Gay Patriot Header Image

BREAKING NEWS: Patrick Guerriero Leaving Log Cabin (Republicans)

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:09 pm - May 23, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Log Cabin Republicans

There is something poetic that beleaguered Log Cabin Chieftain Patrick Guerriero announced his departure on the same day I arrive in Alaska (the last frontier) for the first time in my life.  Dunno, just found it oddly fate-like. (*cue music* …..A New Day, by Celine Dion.)

Here’s the scoop direct from the Log Cabin spin-meisters.

May 23, 2006     

Patrick Guerriero Leaving Log Cabin after Four Years of Record Growth

(Washington, DC)—Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero will assume new responsibilities as the first-ever Executive Director of the Gill Action Fund.   By the time Guerriero leaves Log Cabin in September, he will have traveled over 750,000 miles, visiting over 300 cities and towns in all 50 states.  “It has been a humbling experience leading Log Cabin Republicans during the past four years,” said Guerriero.  “I’m proud of what thousands of courageous Log Cabin members across America have accomplished as we work to build an inclusive Republican Party and a better America.”

    

“The entire Log Cabin Republican family is profoundly grateful for Patrick Guerriero’s inspired leadership,” said Log Cabin Chairman Tim Schoeffler.  “Patrick led the organization through unprecedented growth, including dozens of new chapters, thousands of new members, and a 400% increase in our annual budget.  We will miss him greatly, but we wish him the best of luck and we look forward to working with him as Executive Director of Gill Action.”

Where, oh where, do I start? 

First, Patrick will definitely be at home at the liberal-leaning Gill Foundation.

Second, there is a golden opportunity with the Massachusetts liberal gone that we can Put the “Republican” Back into Log Cabin at long last!  The fluttering praise of Patrick’s outreach to the Gay Left is highlighted in the LC(R) press release.

In the words of former HRC Executive Director, Elizabeth Birch, “Patrick has reached out extensively to Republicans and Democrats alike.  He has been among the most principled leaders of our movement for equality.  Patrick is a good person of good character and does not ever take the easy road.  He takes the heat but stays the course.” 

Third, I enthusiastically nominate MARY CHENEY to lead the new era of Log Cabin REPUBLICANS.  She’s probably too smart to hop on the Titanic.  *sigh*

Fourth, maybe the LC(R) Board will finally see how much their decision to hire Patrick in the first place drained their coffers.  They will soon find out if the “400% increase in the budget” was due to increased contributions, or outlandish spending.  *cough* — First Class seats — *cough*

Lastly, I’m personally curious which happened more often in the past 4 years of Guerriero’s Reign:  President Bush saying the word “gay” publicly … or Patrick publicly supporting the President on any issue.

More later…. I’m just settling into my hotel in Anchorage tonight.

UPDATE:  Here’s another take from Log Cabin apologist and consultant, BoiFromTroy.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Having spent the day learning about Buddhism and presenting on Vimalakirti, I’m blown away by the news. I think Patrick’s departure gives Log Cabin an opportunity to reaffirm its Republican principles. I hope the Board picks someone who supported President Bush in the last election — and who has a history of backing other Republican candidates — and promoting conservative ideas. (Of course I will have more to say this anon.)

Share

75 Comments

  1. Lets’ see;

    LCR Presidency- Soon to be vacant.
    Political Director – still vacant. (ex-Chris “Vote for Edwards” Barrone)
    National Field Director- still vacant . (ex-Jeff “I want to be in Congress” Cook)
    COO- still vacant after possibly “expensive” litigation”

    Who’s running the shop?
    Did anything meaninful happen at the 2006 LCR Natl. Convention?
    2006 midterm elections? …What midterm elections?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 23, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - May 23, 2006

  2. I’m looking for a new job. Does LCR pay well?

    Comment by PatriotPal — May 23, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - May 23, 2006

  3. Consultant?

    The convention help I gave them was pro-bono.

    Contributor, yes.

    Comment by boifromtroy — May 23, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - May 23, 2006

  4. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Patrick.

    Comment by Gary Welsh — May 23, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - May 23, 2006

  5. Off to work with Tim Gill! Makes perfect sense.

    Comment by Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 12:13 am - May 24, 2006

  6. I think it’s time for you all of you that enjoy trashing LCR to put up or shut up! Which one of you will apply for the job? Here’s your chance to make a change.

    Comment by GOPValues — May 24, 2006 @ 1:20 am - May 24, 2006

  7. Oh, and the Gill Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) which means it’s for focusing on political issues, not campaigns. Some thoughts and review of an article talking about the Gill Action Fund from the Independent Gay Forum. http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30930.html

    Comment by GOPValues — May 24, 2006 @ 1:31 am - May 24, 2006

  8. I’d apply for the job, but I’m a registered Independent voter. I gave up on the Massachusetts (so-called) Republican Party years ago.

    Julie the Jarhead

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — May 24, 2006 @ 7:17 am - May 24, 2006

  9. Wasn’t Mary Cheney involved with the Republican Unity Coalition, only to leave that organization around the time that the controversies over Rick Santorum started? If she couldn’t even stay with RUC, then I can’t imagine her going with anyone else.

    Comment by Carl — May 24, 2006 @ 7:44 am - May 24, 2006

  10. Mary Cheney would be perfect. If only we could get so lucky. I listened to an interview with her on the Glenn and Helen podcast. She’s really great.

    Comment by James — May 24, 2006 @ 8:16 am - May 24, 2006

  11. Wow…Gay Patriot – way to attack fellow Republicans like BoiFromTroy – who I believe has linked to you multiple times. I’m sick of all this bitter, petty queeening on this site. When you’re on, you’re on. But times like these I just shake my head.

    Oh…and its not breaking news if you post it 6 hours after every news outlet.

    Comment by Jeremy — May 24, 2006 @ 9:16 am - May 24, 2006

  12. jeremy… and how does your added comment “… it’s not breaking news if you post it 6 hours after every news outlet” not sound like bitter, petty queening of its own? The mirror doesn’t lie, Jeremy. Sorry.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 24, 2006 @ 9:26 am - May 24, 2006

  13. Ahh…you are right!!! I apologize. =)

    Comment by Jeremy — May 24, 2006 @ 10:18 am - May 24, 2006

  14. Now maybe the movement can get something done. As a republican (who first cares about his civil rights) I hope Patrick can accomplish great things with Gill Action as he’ll no longer be subject to the annonymous pathetic banter surrounding him.

