Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin — Greater Standing Among Gay Groups, Increasingly Irrelevant to the GOP

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:13 am - November 28, 2005.
Filed under: Log Cabin Republicans

It is now nearly ten years since I first assumed a leadership role in Log Cabin. Over this past decade, I have been both active in and critical of the organization. I have attended four national conventions, served as an officer of two clubs, one of which I founded, and talked with countless gay Republicans, gay conservatives and gay libertarians, most of whom refused to join Log Cabin. Indeed, many who refused to join were surprised at my activism and pleased at my decision to quit the organization.

In my conversations with such “non-mainstream” gays, the most frequent complaint I have heard about Log Cabin (and yes, I have also heard this from LCR members, many of whom have e-mailed this blog to say as much) is that it has failed to provide an alternative to the left-leaning national gay groups.

I was thus hardly surprised when Log Cabin’s Political Director Chris Barron refused to criticize NGLTF President Matt Foreman for suggesting democracy was immoral and by simultaneously pointing out that LCR Executive Director “Patrick [Guerriero] never comments directly on the opinions of other Executive Directors.” It merely confirmed what I had long observed about Log Cabin. In press releases and other public statements. LCR’s national leadership more frequently attacks Republicans than it does Democrats. And they never take issue with the national gay leadership, even while these groups are busy badmouthing President Bush and the GOP and misrepresenting the president’s record and that of the party to which Log Cabin ostensibly claims allegiance.

Log Cabin will not be able to influence the GOP if it does not publicly distance itself from the anti-Republican rhetoric of national gay organizations. To do that, it needs to take on those groups when they unfairly attack the GOP or otherwise show their left-wing stripes. Most conservative groups in Washington — and across the land — as well as many elected Republicans officials are familiar with the leftist agendae of these groups. When gay Republicans (as well as conservatives and libertarians) come out against their left-of-center policies and pontifications, they increase their standing — and thus their influence — with those on the right side of the political aisle.

Thus, if anything, this article in the most recent Advocate confirms how increasingly irrelevant Log Cabin has become. Instead of building bridges to the GOP, Executive Director Patrick Guerriero has been increasing his group’s “standing among liberal national gay rights groups.”

Indeed, although the word Republican appears in the very name of the organization, Guerriero told the Advocate:

Are we first and foremost a Republican organization, or are we first and foremost a gay organization with a role to play inside the Republican Party? The board and I made a conscious decision on the second, and that has affected everything we have to do and continue to do.

First and foremost, then, Log Cabin is a gay organization. It is interesting how Patrick chose to phrase that question — as an either/or choice. That is, either LCR would be first and foremost Republican or first and foremost gay. Why not, dispense with that “first and foremost” dichotomy and define this gay Republican group as a group which is both Republican and gay and so attempt to balance the tension that exists between those two groups, at least in the current political environment.

Had Patrick recognized that tension, in addition to taking on those Republicans who wish to regulate our private life, he might also be willing to take on those gay leftists who wish to regulate our commercial endeavors. Instead, since he first took the helm of Log Cabin, Patrick has dedicated himself to stopping “the infighting with other LGBT groups.” So concerned he is with this goal that he “instituted a new policy inside Log Cabin: If you speak ill of another LGBT group, that is grounds for dismissal.’” But, it’s okay to violate Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment and speak ill of a fellow Republican. (And LCR links to a tribute to the Gipper on its homepage!)

While the Gipper wanted all Republicans to work together on issues of common concern, The Advocate heralds Guerriero’s “bipartisan roots.” Sounds like he’s better suited to head the Human Rights’ Campaign (HRC) (an idea BoiFromTroy put forward nearly a year ago) than is its current leader. After all, unlike LCR whose very name defines it as a partisan organization, HRC’s mission statement defines its as “bipartisan.”

It’s not only Patrick’s bipartisanship which has gained him favor in gay circles. It is also his willingness “to take on fellow Republicans.” Indeed, former HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch commends him for standing up to “the profound failure of Bush.” Given the president’s mixed record on gay issues, it seems a gay Republican organization would instead be taking issue with those gay activists who misrepresent his record and call him a failure while pointing out his successes in numerous other areas, particularly foreign policy.

