Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin & Ronald Reagan on not speaking ill

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:22 pm - December 1, 2005.
Filed under: Log Cabin Republicans,Ronald Reagan

Patrick Guerriero, President, Log Cabin:

If you speak ill of another LGBT group, that is grounds for dismissal.

Ronald Reagan, 40th president of the United States:

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

CNN, October 14, 2004:

The head of the nation’s largest gay and lesbian Republican group [Guerriero] slammed fellow Republicans Friday for “feigning outrage” over comments by Sen. John Kerry.

I hope this explains why we put parentheses around the “Republicans” in Log Cabin’s official name.

Share

18 Comments

  1. I’m not renewing with my local Log Cabin group this year. They just keep asking me for money to fight the gay marriage battle. That’s pouring money down a rat hole, as far as I can tell. Wrong fight in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I don’t understand why gay marriage has become the holy grail of the gay rights movement. When I was a kid, I was told that not only marriage but even monogamy was “for straight people,” and not just any straight people but the boring middle-class suburban straight people. Times change.

    Is Log Cabin a Republican organization for gays, or a Gay Rights organization for Republicans? I think it’s the latter.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 1, 2005 @ 10:58 pm - December 1, 2005

  2. Gay Rights organization for Republicans?

    It seems more like an HRC wanna-be / clone, to me.

    Comment by Calarato — December 1, 2005 @ 11:28 pm - December 1, 2005

  3. This “blog” attacked another Republican, Guerriero, a long time before he made the statement above.

    And the President has spoken ill of other (gay) Republicans, if only obliquely.

    Keep on drinking your kool aid, I guess.

    Comment by jimmy — December 1, 2005 @ 11:41 pm - December 1, 2005

  4. Exactly Jimmy.

    I think the internal debate about how Log Cabin should deal with Bush is very similar to the internal debate in the National Black Justice Coalition about how they should deal with Farrakhan:

    http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/12/anti-gay-black-ministers-in-indiana.html

    There is Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh commandment, but it seems that only moderate republicans are expected to abide by it. The conservative republicans tend to call moderates RINOs and talk about “thinning the herd” constantly.

    Comment by Eva Young — December 2, 2005 @ 12:29 am - December 2, 2005

  5. #3

    And the President has spoken ill of other (gay) Republicans, if only obliquely.

    When was this?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 2, 2005 @ 12:40 am - December 2, 2005

  6. Let’s be real. LCR is not a HRC wanna-be / clone by any stretch. Any more than Hillary is a conservative. Please don’t get all Demo Underground on LCR. I’m not happy with several things that LCR National has pushed but this is getting stooopid. LCR is a conservative/Republican organization that has to exist in the real world where compromise and political reality are controlling factors. Many times things happen that we all don’t like but until we’re the Big Dog that’s the way it is.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 12:45 am - December 2, 2005

  7. Actually, Jimmy #3, this blog didn’t take issue Guerriero until he publicly came out against the nominee of his party in 2004. Indeed, Log Cabin’s then-Political Director (Chris Barron) compared his own party to a pig before this blog even existed.

    Never, the only reason I bring this up is because of a statement Patrick made in the most recent Advocate (i.e,. in 2005).

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 2, 2005 @ 1:48 am - December 2, 2005

  8. LCR is a conservative/Republican organization that has to exist in the real world where compromise and political reality are controlling factors.

    This is true, Bobo. However, what I believe GPW’s point is, obliquely expressed, is that Patrick’s words and actions impose a double standard; behavior by Republicans that is contrary to LCR’s principles is immediately and vociferously identified and rebutted in a most unpleasant fashion, but behavior by pseudo-“gay rights” groups and Democrats is not. That is hardly “political reality”; indeed, it’s the opposite, given that it’s pandering to unpopular minorities whose views on multiple issues are rejected by the majority of the electorate. As I said elsewhere, LCR doesn’t have to take a stance on things like abortion itself; it merely needs to make it clear that groups who do so in the name of “gay rights” are confusing the issue and misusing gay equality to advance unrelated items.

    As for Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, always keep in mind that “speaking ill of another Republican” refers to criticizing THEM, not their ACTIONS. In short, disagreeing without being disagreeable is the key to calling a spade a spade while still keeping the Eleventh.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2005 @ 2:20 am - December 2, 2005

  9. LCR is more interested in pleasing the Gay Left establishment – such as HRC – than in supporting policies / politicians that protect gay people from Islamo-fascism, or providing an alternative voice to the Left dogma of HRC, the National Socialist Gay and Lesbian Task Force, etc.

    That makes it an HRC wanna-be / clone, etc. No getting around it.