    And as I’ve mentioned before in my one other post, Tim Gill is giving over half his net-worth to fight for his beliefs which happen to benefit all gays and lesbians – no matter what your political affiliation. Records indicate that he’s given more money to LCR both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) arms than to HRC over the last 5 years and he’s given to numerous reublicans in our state. Not to mention being an acquaintance of Mary Cheney when she lived in Conifer, CO for several years.

    I’ve been a member of LCR for years, but I’ve been gay my whole life. I deserve the right to marry my partner of 12 years. In the end, neither the Democrats, nor the republicans have done anything to improve our legal recognition in society. So gentleman, hate Tim, hate Patrick, love Mary, but first and foremost fight for your rights as gay men; as you have none right now. So congratulations to Patrick and may we all wish him best of luck.

    Comment by Alex Bartlett — May 24, 2006 @ 10:20 am - May 24, 2006

  15. “So gentleman, hate Tim, hate Patrick, love Mary, but first and foremost fight for your rights as gay men; as you have none right now.”

    Alex – I appreciate many of your sentiments, but I’m sorry, you lost me in your big conclusion. It’s just not a credible statement. Want to know what having no rights as a gay man is REALLY like? Look into Iranian gay life.

    Comment by Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 11:17 am - May 24, 2006

  16. Patrick’s departure is eerily similar to last year’s Supreme Court vacancies. Just as we were gleefully hoping to replace the departing justices with ones who were more faithful to the text of the Constitution, we now have high hopes of putting an actual Republican at the helm of LCR.

    Comment by Bla — May 24, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - May 24, 2006

  17. Calarato– What about Iraqi gay life?

    What a wonderful, peaceful democracy we have built there!

    Comment by Anonymous — May 24, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - May 24, 2006

  18. […] I am not going to get into the name-calling going on over at GayPatriot about Log Cabin President Patrick Guerrero’s departure. However, I do find it funny how people form opinions, then assert them as fact*. Gay Partiot writes: I’m personally curious which happened more often in the past 4 years of Guerriero’s Reign: President Bush saying the word “gay” publicly … or Patrick publicly supporting the President on any issue. […]

    Pingback by Boi From Troy » Fact-checking, GayPatriot Style — May 24, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - May 24, 2006

  19. I think we should start a pool as to when Bruce will start picking on whomever the next president of LCR turns out to be for not “being Republican enough”.

    -And yes, that was bitchy and queeny, but then, so am I.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 24, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - May 24, 2006

  20. No GrampaGryph, you’re bitter and your bigotry and hate disenfranchises you from any meaningful contribution to reality, politics, or social commentary.

    If the next prez of LC is indeed representative of gays in the GOP, then Bruce and just about anyone else who cares about where the movement is headed will likely embrace that prez.

    Let’s face it, unless it’s your queen of the faghag heap Sen Clinton, just about anyone would be better than PG as prez of LC… at least his replacement won’t likely make the eternally stupid blunder of not endorsing the Party’s candidate –an incumbent President– for reelection.

    How stupid and misguided was that?

    Good riddance, PG. Sorry to say it took this long and that’s from a former Ripon GOPer from the progressive blue state of Michigan. Good riddance.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 24, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - May 24, 2006

  21. “Want to know what having no rights as a gay man is REALLY like? Look into Iranian gay life.” ~Calarato

    Obviously, saying gays have no rights in America is wild exageration, but trying to one-up it by using Iran or Iraq as a benchmark is equally absurd and trite.

    In America, the argument as to whether or not gay couples have the option to enjoy the same protections and privileges as straight couples is simple: They don’t. The argument is whether or not they should be allowed those privileges and how to bring that argument across political and social lines. I don’t know a great deal of Patrick or the LCR, but anyone who is capable of doing that – liberal or conservative – would have my support in that objective.

    Comment by Jared — May 24, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - May 24, 2006

  22. For those who want to replace Patrick Guerriero with a “real Republican,” Rick Santorum will soon be looking for work.

    Comment by Steve — May 24, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - May 24, 2006

  23. #21 – “Obviously, saying gays have no rights in America is wild exageration…”

    Thank you Jared. That was my point.

    “…but trying to one-up it by using Iran…as a benchmark is equally absurd and trite.”

    Quite the contrary, Jared. It is a relevant point. Notice it got you to agree that Alex’s comment was exaggerated.

    You imply American gay couples don’t have rights. Sorry dude – we have a ton. Rights to life, liberty, property, and (as couples) making our own legal arrangements for inheritance, hospitals, etc.

    Is that perfect, or enough? Nope. Not at all. That’s why I support gay marriage – and supported it in the 1990s, when there were just a few of us as voices in the wilderness.

    But again, if you want to know what’s it REALLY like to have no rights as a gay couple – look into Iran, where we would be killed. OK? Just to see how we’re blessed.

    I support gay marriage and I tell anybody who will listen. Equally, I object to people’s negativity or crazy exaggerations.

    Comment by Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - May 24, 2006

  24. Jeremy (#11) – I’m not quite sure how I “attacked” BFT. I simply stated two facts.
    I’m not in the habit of attacking ACTUAL Republicans who also happen to be gay.
    Hopefully the next LCR prez will fit that bill.

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 24, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - May 24, 2006

  25. Alex (#14) – what public info on donations from Gill to Log Cabin are you aware of? LCR has never disclosed such donations.

    And, I’m curious…why do you think you “deserve” this “right” of marriage? Where does earning rights and rights vs. responsibilities come in to play?

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 24, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - May 24, 2006

  26. I’m very sorry that Patrick is leaving the LCR but am glad that he will be in a position where he can continue to be an eloquent advocate of freedom, fairness and equality.

    I’m sorry, Bruce, but I’m not sure I want your brand of Republican in charge at the LCR and focusing resources on gay-hating Republicans like Santorum and that screwball congresswoman out in Colorado. There are enough James Dobsons, Tom DeLays, Gary Bauers and Tony Perkinses, et al, running the Republican Party.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — May 24, 2006 @ 3:43 pm - May 24, 2006

  27. At GayPatriot, “not Republican enough” = “not marching lock-step with whatever the president says”

    Comment by Michael Demmons — May 24, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - May 24, 2006

  28. GayPatriot:

    Perhaps he wants the “right” because the United States Supreme Court tells him he should.

    The Court has said: “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.” Why shouldn’t gay Americans insist on their basic civil rights?

    Comment by Anonymous — May 24, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - May 24, 2006

  29. “Quite the contrary, Jared. It is a relevant point. Notice it got you to agree that Alex’s comment was exaggerated.” ~Calarato

    Heh… That’s a smidge presumptuous, don’t you think? I realized it was exaggeration from the moment I read it, and would have likely pointed it out as being counterproductive to almost any debate. S’alright, though.