Despite the president’s successes, Bush-bashing has become the defining issue of the self-styled “progressive” movement today. As it has become increasingly apparent that most national gay groups see themselves as part of that movement, it is wonder they praise LCR for taking on President Bush. And no wonder LCR leaders have been so reluctant to praise this good man. They don’t want to risk losing the good rapport they enjoy with the Bush-hating gay activists.

When President Bush declared victory on November 3, he did something which made it easy for gay Republicans — indeed for all gay people — to praise him. So powerful was this gesture that HRC’s then-Executive Director, Cheryl Jacques (under whose leadership the group passed out “George W. Bush, You’re Fired!” stickers) took heart. She saw it as an “important symbolic moment” when the president included the vice-president’s daughter and her lesbian partner on stage. Patrick Guerriero, however, passed up the opportunity to praise the president for recognizing that a woman’s lesbian partner was part of her family. He had another chance to note this recognition when FoxNews showed Mary sitting with Heather at the President’s second inaugural in January.

Instead of praising the President for such gestures which help dispel the myth of his alleged anti-gay animus, under Patrick’s leadership, Log Cabin has sought to curry favor with the gay establishment, an establishment which harbors a strong animosity to the president and our party. I’m sure Patrick must be pleased with this article. But, given that the Advocate is very much a part of this establishment, gay Republicans should wonder at the cost of this puff piece. (In this excellent post, Malcontent details the narrow anti-Republican vision of the most recent issue which includes that article.)

A further sign of the magazine’s anti-Bush bias is their December 7, 2004 post-election roundup issue, the magazine’s editors “asked a diverse group of GLBT people to shed some light on this dark moment in our history.” Not only did the magazine’s editors call Republican victories last fall a “dark moment,” but they also failed to include any Bush-supporters in their “diverse group” of 12 individuals (two women authored one piece). Since approximately one-in-four gay people voted for Bush, if the magazine were trying to reflect the diversity of our community, they would have included three such gay people who voted for the victor in last fall’s election.

Perhaps it’s because the gay establishment so frequently excludes Bush-supporters that Log Cabin’s national leaders have been so reluctant to praise that good man. But for them, it’s business as usual to criticize the president. Indeed, in a statement last fall faulting Senator Kerry for making an issue of the Vice President’s daughter’s sexual orientation in a presidential debate, the organization made clear that it wasn’t just taking issue with the Democratic nominee — Kerry’s statement “shouldn’t distract us from the fact that President Bush, Karl Rove and other Republicans have been using gay and lesbian families as a political wedge issue in this campaign.” That’s right, they couldn’t just fault a Democrat, they also had to make clear they were at odds with their own party’s standard bearer (and his closest political advisor as well).

If Log Cabin is regain the influence it lost last fall when it not only refused to endorse the president, but also repeatedly attacked him during the fall campaign, it needs to build bridges to Republican and conservative organizations and elected officials as much as (if not more so than) it does to gay groups. Not only that. Log Cabin needs to change its policy vis à vis other gay organizations.

It should not be grounds for dismissal if a Log Cabin employee takes issue with another LGBT group. Indeed, it should be the group’s policy to take issue with such groups when they unfairly attack the president, oppose his nominees, support liberal policies or make left-wing pronouncements.

That said, Log Cabin leaders should make clear that while they disagree with that particular liberal policy (or pronouncement), they remain ready to work with gay groups on issues of common concern. And it goes without saying that they should never attack other gay leaders personally. That is, LCR should strive to work with gay organizations as much as possible, taking issue with them as the situation warrants.

There are many gay groups, most of whom have strong ties to non-gay left-wing organizations and the Democratic party, its leaders and elected officials. Log Cabin is the only national gay Republican group. It compromises its Republican principles if its executive director refuses to comment on the left-wing opinions of other LGBT Executive Directors. And it loses its purpose if it has stronger ties to “national gay rights’ groups” than it does to the Republican White House.

If Log Cabin is to have any success, indeed, to have any relevance, it cannot be “first and foremost a gay organization with a role to play inside the Republican Party,” but must instead be an organization which is both gay and Republican and whose leaders understand that to succeed as such a group, they must appeal to both groups, even when appealing to one risks offending the leaders (and “membership”) of the other. Until it does that, it will continue to disappoint those Republican, conservative and libertarian gays who seek an alternative to the liberals views of the “gay street establishment.”