    I don’t make up the facts, Bobo – I merely advise you to face them.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 3:10 am - December 2, 2005


  10. I don’t understand why gay marriage has become the holy grail of the gay rights movement. When I was a kid, I was told that not only marriage but even monogamy was “for straight people,” and not just any straight people but the boring middle-class suburban straight people. Times change.-

    Are you saying that gay organizations shouldn’t care about promoting an image of monogamy? Is this a bad thing? Of course times change. Many thousands of the men who were around for gay rights battles in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are now dead. When new voices come in, then things are always going to change.

    Gay marriage was a battle that was forced on many gay organizations, partially by some gays who were in the courts on this issue, and partially by the GOP, who needed an election-year issue. I guess LCR could have said, “Please leave us alone, we’re not like those other gays”, but that wouldn’t take any focus away from the battle.

    Comment by Carl — December 2, 2005 @ 4:09 am - December 2, 2005

  11. #6
    LCR is a conservative/Republican organization that has to exist in the real world where compromise and political reality are controlling factors.

    To hell with that. Compromise only gets you screwed dry.

    Clinton’s terrorism policy proved that. The RINOs prove that. Bush’s compromises with liberals prove that. Gays voting for liberals proves that.
    Sure it sounds all warm and fuzzy, but in the end what do you have besides a bad case of friction burns that Preparation H won’t cure?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 2, 2005 @ 6:54 am - December 2, 2005

  12. If you speak ill of another LGBT group, that is grounds for dismissal.

    Does that include NAMBLA?

    Comment by V the K — December 2, 2005 @ 7:10 am - December 2, 2005

  13. I have great admiration for Ronald Reagan. He was not, however, our Lord God and savior. He was a man and he was fallible. I don’t intend to abide by his eleventh commandment when criticism is called for and I certainly don’t intend to abide by Patrick G.’s commandment not to criticize these socialist LGBT groups. I do, however, like the clarification of North Dallas Thirty that Reagan is referring to personal attacks and not criticism of policy. That makes more sense to me. I can’t imagine Reagan would suggest we can’t debate other Republicans on their positions.

    Attention RINOs: I also don’t think sticking an ‘R’ next to your name is what makes someone Republican. It’s what you believe and do that makes you a Republican or not. It’s like Dr. Laura says. Knocking someone up doesn’t make you a dad. Being a responsible father to a child is what makes you a dad.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 2, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - December 2, 2005

  14. Never in #15, given that Angels in America was written by a mean-spirited conservative-hating far left activist (Tony Kushner), it’s just plain silly to look to that, albeit very well-written, play series for an understanding of conservatives.

    Kushner made a caricature of Roy Cohn, a complex (and yes, greatly flawed) man.

    That said, if you knew the first thing about Roy Cohn, you would realize how greatly we differ from that complex (and perhaps confused) man. Both Bruce and I are out and call ourselves gay — even in conservative circles. Cohn denied publicly that he was gay.

    Turning to Kushner for understanding of gay conservatives (& Republicans) is like turning to Pat Robertson for understanding of what that prejudiced preacher calls “homosexuals.” Both have their narrow views of those groups with whom they’re obsessed. And both are wrong.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 2, 2005 @ 12:35 pm - December 2, 2005

  15. 17 — Well-put, GPW.

    Comment by V the K — December 2, 2005 @ 1:12 pm - December 2, 2005

  16. #11, I’ve always been in favor of monogamy. I’m just pointing out that baby-boomer, sexual-revolution, Stonewall-generation gay guys used to ridicule monogamy as something only for the most boring, least swinging straights. I’m pointing it out to illustrate how much times have changed since I was 12 in the late 1970s and first thought I might be gay. My question is why gay marriage is now priority #1 instead of priority #8 or #15.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 2, 2005 @ 1:29 pm - December 2, 2005

  17. Because, Conservative Guy, as Carl points out, it’s all about promoting an image, whether it’s true or not. Those 1970s “free love” advocates haven’t gone anywhere; they’ve simply changed their message to try to portray themselves as something more tasteful.

    Lambda Legal is a good example. They make a lot of noise on their front page about how they’re “protecting families”, but don’t mention the time and money they’re spending trying to get off the hook people who solicit and plan to perform sex in public restrooms (see “Joel Singson”). Sort of like how most gays who give money to the ACLU don’t realize it’s being used to defend NAMBLA against charges of promoting, encouraging, and facilitating the raping of children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2005 @ 1:58 pm - December 2, 2005

  18. Well said, Dan/GPWest….. Never a Republican’s comment was predictable.

    This SAME debate is going on within the National Black Justice Coalition. It appears that those who think they should accomidate Farrakhan and Willie Wilson are winning out.

    http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/12/anti-gay-black-ministers-in-indiana.html

    Comment by Eva Young — December 2, 2005 @ 7:56 pm - December 2, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.