    “You imply American gay couples don’t have rights. Sorry dude – we have a ton. Rights to life, liberty, property, and (as couples) making our own legal arrangements for inheritance, hospitals, etc.”

    I don’t think I implied anything since I was speaking – or attempting to speak – in the context of marriage. Guess I botched that, though, so allow me to clarify… I was speaking in the context of marriage.

    Now, let me attempt to break down this “Iran” comparison that I’ve heard so many, many times… This time, though, in the context of the American civil rights movement.

    “Oh, yeah? Well look at X and then tell me America doesn’t treat Y well!”
    Where X = South Africa. Solve for Y.

    Ultimately, of course, these comparisons are completely useless – both in debate and political policy. And if it weren’t for the fact that people look at American law in context of trying to find what is right as opposed to what others do, then by the same logic we’d still have anti-sodomy laws because, hey, it’s better than Iran! Or Jim Crow because, hey, it was better than South Africa!

    I know that isn’t actually your message since you support gay marriage, but it’s often an argument I hear against it. I believe that comparisons like that are counterproductive to debate – Kindof like a universal Law of Godwin.

    Comment by Jared — May 24, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - May 24, 2006

  30. “I know that isn’t actually your message…”

    Then what was the point of lecturing me like it was? – Well, I can certainly understand the need to for self-expression.

    “I believe that comparisons like that are counterproductive to debate…”

    OK. I believe they aren’t, and that wild exaggerations are the counter-productive thing. We can agree to disagree.

    Comment by Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - May 24, 2006

  31. In line with that self-expression thing… One last little point:

    I had said: “Quite the contrary, Jared… [my earlier point] got you to agree that Alex’s comment was [whatever]…”

    You said: “Heh… That’s a smidge presumptuous, don’t you think? I…would have likely pointed it out [anyway]…”

    I now tell you: Don’t try to play those kinds of games with me, Jared. We all saw me say words ABC, and **in response to that** you posted words XYZ. Don’t give me a “Well, I likely would have…” line, just to try to score a false hit on me. It’s counter-productive, debate-wise 😉

    Comment by Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - May 24, 2006

  32. The Court has said: “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.” Why shouldn’t gay Americans insist on their basic civil rights?

    In that case, polygamists, pedophiles, and incest practitioners are being deprived of their “basic civil rights”.

    Try for some intellectual consistency, Anonymous; do you support all of those as well?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - May 24, 2006

  33. I heard Patrick Guerrero speak at a business event in Atlanta in 2003. He impressed me. No, I did not switch parties as a result of that meeting, but I was still very impressed, and internally compare being gay and Republican to being gay and a practicing catholic (I am the latter)–neither makes sense to people in our community, but each is a matter of personal values.

    I’m hoping that the next LCR president will work on changing the GOP’s collective public opinion with regard to GLBT Americans. There are GOP supporters, yes, and more are always needed.

    Comment by James — May 24, 2006 @ 5:47 pm - May 24, 2006

  34. Trace (#26) – If you think those names are “my kind of Republicans,” you clearly don’t read GayPatriot regulary, or can’t read at all.

    Sorry man, this is a “No-Lefty Talking Point Spin Zone.”

    Gotcha!

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 24, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - May 24, 2006

  35. ND30–

    That wasn’t me talking. So you will have to ask the United States Supreme Court about the consistency issue. I just say that if marriage is a “basic civil right” for heterosexual couples, then it is a basic civil right for the gay couples, too.

    Perhaps you would like to try to sell a Constitutional Amendment stating that heterosexual marriage is not a basic civil right? I am sure that the Republican Congress would love the opportunity to overturn the activist Supreme Court decision that crammed interracial marriage down the country’s throat, yes?

    Comment by Anonymous — May 24, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - May 24, 2006

  36. But, Bruce, I do read GayPatriot regularly. And, man, I’m sorry, but I feel some of your posts read like Dobson, et al, wrote them.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — May 24, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - May 24, 2006

  37. That wasn’t me talking. So you will have to ask the United States Supreme Court about the consistency issue.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that “basic civil rights” like marriage CAN be limited.

    So, leftist, what’s your answer? Do you believe pedophiles, polygamists, and incest practitioners are being wrongly deprived of what you claim is their “civil right” to get married?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - May 24, 2006

  38. And, man, I’m sorry, but I feel some of your posts read like Dobson, et al, wrote them.

    Why don’t you cite a few so we can see what you’re reading?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - May 24, 2006

  39. More clap-trap from the wingnut

    #37 North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 10:38 pm – May 24, 2006

    Do you believe pedophiles, polygamists, and incest practitioners are being wrongly deprived of what you claim is their “civil right” to get married?

    We’ve been dealing with this stupidity for years over at the NYTImes gay rights board. Let’s see.

    (i) If someone (let’s presume, a male) wants to marry a female who is currently under the allowable marriage age (which varies from state to state), that can be cured with time. I.e., all that the two individuals would have to do is to wait until the underaged female gets to be of legal age. This refers to your “pedophile” issue, of course.

    (ii) Referring to your “polygamists” issue, the sad fact that you have in your question is the fact that the US SupCt ruled, in 1879, that a federal law outlawing polygamy in the Utah territory was constitutional. The case was Reynolds vs. US–relevant portions are available over the internet, but it is too early to be on Findlaw. (Since Utah at the time was a territory, the Federal government had plenary powers in the territory.) One of the issues that the Court addressed–not in so many terms, but in essence–was the claim that outlawing polygamy denied polygamists equal rights under law. The Court, applying what was obviously the “rational basis” test, which requires that the gov’t provide at least a rational basis when it purports to discriminate. Unfortunately for polygamists (and for you) the Court held that the anti-polygamy law had at least a rational basis, and thus was constitutional.

    (iii) Referring to incest practitioners, you apparently do not understand the fact that the marriage relationship essentially exists primarily to establish a familial relationship that either would not exist otherwise, or which is sufficiently distant as to be rather amorphous. Most states forbid marriages between people of a certain degree of consanguinity, but that degree is usually such that a familial relationship would already exist. So marriage would not be necessary to establish the familial relationship–it would already exist.

    I’m actually going to take you one step further. Whether or not you know it, what is lying at the base of your comment is the impression that “marriage” is the gov’t’s imprimature for people to have sex. Hence your references primarily to pedophiles and incestuous relationships, but, to some extent, also to polygamists. I hate to disabuse you, but the fact is that, in most jurisdictions in the US, the right to have sex is independent of the right to marry.