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

35 Comments

  1. Gotta cut out the appeasement of liberal LGBT groups.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 28, 2005 @ 5:33 am - November 28, 2005

  2. Maybe Mr. Guerriero thought that something was to be gained by more closeness to other gay groups, though I really wonder what that would be.

    Comment by Hello Moto — November 28, 2005 @ 6:40 am - November 28, 2005

  3. Oh, I know — I think LCR is trying to recruit more gay conservatives. Before they embarked on their present course, their membership was only half of what it is now, as that Advocate article says. Groups with more members have more weight in Washington and state capitals.

    Maybe they’re trying to collect people so that they can lobby with greater influence in the future. The Gipper did say that you have to negotiate from a position of strength, and he demonstrated this principle by refusing to negotiate new treaties with the Soviets until America was in a better strategic position.

    Comment by Hello Moto — November 28, 2005 @ 6:50 am - November 28, 2005

  4. Because, face it, LCR has miles to go before it can even begin to consider challenging the religious right in influence. It cannot do so if it remains an apologist for the gay-bashers within the Republican party.

    Maybe gay conservatives or libertarians don’t join LCR not because it is drifting away from the Republican party, but because LCR hadn’t shown enough spine in the past when standing up to Republican leaders when they gay-bash. I think LCR’s increasing membership vindicates their new strategy. Instead of reversing course, I think they should continue down it.

    Gay conservatives and libertarians want much more than for the president to have a photo op with the vice-president’s lesbian daughter. For an organization like LCR to be taken seriously, it can’t fawn over unsubstantial gestures like that. That just shows it doesn’t take much to please gay conservatives, that we have low expectations. We can’t afford to have people think that right now. Only if the president does something on the order of magnitude of withdrawing his support for the FMA should organizations like LCR praise him.

    Comment by Hello Moto — November 28, 2005 @ 7:07 am - November 28, 2005

  5. You’re lucky you haven’t been ruined by Marxist-based feminist groups like NOW.

    Under Equalization there is no Liberation.

    Comment by syn — November 28, 2005 @ 7:15 am - November 28, 2005

  6. Depending on which exit poll you believe, it was 23% (under 1/4), or 17% voting for Bush (under 1/5).

    Comment by Eva Young — November 28, 2005 @ 8:19 am - November 28, 2005

  7. My sister kind of experiences the same thing with her teacher’s union. At one meeting, somebody was dissing a former Republican governor for “screwing the teacher’s union.” My sister’s response was, “What the Hell do you expect? You give one-hundred per cent of the union’s support to Democrats. Of course Republicans are going to screw you when they’re in power.”

    Comment by V the K — November 28, 2005 @ 8:59 am - November 28, 2005

  8. For the LCR-Natl staff to be under a gag-order to prevent inter-organizational in-fighting may be laudable, but it’s articluation implies that the other G/L organizations are above criticism. This is intellectually unacceptable for a overtly-partisan group like the LCR. It is incumbent on the LCR leadership to be thoughtful critics of the G/L community when called-for, even while the staff is silenced to prevent freelance sniping and backbiting.

    “Non-partisan” G/L leadership needs to be chided or corrected when they make outrageous comments about the Republican Party and our elected officials; as much as our Party leadership needs to be criticized when they step over the line. Hopefully, once the position of “political”-director is filled, this eerie silient from LCR-Natl. will cease. If Patrick feels that he serves the LCR-membership by building some communal bridges to the other more left-leanng (Hahhahahaha) organizations in the G/L community; then the LCR-Political Director should be the designated point-man for considered and thoughtful criticism and clear, concise statements of position when the ideals of the LCR are at conflict with those of the left-leaning and predominately-Democrat HRC and Natl. Task Force.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 28, 2005 @ 11:18 am - November 28, 2005

  9. thanks Dan, always appreciate your notes- an issue that I have always had with the gay community is that if a Republican or conservative sends a positve gesture – it is seen as pandering – but when a Democrat or liberal group does so it is seen as supportive.

    This hypocrisy can only be addressed by showing concrete examples and sharing them with one another. Since unfortunately– those who read little more than the MSM must be shown – since faith is not an intrinsic part of their character.

