Psst… when you throw all your other principles out the window (federalism? fiscal conservatism? civil liberties?) it kinda looks like Bible-thumping is all you have left.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

I suggest you read a bit more of my writing before you conclude that’s the way I operate.

I call homophobic what I think is homophobic. But as that example shows, there’s a whole lot more than that to what I think and how I feel.

“Furthermore, in doing so, if LCR is able to demonstrate that being gay does NOT automatically make one a leftist abortion-supporting hatemonger,”

A laudable goal. So you intend to do this by calling Republicans names until they give in? Perhaps by refusing to back the party that LCR nominally belongs to until they geek to demands that NEITHER party will grant? Allowing them the grand privilege of sacrificing 50% plus of the electorate for 3% minus that badmouths them, and has already proved that it will bolt the second it doesn’t feel pandered-to sufficiently? It’s true that in close elections it’s worth courting minority blocs- but you forget that for every bloc you court, you have to balance its vote and cash potential with what it will demand, and what it will cost you in terms of other blocs you alienate.

In the great bottle-party of politics, you’ve got to bring something to get served. LCR brought a bottle of beer which it threw out the window unopened (and won’t be invited to the next shindig as a result), and you’re trying to get a Martini by throwing mud on the bartender. Wanna get an invite to the next party? Bring something worth drinking, don’t slang the host, and don’t start threatening to walk out if you can’t spin the records.

– The Goodrich decision and similar pending cases

– Leftist whore groups like HRC and NGLTF diverting millions of dollars away from fighting said initiatives on the state level and into praising as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” homophobic politicians like John Kerry, who encouraged voters to raise and pass said constitutional amendments.

– LCR’s misguided decision to attack people of faith

Take any two of those away, and these initiatives would not have passed at all, or by much, much smaller margins.

The majority of the public is not homophobic by nature. But the actions of hatemongering gay leftists are what push them in the direction of these bans — a fact which is lamentably pushed and magnified by the actions of certain factions in the Republican Party.

In that context, LCR is valuable as a counterweight to both leftist gays and to bigoted Republicans.

Furthermore, in doing so, if LCR is able to demonstrate that being gay does NOT automatically make one a leftist abortion-supporting hatemonger, the voting bloc that has traditionally passed these measures will be shattered.

In short, if given a choice only between a homophobic ban and giving in to the hatemongering gay left, people will choose homophobia. LCR’s role should not be to stay silent in the face of a homophobic ban,. but to speak out in favor of the “middle road”.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject, why would the Republican Party WANT your vote if you keep on trying to smear them as ‘homophobic’? Isn’t that sort of like the NAACP continually calling President Bush a ‘racist’ and then wondering why he feels he can do without their help?

As far as “support” goes, how many members does the Log Cabin Republicans boast? If the game is about winning elections no matter the cost, as you imply, than why should the RNC alienate a overwhelming majority of, not their voting base, but of the WHOLE electorate in order to placate a group that does not even speak for a bare minority of their own identity-group and which cannot be relied upon to deliver even its own votes?

” Help gay rights and you get support; don’t, and not even party affiliation will save you.”

Care to name ONE politician who failed of election because the LCR’s failed to support them?

To quote a friend of mine: at the end of the day, the Log Cabin Republicans are just another political pressure group- just like the American Potato Growers or the Helium Lobby. In the real world, they will get exactly as much attention and consideration as they can deliver votes.
In 2004, the Log Cabin Republicans proved that they cannot reliably deliver votes and therefore do not merit consideration. If I was you, and believed in their long-term goals, I’d be very angry at them.

That is a gross oversimplification of my position, DaveP.

I believe that it is within voters’ rights to pass laws that explicitly ban gay marriage. I believe that it is an abuse of judicial power for those laws to be overturned, especially on spurious grounds. I also believe that the reason that most of these amendments are even up for public discussion is because the judicial power has been constantly encouraged to be abused by hatemongering leftist gays who cannot persuade the public of their position, mainly because their position is only hate and contempt for the rights and opinions of others.

But that does not make banning gay marriage anything but homophobic. It makes it easier to explain why people are homophobic, but banning gay marriage is not the answer to that particular question.

With that settled, the next question will be, “Why should we even issue invitations to these people, much less moderate or change our platform for them?”

Because the margin of victory in your last election was barely more than the number of gays who presumably voted for your candidate.

In these days of a divided electorate, one ignores minority groups at their peril. Furthermore, one ignores minority groups with money and a willingness to use it at even more peril. You can attempt to screw gays over, but it will cost you — and it very well could cost you an election.

Gays are a seesaw group that can attract moderates from both sides, Democratic and Republican. The reason our power as a community has been diluted is because leftist whores like Joe Solmonese, Elizabeth Birch, Matt Foreman, and others have made it clear that they will support even vicious homophobes as long as they’re Democrats.