    To take it up a bit, and referring to the “rational basis” test currently used as the minimum of “equal protection” jurisprudence in regards the US constitution, I will ask you this: what is your proposed “rational basis” for the state not recognizing relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”). I have asked this question on a number of web sites, and have never received a coherent answer. I’m not expecting one here.

    Oh, and BTW, I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t raise the last wingnut issue: bestiality. Yup, I’ve dealt with that one, too.

    Comment by raj — May 25, 2006 @ 12:07 am - May 25, 2006

  40. To take it up a bit, and referring to the “rational basis” test currently used as the minimum of “equal protection” jurisprudence in regards the US constitution, I will ask you this: what is your proposed “rational basis” for the state not recognizing relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”).

    The simple fact that you, as a male, may marry a female of your choice.

    You see, Raj, you yourself have argued that sex is independent of marriage. Therefore, it is not required that you have sex with the person that you want to marry.

    Furthermore, your hypocrisy is obvious in blocking the pedophile, when you demand the right to marry the person with whom you want to have sex immediately and without conditions.

    Referring to incest practitioners, you apparently do not understand the fact that the marriage relationship essentially exists primarily to establish a familial relationship that either would not exist otherwise, or which is sufficiently distant as to be rather amorphous.

    But you and yours, Raj, have argued that family is a meaningless term and not legally defensible. Furthermore, the primary argument against incest is procreative in nature, and you have demanded that marriage not be defended on the basis of procreation.

    As to your polygamy argument, my point all along has been that the government has the right to regulate marriage. You argue that it does not; thus, the polygamy ban is unconstitutional in your eyes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 12:31 am - May 25, 2006

  41. Even more clap-trap from the wingnut

    #40 North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 12:31 am – May 25, 2006

    I’d fisk this comment, but it would be a waste of time. The wingnut has–as I suspected–been unable to provide a proposed “rational basis” for the state not recognizing relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”). No surprise.

    This wingnut was unable to reconcile the WSJ’s claims regarding CEO compensation with the report by the WSJ’s own polling operation (this on the laughable “Independent Gay Forum”), and he has lied about my comment above.

    Babble on, wingnut.

    Comment by raj — May 25, 2006 @ 1:14 am - May 25, 2006

  42. And Raj has once again been bested by someone armed with things foreign to him — logic and facts. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 3:58 am - May 25, 2006

  43. #42 North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 3:58 am – May 25, 2006

    And Raj has once again been bested by someone armed with things foreign to him — logic and facts.

    Irrespective of the fact that you have provided neither logic nor facts to support your thesis, and irrespective of the apparent fact that the proprietors of this web site deign to allow you to bloviate ad nauseum, let me point out this. You still have not provided any rational basis for the state not recognizing relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”).

    Fortunately, here in Bavaria, today is one of the wacky Catholic holidays “Christi Himmelfahrt” (I know what it refers to, but I don’t know what it is in English). In other words, I have time on my hands. I’ll be waiting (not with baited breath) for your proposed “rational basis” for the discrimination.

    Comment by raj — May 25, 2006 @ 4:42 am - May 25, 2006

  44. “You imply American gay couples don’t have rights. Sorry dude – we have a ton. Rights to life, liberty, property, and (as couples) making our own legal arrangements for inheritance, hospitals, etc.”

    Yeah, only after these couples must go through several hurdles to make those arrangements while spending a ton of money in the process. Meanwhile, straight couples get all those benefits courtesy of a government issued piece of paper that is pretty inexpensive to obtain. Separate but equal is nothing close to equal.

    In addition, I wonder what percentage of same-sex couples find their rights denied (ie in deciding hospital treatment) even when they do produce a legal power of attorney?

    Comment by Kevin — May 25, 2006 @ 8:53 am - May 25, 2006

  45. 25: “And, I’m curious…why do you think you “deserve” this “right” of marriage? Where does earning rights and rights vs. responsibilities come in to play?”

    And there you have it. The whole crux of why there is such a divide between so-called liberal and conservative gays in this country. Conservative gays are quite happy to allow their civil rights to take a back seat so they can support other conservative ideals.

    Everyone deserves this right because we have a little thing called “equal protection under the law” in this country. If you applied your statement to other groups in this country (blacks, jews, etc) it would sound patently ludicrous, wouldn’t it?

    I think the issues at the LCR are becoming increasingly clear – juxtaposing conservative ideology with gay rights is a losing battle (at least as conservative ideology now exists in this country). If the Republican party was truly one of letting people do and live as they please, then why is so much effort, from the white house on down, being spent these days in trying to control the lives of Americans?

    I noticed something like 63 million votes were cast for the winning American Idol last night. When was the last time a winning president received that many votes?

    Comment by Kevin — May 25, 2006 @ 9:04 am - May 25, 2006

  46. Raj, we call >>Christi Himmelfahrt

    Comment by James — May 25, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - May 25, 2006

  47. Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord.

    Comment by James — May 25, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - May 25, 2006

  48. gay-hating Republicans

    Idiot alert.

    Comment by rightwingprof — May 25, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - May 25, 2006

  49. You still have not provided any rational basis for the state not recognizing relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”).

    That is because the state is not required to recognize relationships of all individuals. Pedophiles, polygamy practitioners, and people related by blood are prevented from marrying because doing so interferes with traditional family relationships and procreation. The Supreme Court has ruled that all of those are relevant reasons for not doing so.

    What you don’t seem to understand, Raj, is that people of two different skin colors are in no way precluded from procreating or establishing a traditional family relationship; hence, bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional. However, two people of the same sex ARE precluded from procreating or establishing a traditional family relationship because of the restrictions of biology and gender.

    Furthermore, Raj, every person in this country has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you want the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage, you can marry a woman, regardless of whether or not you wish to have sex with her. Since you have loudly declared that sex should be no determinant of marriage, you may not argue that refusing to recognize your relationship based on the fact that you have sex with a person is discriminatory.

    In short, if gay marriage were a constitutional right, polygamy, incest, and child marriage would have to be as well. The Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - May 25, 2006

  50. And there you have it. The whole crux of why there is such a divide between so-called liberal and conservative gays in this country. Conservative gays are quite happy to allow their civil rights to take a back seat so they can support other conservative ideals.

    Actually, the difference is more pronounced.

    Liberal gays like you, Kevin, want to use the judiciary as a means of imposing your will on people.

    Conservative gays think that the path to the rights of gay people is through the voters.

    Key to this concept is something that gay conservatives realized a long time ago; while the Constitution does not guarantee “gay rights” as enumerated rights, neither does it preclude them. Thus, were voters to consent to passage of such laws, they would be constitutional, based on the right of voters to establish laws and protections.