    Comment by michael demoratz — November 28, 2005 @ 11:43 am - November 28, 2005

  10. I recently joined LCR hoping to lend my support to what I thought was a worth while organization. I hope I haven’t been completely mistaken. In joining I was also hoping to make some new friends who share a similar outlook to my own. I have a difficult time relating to many liberals and would welcome the company of relatively conservative – or at least right leaning – gay men and women. Any suggestions anybody?

    Comment by Dave — November 28, 2005 @ 12:26 pm - November 28, 2005

  11. Eva–even with the lower number, the Advocate should have invited at least 2 Bush-supporters to their “diverse group” to reflect the real diversity of the community.

    But, I trust the higher number which, if anything may be low, given how exit polls skewed left this past year — and given that the anti-Republican vitriol in our community makes it less likely for gay Republicans to talk to exit pollsters.

    And Dave in #10, whether or not you are mistaken depends on the chapter you have joined. While the national office is increasingly becoming a joke, many local chapters are doing good work. Like you, I too would appreciate the company of more conservative gay men and women. Alas that not all our blog-readers are in LA!

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 28, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - November 28, 2005

  12. the anti-Republican rhetoric of national gay organizations????

    Excuse me??? Why should any Sane thinking Gay person – nto speak badly of the Republicans? Could it be that they care about us…and want to share the abundance of society with us? Nah, that couldn’t be it – could it? I would not doubt your membership by Free Thinking Gays and Lesbians has dropped….why? Maybe because with the “Religious Reich” and thier Friends the GOP…they want to ensure that Gays and Lesbians have No Rights in these United States for us as individuals or OUR families…..yes, Gays and Lesbians DO have children. I think the LCR needs to rethink who exactly they represent. Thank Entity I’m a Democrat – and NOT saying that Dems are alot better — shame we don’t have a strong 3rd party in this country!

    Comment by JRC — November 28, 2005 @ 3:09 pm - November 28, 2005

  13. I’m an LCR member and proud of it. I really think you’ve got to get over this obsession with other LGBT groups. Let’s keep our eye on moving the ball down the field. Denouncing Matt Foreman (who is actually a very decent guy albeit a bit misguided at times) doesn’t do anything to help protect LBGT families or enhance LCR. SO why bother? I don’t blame Patrick G. for staying out of that one.

    LCR is a GAY Republican organization. Its sole reason for being is to make sexual orientation a non issue in the party and in the USA. Hopefully, in my lifetime, LCR can go out of business. But until that time LCR needs to fight the fight. If we don’t speak out when many of our party leaders make antil gay proposals then who will??? We won’t get more respect in the GOP by denouncing LGBT leaders every time they say something stupid. We gain more power and respect by raising money. backing inclusive candidates and, over time, showing there is a price to paid when we stray from the Goldwater/Reagan model of conservatism.

    LCR was one of the leaders in making the conservative arguments this year for social security and tax reform. LCR also stood strong in the fight against terrorism and for the war in Iraq. The same can’t be said for many so-called conservatvies who ran away from all of these issues because of political expediency.

    You also forget that Patrick G. has spoken out many times and said the LGBT community needs to hold BOTH parties accountable for anti-gay proposals (Matt Foreman has spoken out about this too). The real test will be 2008: do the “mainstream” LGBT organizations give Hillary, who is anti marriage, a pass just as they did Kerry in 2004? If yes, then the LGBT community will have shown it learned nothing from 2004 and all of the “non partisan” organizations might as well become DNC organizations.

    Comment by dom — November 28, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - November 28, 2005

  14. Perhaps what Matt was trying to communicate was what Winston Churchill said when he suggested that ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others.’

    Comment by David V. — November 28, 2005 @ 4:13 pm - November 28, 2005

  15. Remember what Churchill also said about appeasers.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 28, 2005 @ 4:16 pm - November 28, 2005

  16. Please note, dom in #13, that I never said that LCR should not speak out against anti-gay proposals within the GOP. But, given that they are also REPUBLICANS, if they’re gonna take issue with Republicans, they should also speak out against anti-Republican policies/rhetoric within the gay movement.

