the exploitation of anti-gay animus in the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004.
Comment by Eva Young — August 21, 2005 @ 11:40 am - August 21, 2005
Neal Giuliano is the type of Republican that GP has called a RINO in the past. He’s a moderate, not a reactionary.
Comment by Eva Young — August 21, 2005 @ 11:43 am - August 21, 2005
Interesting post, Chandler, but I find “conservative Democrat” to be as useless a term as “liberal Republican”. By your definition of a RINO, President Bush would qualify. He may be a social conservative but he’s certainly a fiscal liberal.
Comment by Andre
=============================
Andre are you dyslexic? It is social PROGRESSIVE and fiscal CONSERVATIVE and NO Bush would NOT qualify as he is a social REGRESSIVE and traditionally fiscally bi-polar cutting domestic programs and expanding corporate welfare.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 22, 2005 @ 2:55 pm - August 22, 2005
Good blog
Comment by thanks — September 1, 2005 @ 10:59 pm - September 1, 2005
Defence Mesa Self
Comment by Self Defence Gloves — September 9, 2005 @ 6:14 am - September 9, 2005
Surfing Maui
Comment by Surfing Pic — October 3, 2005 @ 10:10 am - October 3, 2005
Education Degree
Comment by Higher Education — November 1, 2005 @ 10:17 am - November 1, 2005
[...] the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just a week after GLAAD names a Republican as its new head, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Parents and [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Announcing opposition to Roberts, gay groups stand with the left — June 25, 2009 @ 4:18 am - June 25, 2009