    But unfortunately, Kevin, gay liberals like yourself are singularly unsuited for appealing to voters. You call them names, compare them to Nazis, and insist that they want to send all gays to concentration camps. As a result, they have rejected you, and you’ve gone fleeing to the courts like you did to Mommie’s skirts as a child, trying to flatter and cajole them into overreaching their power. Voters have realized this, and are merely using their power over the courts, as granted them by the Constitution, to prevent you from imposing your views on them by ill-advised judicial fiat.

    The challenge for gay rights over the next decade will be undoing the damage caused by leftists like yourself whose slavish devotion to the Democratic Party, emotional immaturity, and association of gay rights with unpopular leftist and criminal causes have put us squarely where we are at.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - May 25, 2006

  51. North Dallas Thirty, you are very articulate in stating your opinion, but I find certain parts of your argument flawed.

    Pedophiles are persons who are mentally ill, and who because of that illness, exploit children in morally reprehensible ways. I don’t think including them in the argument is fair because they seek neither protections for their relationships, nor the right to form families; they are simply after self gratification.

    Your comments to Kevin about running to the judiciary, I find, are every bit as unkind a gay liberal accusing a gay conservative of being like a Jew working for the Nazis.

    The constitution does not say anything specifically about gay rights. But, I believe that the 14th amendment would preclude voters from enacting legislation that would limit gays’ and lesbians’ freedom to marry. To say that would marry people of the opposite sex seems ridiculous, as heterosexuals are permitted to marry the people they’re attracted to, and that attraction is not detrimental to society. Similarly, being gay or lesbian is one’s core identity, and that alone will not hurt society. Rather, one’s choices determine whether a society will be strong or not.

    Doesn’t failure to recognize marriage of same-sex couples violate equal protection? As individuals, we have the same rights, but as couples, our protections are limited compared to heterosexual married couples (who can choose to enter into a state of matrimony), no matter how much money and how many legal contracts we have.

    I believe that a US Supreme Court justice wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that a traditional disapproval of a segment of society as it pertains to gays and lesbians is not reason enough to discriminate against it.

    Comment by James — May 25, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - May 25, 2006

  52. Pedophiles are persons who are mentally ill

    Oddly enough, the same thing was once said about homosexuality, along with the “only seeking gratification” part.

    To say that would marry people of the opposite sex seems ridiculous, as heterosexuals are permitted to marry the people they’re attracted to, and that attraction is not detrimental to society.

    But, unfortunately, marriage law does not stipulate that one need be attracted to, or even have sex with, a person in order to marry them.

    The constitution does not say anything specifically about gay rights. But, I believe that the 14th amendment would preclude voters from enacting legislation that would limit gays’ and lesbians’ freedom to marry.

    Unfortunately, the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant the unlimited right of marriage to anyone who wants it. States are allowed to set rules, and these rules may differ from state to state. That is also why failure to recognize a relationship does not constitute violation of equal protection.

    I believe that a US Supreme Court justice wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that a traditional disapproval of a segment of society as it pertains to gays and lesbians is not reason enough to discriminate against it.

    In matters of private conduct, maybe — which I say because the Lawrence decision, in a classic example of legal sloppiness, makes the broad statement you cited, but then spends pages trying to explain why society CAN discriminate so as to exclude pedophiles, etc. However, in all cases, the decision backed away and specifically excluded public acts, such as marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - May 25, 2006

  53. 50: Please explain to me what is so wrong with the judiciary recognizing that equal protection under the law is not being applied to all citizens? The issue (as it relates to the courts) is as simple as that. Frankly, I don’t give a fiddler’s fuck about the people in the country who believe it’s ok that some people should have a certain right, but another group shouldn’t have the same, constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course it’s conservatives who are leading the charge to dismantle the 3rd branch of government, attempting to pass laws that don’t have to pass constitutional muster, etc. This fight over same-sex marriage is only a small part of a bigger battle going on in this country. Do citizens in this country support equal justice and equal protection for everyone or don’t they? If you think there shold be no judiciary, then you give your blessing to turn the running of this country over to torch carrying mobs. Funny, but I don’t think that’s what America is about.

    It was “leftists” like myself who built coalitions among a divergent group of people who got things like the civil rights movement, women’s movement and the gay rights movement in motion. Long ago, people realized that it was members of groups like this who were getting the short shrift as far as equal rights for everyone. This is why its no mystery to me why conservative/republicans gays and lesbians are getting no where. so called “liberal” equal rights groups put themselves out there, say “you know what, we’re here and we all have to live and get together. On the other hand, “conservative” activists are content to say “yes sir, I adhere to all your conservative ideals so will you please, please, please give me a scrap of the same rights you have?” It simply doesn’t work.

    If you really are for conservative ideals, then stand up and be counted; work with others (gasp, liberals) and say, “you know what, we disagree on political ideology, but this is an issue that’s important to each of us as gay people and we should strive for together”.

    I think what’s driving more conservative gay activists away is that they’ve begun to realize that prejudice, fear, hate is something that you have to fight with others who’ve experienced it as well. You can’t sit around and say “well, I should have these rights, but it’s not really ok for that other group to have the same rights”.

    PS – you might want to read one of my other responses….I said recently that I thought Howard Dean was an awful choice to lead the Democratic Party, so I don’t think that constitutes ‘slavish devotion’ to the Democratic party. It’d be nice if you and a couple of other people on this board stop making incorrect statements like that.

    Comment by Kevin — May 25, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - May 25, 2006

  54. 51: right on!

    Comment by Kevin — May 25, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - May 25, 2006

  55. Now this is too funny….right now I’m watching Orrin Hatch, in a live speech on the senate floor, talking about judicial and other nominees. I noticed he’s conveniently inserted “liberal activist groups” and “advocate judges” (even though all he is talking about are nominees he’s supporting). This is a prime example of a great fake political tactic….keep saying the same catch phrase over and over and over again and people will believe you, whether it’s true or not. It’s simple tactics like this that are the reasons why people believe the judiciary is now such a danger to the nation. It’s exactly like using the term “death tax” over and over again: You get people to believe that it affects everyone in the country, even though it only affects estates over $2million. didn’t realize that everyone in the country was a millionaire.

    Comment by Kevin — May 25, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - May 25, 2006

  56. North Dallas Thirty, good sir or madam…

    “‘Pedophiles are persons who are mentally ill

    Oddly enough, the same thing was once said about homosexuality, along with the “only seeking gratification” part.”

    No argument there. Surely you and I know there’s a difference between the two.