    Yes, LCR did a good job in standing up for social security reform — and we commended them for it. But, if they stood so strong in the fight against terrorism, why didn’t their leaders say as much in last fall’s campaign, regularly commending the president for his leadership in those endeavors at the same time they criticized the president on the FMA. They did do this occasionally, but more often resorted merely to badmouthing Bush — even (as I noted in the post) making a gratuitous swipe as him (& his closest political advisor) in a statement whose ostensible purpose was to criticize his Democratic opponent.

    If LCR is to be an organization of the Goldwater/Reagan mold, then they can’t remain silent when left-wing gay groups continue to badmouth conservatives and our leaders. Nor can they continue to criticize the GOP as they have.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 28, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - November 28, 2005

  17. I was thus hardly surprised when Log Cabin’s Political Director Chris Barron refused to criticize NGLTF President Matt Foreman for suggesting democracy was immoral

    Matt Foreman never said or suggested any such thing and no matter how many times you quote him out of context you are not going to make it so. What he said is that voting for an anti-gay initiative is immoral. Not the act of voting itself.

    You personally don’t approve of Chris Barron or Matt Foreman. Fine. I get that. Sheesh. You sound like Andrew Sullivan reviewing a Tony Kushner play.

    And it wasn’t so long ago that the LCR membership was complaining to the high heavens that other gay and lesbian organizations didn’t respect them or appreciate them. Now that such organizations are actually starting to do this, you complain about it. Sheesh X2!.

    The vastly increased membership of LCR speaks for itself. The members are voting with their feet. And it’s for the policies of the current board, not against them. Unless you want to call such democratic means of approval “immoral” of course.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 28, 2005 @ 5:22 pm - November 28, 2005

  18. Patrick (Gryph)-

    Where have you seen documentation of the “vastly increased membership” other than it coming out of the mouth of Patrick Guerriero?

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 28, 2005 @ 5:33 pm - November 28, 2005

  19. Start your own organization. Give it a snappy name like “Gays for Bush” or “Gay Patriots.” You’d get lots of attention. I would look forward to your interview on the Colbert Report. You guys need to be on TV.

    Comment by anon — November 28, 2005 @ 6:02 pm - November 28, 2005

  20. Patrick (Gryph), it’s one thing to gain the respect of gay organizations, it’s quite another to do so by bashing Republicans. But, given the current leadership of most gay groups, it seems the only way for a Republican to gain their respect is by badmouthing his own party.

    And was the LCR membership complaining about lack of respect/appreciation from other gay groups? One of the many reasons I (as a club president) was at odds with Patrick’s predecessor (in the late 1990s) was that, in a debate with Urvaishi Vaid, the then-LCR Executive Director beamed when the “moderator” of the debate, former California Democratic chair Bill Press called their exchange a “lovefest.” At the time, most LCR members I knew thought the national organization needed to distinguish itself from left-wing activists like Ms. Vaid.

    I think LCR should be more concerned with its own party thinks of it than with securing the admiration of the gay groups. After all, it’s Republicans whose attitudes they claim to want to change.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 28, 2005 @ 6:04 pm - November 28, 2005

  21. Matt Foreman never said or suggested any such thing and no matter how many times you quote him out of context you are not going to make it so. What he said is that voting for an anti-gay initiative is immoral. Not the act of voting itself.

    Not quite, Gryph.

    “What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday.

    Really, it’s nothing unusual, though; he said the same thing (“these amendment votes (are) unjust and immoral”) about the Kansas vote in April.

    Foreman saying this always reminds me of a spoiled brat whose parents, after years of being called names, spit on, kicked, and defied, suddenly discover the virtues of discipline. The kid can scream all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that his parents have the right to punish him — and he quite honestly brought it upon himself.

    One of these days, the gay left will make the connection that their constant namecalling of the religious, their applauding the desecration of churches by AIDS activists, and their support of teenage sex-pushers and people who solicit sex in public bathrooms — all in the name of being gay, of course — has more to do with the fact that a majority of Americans still view homosexuality as “immoral” than anything else and see very little wrong with denying gays rights. But it’s not going to happen until they make the connection that people like Foreman use gay rights as justification for hatemongering.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2005 @ 6:40 pm - November 28, 2005

  22. Dan, I have to disagree with your premise.

    Simply because LCR has not taken PUBLIC swipes at other lgbt organizations for some of their more ludicrous positions doesn’t mean it hasn’t expressed opposition to expressed points of view at all. It just means it’s done privately. (And it IS being done privately).