The reason it was vital that LCR do what they did in the last election was to demonstrate that they, among all gay groups, are able to transcend partisanship. Help gay rights and you get support; don’t, and not even party affiliation will save you.

This is absolutely not true. If you remember the web advertisements he placed, one stated that he had the virus, ONE DID NOT! I’m not sure why the gay press seems to always ignore that. Check out the actual sites if they still exist somewhere. At least we agree, that it is a very pertinent fact.

Also the fact that he asked for anonymous “gang bangs” literally translates into homicidal. Remember, he had no idea of the serostatus of his victims. They could have very likely been part of that ‘gifting’ craze (ie HIV negative men or woman who wanted to become part of the ‘club’). To put people at risk like that, anyone, is incredibly amoral.

“If someone were to pass a law making it a crime for HIV-positive people to have bareback sex in private, then it would be a problem, but no such law exists.”

I would never suggest that. And you are missing the point. Acts in private can certainly be both legal and homicidal. I stand by the characterization as I know in my heart it is accurate in regards to the behavior Mr. Sullivan himself admitted to. Again, the only part I see as non-conservative, is the action of inviting multiple anonymous partners to receive HIV+ body fluids (ie a deadly virus).

“In short, I disagree with what Andrew was doing.”

What specifically do you disagree with?

“But it is his business, and I have no compelling legal or personal reason to intervene.”

Once again, I offered no such intervention. I just asked how such a person can possibly be considered a ‘conservative’. I honestly think we believe too little in ourselves to herald someone such as Mr. Sullivan as a ‘conservative’ or a role model for gays. I just think we can find much much better (for example the author of this site).

If Bruce and others are successful in purging the LCR leadership of it’s non-Republican, left-of-center ‘tude, the LCR could seek redemption in time for 08 and at least be at the table for some of the action. It’s a long shot; but worth it.

The answer will, of course, be NO.

With that settled, the next question will be, “Why should we even issue invitations to these people, much less moderate or change our platform for them?”
In 2002 they could have become part of mainstream Republican thought and worked to create change, the same way the Latino and other rights lobbies have. In 2006, they’re off the radar, and the Christian groups that people like Gryph seem to hate so much have another arguement to deploy against their inclusion.

I’m glad you have respect for the LCR’s… because no-one else does.

They won my respect, at least.

For once a gay group stood up and said, “No. We’re not going to support or endorse homophobia. We may vote for you as individuals, but what you are saying goes against everything we stand for as a group.”

Then of course they screwed it up by blowing a million dollars on running attack ads against religious people. THAT, if anything, is what made them “nonconsequential”.

Does personal conduct account for anything anymore? Isn’t our behavior the foremost evidence of our character and values? Remembering the barebacking scandal he was involved in several years ago and how he defended what is literally homicidal behavior towards others – I have to again ask how this is a conservative role model?

In the first place, that’s a tad bit overdramatic.

Andrew made it clear what he wanted and that he was HIV-positive. He was not hiding his serostatus, nor was he trying the “chat only” routine. Had he been hiding his HIV status or raping men, THAT would qualify as homicidal. Nor was he planning to carry out sex in public.

The problem is, Rick, that if you take that into consideration, it boils down to a matter of someone’s private bedroom behavior. If someone were to pass a law making it a crime for HIV-positive people to have bareback sex in private, then it would be a problem, but no such law exists.

In short, I disagree with what Andrew was doing. But it is his business, and I have no compelling legal or personal reason to intervene.

I have never understood why or how Sullivan has obtained the label ‘conservative’.

Andrianna is not now, nor has he ever been, anything approaching conservative, at least not by American definitions. I’m sure he’d be a slobbering right-winger in the UK, but then, that doesn’t make him a conservative, just not as much of a diapered, panty-waisted, bed-wetting tuck me in at night mr. government socialist as most Brits.

I hope a group of true gay conservatives hold him accountable after his keynote address. I hope there’s a Q&A session –hell, even the President had one at his recent address before the Cleveland City Club… and he did fab at fielding tough questions.

Let’s remember that Log Cabin Republicans are not necessarily conservatives… in fact, most of the ones I know are moderates, progressives, and social activists who probably have more in common with Christy Todd Whitman and Rudi Guiliani and Arlen Specter than W or Dick Cheney or Sens Frist, Allen or McCain or any Libertarian.

Then again, I lack Andrew’s insane hatred of Bush and his resulting need to rationalize it; with both of those, that argument looks pretty good for endorsing someone who is completely opposite in virtually every respect of what you allegedly believe.

If you guys manage to oust him from the LCR convention, perhaps you could get Maurice Bonamigo to speak. I hear he’s available. I hear he’s always available.

I think that is half the problem here is that the sins of the dems are overlooked and forgiven, while the GOP is held to the fire.