    But, unfortunately, marriage law does not stipulate that one need be attracted to, or even have sex with, a person in order to marry them.

    True. I’d have to compare this to the existence of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s). Prior to desegregation James Meredith could have studied law at a Southern University in Louisiana, and technically, the law did not prohibit him from studying, but it did prohibit him from studying in the manner he chose if his preference were to study at Ole Miss. Furthermore, I believe it would have been less than equitable to keep him from that university based on a characteristic he could not choose, regardless of the fact that his tax dollars would have gone to fund Ole Miss. Similarly, I believe that being same-sex oriented is an integral part of who we are that cannot be changed, and the law, and current marriage law does not protect our families the same way the law protects families of heterosexual couples. Doesn’t that mean our 14th Amendment rights are violated based on a lack of “equal protection”, or based on the fact that we are deprived of the right to liberty of our choice of mate without due process (yes, members of the religious right in office have heard us, but have they actually listened)?

    In matters of private conduct, maybe — which I say because the Lawrence decision, in a classic example of legal sloppiness, makes the broad statement you cited, but then spends pages trying to explain why society CAN discriminate so as to exclude pedophiles, etc. However, in all cases, the decision backed away and specifically excluded public acts, such as marriage.

    Is it not private conduct that is the basis for discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Comment by James — May 25, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - May 25, 2006

  57. ## 46 & 47 James

    Thanks. Regarding Christi Himmelfahrtstag, I’ve heard of ascension day, assumption day, consumption day (I’m kidding about the last), but was unaware of which “day” was applied to Christi Himmelfahrtstag.

    Oddly enough, there’s also a Maria Himmelfahrtstag sometime in August. We discovered it some 20 years ago to our chagrin on our first visit here in Germany: all of the stores are closed on those holidays and it’s impossible to buy food. We learned to plan ahead.

    Comment by raj — May 26, 2006 @ 3:29 am - May 26, 2006

  58. #49 North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 1:46 pm – May 25, 2006

    Responding to you is like responding to a brick wall. Do you even read the crap that you write? I doubt it.

    That is because the state is not required to recognize relationships of all individuals. Pedophiles, polygamy practitioners, and people related by blood are prevented from marrying because doing so interferes with traditional family relationships and procreation. The Supreme Court has ruled that all of those are relevant reasons for not doing so.

    Sorry, that’s not true. First, if the state recognizes certain types of relationships, the state is required to recognize other types of relationships unless there is at least a rational basis for the discrimination. You remember don’t you? Standard 14th amendment “equal protection” jurisprudence?

    Second, your silliness regarding pedophiles, polygamists and consanguinity is insane. I’ve explained above the issue regarding marriage between an “of-age” male and an under-aged female, and you had no response. But, let’s get something straight. Pedophiles will try to have sex with under-age partners, whether or not they are married. You continually conflate having sex with marriage–and I’ll have more on that below. Sorry, the right to have sex is not related to the right to marry.

    Third, your silliness regarding “traditional family relationships” is similarly manifest. What are those “traditional family relationships”? The Wholly Babble indicated that one of the Hebrew kings (David?) had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Is that a “traditional family relationship”? Not in the USofA. The sad fact that you and others like you wish to ignore is that “traditional family relationship” has had–and continues to have–many meanings, and, hence, no meaning.

    Fourth, regarding your “procreation” issue, please, give me a break. As far as I know, there is no requirement in any marriage statute that the couple intending to be married have children or intend to have children. (Maybe Matt from Michigan would do an exhaustive study of this, but I have better things to do with my time.) So, my widowed mother-in-law, who has had a hysterectomy (and obviously cannot have more children) would be able to marry a male, even though she cannot “procreate.” Moreover, “of-age” fertile opposite-sex couples who do not intend to have children can get married, even though they do not intend to “procreate.”

    On the other hand, I could “procreate” in a minute, if I wanted to. Not with my spouse–currently, that is–but I could certainly procreate. One would believe that you have never heard of in vitro fertilization. Baby Louise, an IVF baby, was born over 30 years ago. One wonders what rock you have been living under in the meantime.

    Oh, and, by the way, there was an article a couple of years ago on the BBC’s news web site that reported that researchers were predicting that, within a decade or two, two same-sex partners would be able to have children using their own genes. That kind of puts a kabosh on your “procreation” argument.

    Oh, and, I’m sure that you can provide citations to support your assertion that The Supreme Court has ruled that all of those are relevant reasons for not doing so. /sarcasm

    What you don’t seem to understand, Raj, is that people of two different skin colors are in no way precluded from procreating or establishing a traditional family relationship; hence, bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional.

    Obviously, you haven’t read the US SupCt’s opinion in Loving vs. Virginia. If you had read it, you would know that your assertion is clap-trap. More below.

    Furthermore, Raj, every person in this country has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    You must be totally ignorant. This is virtually the same argument that the state of Virginia presented to the US SupCt in Loving vs. Virginia, and that the US SupCt rejected. Substitute “sex” for “race” and it would have been the identical argument.

    In short, if gay marriage were a constitutional right, polygamy, incest, and child marriage would have to be as well.

    Further analysis: if “marriage” (between opposite sex couples) were a constitutional right, then polygamy, incest and child marriage would have to be as well. Actually, marriage is not a constitutional right, something that you apparently wish to ignore. But, on the other hand, if the state wishes to give recognition to certain forms of relationships between opposite sex couples (so-called “marriage”), it also has to give recognition to other forms of relationships, unless there is a rational basis for withholding such recognition.

    So, again, what is your proposed “rational basis” for the state withholding recognition of relationships of same-sex couples? Stop avoiding the question.

    Oh, and, by the way

    The Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

    I’m sure that you can provide a citation. (Findlaw.com has an extensive collection of Supreme Court opinions back to the 1880s, so I’m sure that you can provide us with a citation from there.) I won’t bother holding my breath waiting for a citation.

    Comment by raj — May 26, 2006 @ 3:32 am - May 26, 2006

  59. Raj, nothing odd about Maria Himmelfahrt, particularly in Bayern. That one for us would be the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, always celebrated August 15.

    I was born in the US, but moved to Germany when I was 3 and did not return to the US until I was 18. At age 29, I still feel odd when I see stores open on days considered holidays in Germany, and cannot stand when my partner attempts to mow the lawn on a Sunday in our neighborhood…lol

    Comment by James — May 26, 2006 @ 6:59 am - May 26, 2006

  60. LOL…Raj, your arm-flailing and raving is fun to watch, especially when it drives you into contradictions.

    Your argument points for why gays should be granted marriage:

    1. Family relationships are meaningless

    2. Procreation is irrelevant

    3. You should be able to marry anyone with whom you want to have sex

    Therefore:

    — Since family relationships are meaningless, polygamy should be legalized — since the rational basis against it is family relationships.