    Take a look at our enemies. Do you see the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Concerned Women for Amercia, etc. PUBLICLY take each other to task for the “violations” they see amongst themselves? Of course not. Why should the “gay community” wash its disagreements in public too? Who does it serve? Our enemies are the only ones who benefit when we snipe at each other publicly. For far too many years LCR and the other lgbt organizations wasted resources on such pursuits. To what productive end?

    Second, I disagree with the premise that we somehow have more clout with Republican leaders and organizations when we publicly disagree with other lgbt organizations. That’s a fallacy.

    Our clout comes from the good works we do within the Republican party …. volunteering, donating, and working on behalf of inclusive Republicans and our issues. Most legislators make little distinction between gay groups EXCEPT at the local level, and that is where we stand in stark contrast. What we DO is much more important than what we say (or don’t say.)

    Lastly, I’m surprised that you would take The Advocate’s perspective on anything. That rag leans so far left that anything that’s said there has to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.

    I’m more concerned with results than methodology. If working with the rest of the lgbt organizations, by leveraging all of our resouces, results in what we want achieved (equality under law), then holstering our political firearms against our fellow lgbt organizations may prove to be the correct approach.

    Comment by GOPValues — November 28, 2005 @ 7:08 pm - November 28, 2005

  23. LCR should praise the party when it does the right thing and criticize it when it does the wrong thing. LCR should praise other LGBT groups when they do the right thing and criticize them when they do the wrong thing. That’s how we make progress and to do otherwise is not helpful. It’s also completely in line with LCR’s mission statement. Go to their site and read it- it goes both ways.

    I vigorously supported LCR when they ran their campaign against FMA, an act that was potentially damaging to the president’s campaign, and the battle was won. FMA failed to pass by a safe margin. They showed they weren’t spineless and they weren’t apologists.

    Not endorsing the best candidate in the presidential election in a time of war after winning the battle against FMA amounted to poor sportsmanship (throwing a tantrum) and showed they did not have their priorities in order. They could have made a qualified endorsement, pointing to their victory over FMA, and saved ground with the party.

    I’ve stopped paying dues and I can’t imagine I’m the only conservative who feels alienated or at least unenthusiastic about supporting the group. I’m not surprised they gained membership because the FMA campaign and the decision not to endorse got them publicity, some of it from becoming darlings of the liberal MSM. I anticipated a dramatic shift to the left from all these new members. Maybe they will be bigger and have more money, but they’ve done so by sacrificing their conservative principles and I don’t see that as a win.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — November 28, 2005 @ 8:04 pm - November 28, 2005

  24. Why should the “gay community” wash its disagreements in public too? Who does it serve?

    It serves those of us in the gay community who are sick and tired of being characterized as pro-abortion, anti-religious, tax-raising, corporate-bashing, foul-mouthed hatemongers because of our sexual orientation.

    Where does that come from? The fact that HRC, NGLTF, et al. do all of those in the name of “gay rights” and no one says anything about it.

    An excellent example is abortion. As CNN reported today, only 26% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all circumstances, while a whopping 69% think minors should be required to get parental consent to have one.

    However, to hear HRC and NGLTF tell it, “gay rights” require unrestricted abortion and no parental notification. It also fatally impairs the credibility of organizations like LCR to differentiate themselves in such matters when their political director jumps directly to something that stands for both in most American’s eyes (Planned Parenthood).

    In short, GOPValues, if chasing “unity” above all else requires us to stay chained to absurd ideas that the bulk of Americans reject, we don’t need “unity”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2005 @ 8:31 pm - November 28, 2005

  25. Not endorsing the best candidate in the presidential election in a time of war after winning the battle against FMA amounted to poor sportsmanship (throwing a tantrum) and showed they did not have their priorities in order. They could have made a qualified endorsement, pointing to their victory over FMA, and saved ground with the party.

    I disagree with that statement. The line needed to be drawn, and fortunately LCR had the strength to do it. My sole disagreement with their doing so was their channeling the saved money into attack ads against the religious, instead of focusing on positive activities.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2005 @ 8:33 pm - November 28, 2005

  26. GOP Values (#22), well, if you see LCR to other gay groups as Family Research Council to the other social conservative groups, then you’re suggesting LCR has the same political agenda as those groups.

    I already showed the productive end of expressing such disagreement — building bridges to the GOP. This way, they show that they are not beholden to the same liberal policies of the gay groups. And yes, we do gain more clout that way. That’s one reason our club grew so quickly in Northern Virginia.

    I do agree with you that volunteering, donating to campaigns, etc. does help with the GOP.

    Did you even bother to read my entire post? I make clear that the Advocate skews left. Thus, it should be troubling (to gay Republicans) that they wrote a puff piece on Patrick Guerriero. Indeed, one reader reported to me that the local LCR president sent a copy out to his list.

    Well said, Dale in #23. Very well said.

    Well, GayMalibu (Cowboy?) Ken, I never said that this gay Republican group should only take action on non-gay issues. Please go back and read the post. By your logic, if you have a gay Republican group which only takes action on gay issues (as Log Cabin by and large does), then you just have a GAY group.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 28, 2005 @ 10:18 pm - November 28, 2005

  27. I was in elementary school when I first did some “work” for the Republican Party, going door to door passing out “I Like Ike” brochures. By the time I was a senior in high school I was so involved that I missed all or part of one hundred school days in order to work in the re-election campaigns of my GOP governor and one of our GOP U.S. Senators.

    I can’t begin to add up the hours (days and weeks) volunteered, the miles traveled by car, train and plane and the dollars upon dollars donated for the good of the Republican Party and local, state and national Republican candidates in the years that followed…until the ideologues shrunk the tent and there was no longer room for those of us in the Goldwater wing.

    I will say this to you, Dan, and I sincerely mean it. I don’t agree with everything the Log Cabin Republicans do or don’t do but the LCR is the ONLY Republican organization that still fights for the most important traditional Republican principles!

    You have my e-mail address, Dan, if you’d like to privately discuss this in more depth.

    Comment by Jack Allen — November 29, 2005 @ 12:57 am - November 29, 2005

  28. I was in elementary school when I first did some “work” for the Republican Party, going door to door passing out “I Like Ike” brochures.

    Wow!

    How old are we? 😉

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2005 @ 2:28 am - November 29, 2005

  29. Well, among the LBGT community in NYC–one definitely get the hairy eyeball if one mentions Log Cabin —along with snickers, guffaws and whole load of other comments. I am really more of an armchair political junkie, but in larger Republican political circles there is a lot of toleration among the libertarian type. The LCRs themselves seem mostly concerned with fiscal issues, but pretty much are on board with the rest of the LBGT political agenda. we had a gay Republican run for city council for the upper east side of Manhattan–he lost but didn’t do horribly.

    Comment by Brooklyn Dave — November 29, 2005 @ 3:50 pm - November 29, 2005

  30. To ThatGayConservative #28: we are old enough to remember when the Republican Party believed in and fought for civil rights. We are old enough to remember when the far-right took over and imposed an agenda that does not include equality and human dignity. I hope we live long enough to see the Republican Party return to its roots.

    Comment by Jack Allen — November 30, 2005 @ 1:19 am - November 30, 2005

  31. #31

    That has been a bit of time.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2005 @ 5:28 am - November 30, 2005

  32. Jack, in #30, I don’t see how the far right has imposed its agenda at all. If it has, how come more and more businesses and municipalities grant domestic partnership benefits and gay people can be increasingly open about our sexuality. If anything the far right is reacting to those social changes and succeeding primarily in preventing states from calling our unions marriage, yet not from preventing us from coming out and being honest about our lives.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 30, 2005 @ 12:07 pm - November 30, 2005

  33. #24, NDT, I didn’t say or imply that not airing our disagreements in public “requires us to stay chained to absurd ideas that the bulk of Americans reject.” That’s YOUR spin on the situation. It is in our direct conversations with elected officials and party activists that the people who matter, who vote on our issues, learn differently — and through our direct organizational communications with them as well.