    — Since family relationships are meaningless and procreation is irrelevant, incest should be legalized — since the rational basis against it is family relationships and damage to procreation.

    — Since you should be allowed to marry anyone with whom you have sex, pedophilia should be legalized.

    You keep twisting yourself into knots trying to explain why it’s constitutional to deny other people rights because of reasons that you claim are “fallacious” when it comes to trying to strongarm the courts.

    The only way to rectify this, Raj, is to reaffirm a) that the state has the power to regulate unenumerated rights and b) that that power is given to it and managed by the voters. It would be perfectly consistent and legal if voters were to legalize gay rights.

    But of course, you demonstrate in your post why no voter would ever seriously consider giving you rights, what with your numerous insults to their faiths, their education, and their viewpoints and your avowed desire to disenfranchise them and prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - May 26, 2006

  61. so called “liberal” equal rights groups put themselves out there, say “you know what, we’re here and we all have to live and get together.

    Mhm. That’s why you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when homophobes like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Inez Tenenbaum, Howard Dean, and others publicly endorse stripping gays of rights using legislation and constitutional amendments. I suppose the tens of millions of dollars you channeled to them, often away from state groups and efforts FIGHTING these same initiatives, were a cash “thank you” — and your quashing other events like the Equality Ride were really so you could attend these homophobes’ events in person, not just because your Democratic massas were ordering you not to embarrass them in public by flaunting your homo-ness.

    You’re now babbling that “I said Howard Dean was a bad choice”.

    You were saying the exact opposite in 2004. You were giving him money, support, and unqualified endorsements. You were saying that he was always “pro-gay” and would never do anything antigay.

    Really, Kevin, if you want to help our cause, start focusing on gay rights. As long as you use gay rights to defend your support for terrorism and dictators like Saddam Hussein, your demands for unlimited abortion and blocking parental rights, your want to punish corporations and working-class Americans for being more successful than you are, and your irrational hate for Republicans, we’re not going to get anywhere.

    If you really are for conservative ideals, then stand up and be counted; work with others (gasp, liberals) and say, “you know what, we disagree on political ideology, but this is an issue that’s important to each of us as gay people and we should strive for together”.

    Four words: “Practice what you preach”.

    Do you know what that means?

    It means no more calling gay conservatives “self-loathing”, “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, and all the other charming names that you and your fellow leftists like to fling.

    The irony, Kevin, is that gay conservatives like myself and Mary Cheney have been working on numerous things that simply don’t get publicity. Dallas and Fort Worth have nondiscrimination ordinances, gay City Council members, and a lesbian county sheriff precisely because gay conservatives like myself were able to convince Republicans to support them.

    That’s because we, unlike you, don’t go around calling people “pigs”, insinuating that they stole their wealth from others, making snide remarks about their religious beliefs, and saying they’re nothing but Nazis who want to send all gays to concentration camps. Nor do we demand that they support unlimited abortion, corrupt unions, and International ANSWER, and pedophile-protecting groups like the ACLU.

    Learn something from the fact that we were able to get gay rights protections passed in one of the most conservative and religious metropolitan areas in the United States. And, to my dying day, I will be convinced that the reason we were able to do it is because we kept hatemongers like you out of the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - May 26, 2006

  62. Is it not private conduct that is the basis for discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    And pedophiles, and incest practitioners.

    But to be honest, James, if you kept your private conduct truly private, people wouldn’t be able to discriminate against you as a gay person — because they wouldn’t know about it.

    One of the worst things the “gay rights” movement has done, in my opinion, is mixing the message. We beg people to stay out of our private lives because “it’s not relevant”, but loudly clamor for public outings of gay people. We argue that being gay is “more than sex”, but in all of our activities, sex plays the primary role. We argue that gays are diverse, but repeatedly claim that pro-life/conservative/executive/religious/anything non-Democrat makes one “not really gay”.

    In short, James, we claim that our “private conduct” is irrelevant, but then say that that same “private conduct” should determine our public beliefs and actions, such as religious beliefs, political beliefs, career choices, public nudity, and the like. It’s no wonder people don’t think gay sex is “private” — gays have made it clear that gay sex drives everything about a person’s actions and beliefs.

    True. I’d have to compare this to the existence of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s).

    People like to liken discrimination against gays to the black civil rights movement. However, I think a more-apt comparison is to the gradual movement to de-stigmatize divorce and redefine adultery. Remember that two generations ago, both were grounds for denying numerous rights, benefits, and privileges; now, while they are still considered to be less than desirable by the public at large, they’re not considered particularly relevant grounds for discrimination. That is less because the courts ordered it than it is the simple fact that now, everyone knows, or is themselves, someone who is divorced or has had extramarital sex.

    Compare that to the black civil rights movement, which happened in about the same space and time. Are there still issues with segregation and racism in American society? Are people of color still discriminated against?

    What people don’t realize, I think, is that what kept the black civil rights movement going is that, by that time, so many states had already eliminated or pared back their Jim Crow laws — or never had them in the first place (as this map shows). The various decisions that the courts handed down were vehemently opposed by segregationists — but they could not garner sufficient public support to change fundamental law. Most people were simply past it by that point, or didn’t think it was necessary to monkey with laws to manage it — in large part because MLK presented the facts, not in a condescending or arrogant manner, not in a way that mocked peoples’ faiths or lives, but in a way to which they could relate.

    Gay rights are different. There is sufficient public support to change fundamental law. There is a demonstrated effect of fundamental law being changed in response to court decisions. Furthermore, the people that are in charge of gay rights organizations are like Kevin and Raj — contemptuous of voters, making slurs against their faith and education, making wild charges that they are “Nazis” who want to send gays to concentration camps, and criticizing conservative gays as “kapos” and “Jewish Nazis”.

    In short, we don’t need court decisions. We need Americans to see that gays are like they are and that gays respect their rights and opinions. As one of my mentors always put it, “Fight for integration, not desegregation. The latter changes only laws; the former changes the hearts that make the laws.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - May 26, 2006

  63. Pedophiles are persons who are mentally ill

    Pardon my language, but this is complete horseshit. Pedophiles are criminals, just as murderers are criminals. Criminals. Mentally ill, my ass. And even if they were mentally ill, that only means they should be locked up for life.