    The fact remains that the ONLY thing we definitively have in common among all of the lgbt organizations is to strive for equality under law. The NGLTF is essentially a socialist organization. LCR is a Republican organization. God only knows what the heck HRC is, since even THEY don’t know. The point is that it’s the desire for equal treatment under law that unites us, and THAT should be the focus of our cooperation. Trashing the other ridiculous aspects of their agendas doesn’t further us toward that goal … or raise us in the eyes of other Republicans.

    Also, what prohibits YOU from writing, calling, and emailing your disagreements with the gay left in publications or directly to elected officials? Why is it that you expect LCR to have to do that on your behalf? When LCR is constantly standing up and supportive of the GOP on most issues, and is vocal about it, I don’t understand why they have to defend the supposed Republican position on such issues as abortion, where there’s actually a significant split in the party. That’s not LCR’s role. As has been stated multiple times, LCR exists to go out of business: to make the GOP understand the need for gay and lesbian Americans to be treated equally under the law. It’s not there to be yet another mouthpiece (aren’t there enough already?) for those who oppose abortion.

    That’s my objection to having to work with gay organizations here in Washington state: I don’t like everything they stand for. However, I do what I can to work with them to the degree that I can, and make clear to Republican elected officials where we disagree. But I don’t do that publicly; I do it directly with the people we need to talk with on a more consistent basis — the elected officials and party officials. In fact, it assists us by allowing us to draw distinctions between us and the socialists and leftists in the “gay community.” That has been of FAR greater value than if I took shots at the other gay groups in public.

    Comment by GOPValues — November 30, 2005 @ 8:25 pm - November 30, 2005

  34. That’s YOUR spin on the situation. It is in our direct conversations with elected officials and party activists that the people who matter, who vote on our issues, learn differently — and through our direct organizational communications with them as well.

    The problem is this, GOPValues; while those are the people who may vote on our issues, those aren’t the voters who elect the people who vote on our issues. Moreover, HRC and NGLTF don’t limit their linking of “being gay” to, as I put it, “pro-abortion, anti-religious, tax-raising, corporate-bashing, foul-mouthed hatemonger(ing)” activities to elected officials and party activists; they air it to the public, and that viewpoint is what gets locked in the mind of voters as to what gays are.

    The “behind closed doors” method only works when voters are apathetic and/or feel powerless to do anything about it, because it depends solely on legislators being convinced there will be little to no penalty for their actions. What the right wing has figured out is that angry and empowered voters can bring even the most obstreperous legislator to heel or go completely around them (i.e. petitions and referendums); what’s worse is that they need only point out HRC and NGLTF’s antireligious, pro-sex and pro-abortion public screeds as proof for their assertions that gays are immoral sex-pushers, and there’s nothing, not one public thing, out there to contradict that.

    My biggest beef with Patrick’s actions last year was that he was going down the same path of irrelevance that HRC and NGLTF have followed to its end — bash (or let voters be bashed) publicly, kiss politico butt in private, and wail about how ignorant the electorate is when the vote goes against them. Fixing the first makes the second that much more effective and minimizes the possibility of the third.

    Also, what prohibits YOU from writing, calling, and emailing your disagreements with the gay left in publications or directly to elected officials? Why is it that you expect LCR to have to do that on your behalf?

    Um….if I were waiting for LCR to do my work for me, why would I be doing this?

    And, as far as airing my disagreements with the gay left, anyone who reads my blog should be able to figure that one out in about ten seconds.

    When LCR is constantly standing up and supportive of the GOP on most issues, and is vocal about it, I don’t understand why they have to defend the supposed Republican position on such issues as abortion, where there’s actually a significant split in the party. That’s not LCR’s role.

    That’s not my expectation for LCR. What IS my expectation is that LCR will stand up when Matt Foreman, Joe Solmonese, and whoever’s leading Stonewall this week are foaming at the mouth, saying that gay rights and unlimited abortion are the same thing, and publicly point out that this is a) false, b) counterproductive, and c) not inclusive of the multiple viewpoints that exist in the gay community and in the Republican Party on this issue.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2005 @ 11:32 am - December 1, 2005

  35. […] if at all.  Indeed, while eager to take on his fellow Republicans, Sammon’s predecessor Patrick Guerriero . . . dedicated himself to stopping “the infighting with other LGBT groups.” So concerned he is […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Decline and Fall of Log Cabin Republicans — April 18, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - April 18, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.