    Comment by rightwingprof — May 26, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - May 26, 2006

  64. One of the worst things the “gay rights” movement has done, in my opinion, is mixing the message. We beg people to stay out of our private lives because “it’s not relevant”, but loudly clamor for public outings of gay people. We argue that being gay is “more than sex”, but in all of our activities, sex plays the primary role. We argue that gays are diverse, but repeatedly claim that pro-life/conservative/executive/religious/anything non-Democrat makes one “not really gay”.

    I believe the concern with people discriminating against us based on our “private conduct” is that, at least in my experience lobbying against anti-gay legislation at the state level in a way that would surprise some of my most staunchly Republican friends, the people who support such legislation seem to be fixated on our sex lives. Now, to be fair, maybe Pride and our clubs feed such stereotypes. But, it would seem the clubs that sell sex are the clubs frequented by gay men. Honestly, how many straight single guys go to clubs just to dance? (I firmly believe there exists a double-standard based on previously held prejudices.) As for the other, and I say this as a person attacked for remaining a Roman Catholic, it is difficult for many gay Democrats to comprehend belonging to the GOP. Yes plenty of Democrats oppose gay marriage, and have stated that opposition for political advantage. From our corner, we do feel more included in the discussion. Gay Democrats who would demonize gay conservatives just don’t understand that members of both camps see the world differently, and most likely don’t have a good idea of what is going on behind the scenes of the GOP with regard to gay conservatives’ interaction with fellow GOPers who are heterosexual.

    Many proponents of anti-gay legislation I’ve been exposed lack exposure to the many domestic gay and lesbian couples out there. As a Democrat, I’ll fully acknowledge that outing campaigns are wrong, and that they exploit the prejudiced fixation on our sex lives to somehow shame people to become more vocal for our cause. While I don’t agree with that, surely if a gay staffer for an anti-gay politician came out and did not lose his or her job, the politician would be in more of a position to get to know gays and lesbians as more than people who have sex with each other. People of the same gender can have sex with each other, but that doesn’t mean that those to people are innately and primarily attracted to the same sex. The tough thing is for proponents of outing to realize that some people are unwilling to sacrifice career or relationships with family and friends to come out; opponents have to do what they can to make it safer for gay and lesbian Americans to come out without fear. It’s a shame that some of us feel compelled to choose the job we love (whether we need it or not) over the life we wish we could live, if such people did wish they could live life without playing the pronoun game.

    People like to liken discrimination against gays to the black civil rights movement. However, I think a more-apt comparison is to the gradual movement to de-stigmatize divorce and redefine adultery.

    An interesting editorial in Southern Voice has caused me to rethink things. The writer believes gay rights are more appropriately compared to women’s rights. As an African American, I see many similarities between the way gays and lesbians are treated now, and how blacks were treated then. I equate being closeted to maintain employment to a fair skinned black person’s “passing”; I equate failure to allow gays to marry to anti-miscegenation laws; I compare physical gay bashers to the KKK. The writer of the article believes prejudice against gays to be an extension of sexism. Jennings wrote, “After all, homophobia is an extension of sexism. The ban on male-male sex is to prevent a man from “subjugating” another man like he would a woman.
    Lesbians are threatening because they don’t allow men to sexually subjugate them, or else lesbian sexuality is disregarded as a non-sexuality because it doesn’t involve men.” Good stuff.

    Compare that to the black civil rights movement, which happened in about the same space and time. Are there still issues with segregation and racism in American society? Are people of color still discriminated against?

    Racism does still exist; I believe Condeleeza Rice referred to it as the racism of low expectations. Ex. 1. After speaking with a recruiter regarding a position with a German firm that required someone fluent in German, I met the recruiter at the company to interview. The look of surprise on his face was noticeable when he first saw me. Ex. 2-My sister’s third grade teacher was white, from the south, and stated she thought then Gen. Colin Powell would make an excellent Vice President. Did he lack the amount of leadership necessary to be President?

    I think prejudice is more based on ignorance than on fact. When it comes to prejudice against gays and lesbians, the language many social conservatives have used reminds me of stories my own parents have recounted about being black in the days of Jim Crow.

    Speaking of which, the map was very informative. However, I don’t believe you accounted for the black:white ratio in the states that lacked Jim Crow laws versus the black:white ratio in states that had them. The catagories in the did a good job of illustrating the degree of segregation. I’m not sure

    Comment by James — May 26, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - May 26, 2006

  65. Speaking of which, the map was very informative. However, I don’t believe you accounted for the black:white ratio in the states that lacked Jim Crow laws versus the black:white ratio in states that had them.

    On the map heading, click on the “Population and Migration” section.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - May 26, 2006

  66. #60 North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 12:22 pm – May 26, 2006

    #61 North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2006 @ 12:45 pm – May 26, 2006

    Still no suggestion as to a rational basis for the state discriminating against recognizing relationships of couples of the same sex (so-called “gay marriage”) as against couples of opposite sex (so-called “marriage”). No surprise.

    You really are pathetic.

    BTW, and in regards your “family relations” idiocy, my dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which I bought in 1967 as I was going off to college, defined “family” as being “all of the people living within the same house. My partner and I have been living within the “same house” (the houses have changed, but, regardless, the same house) since 1979. It appears that it is you and others like you who are trying to change the definition of “family.”

    You’re not worth bothering with. You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    Comment by raj — May 27, 2006 @ 3:26 am - May 27, 2006

  67. Thank you for pointing that out, NDT. Now, please explain how the demographics demonstrate a paring back of those laws, and the the inability to garner sufficient public support. Mississippi finished its last legal challenge to desegregation in 1980, and Alabama didn’t bring up the prospect of officially striking Jim Crow language from its books until 2003.

    I think outside of the states there was not enough public support, and the televised attacks on protestors in Alabama, as well as news of the murders of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman in MS. Within those states, the presence of White Citizens Councils and the number of private schools that sprang up at the time the courts ordered the immediate desegregation of schools might disagree with that.

    Perhaps you can explain a possible misconception/piece of misinformation Democrats might have about the GOP. It was always my observation that the GOP rose to power in the South because Democrats were proponents of desegregation, and that the GOP, advocating states’ rights, and because Southern Dems felt the courts violated those state rights with regard to Brown vs. The Board of Education, was able to welcome “Dixiecrats” into its fold. The descendants of those individuals are still alive, and attitudes with which one was raised do not die easily (the parent who says she is color-blind, but who has to remind herself it is okay that her white daughter dating a black man, for example). All suppositions, yes, but I would be interested in the view from the other side.

    To tie that into the gay rights debate, I think Democrats are fearful that gay rights opponents within the GOP use “I’m not, but…” statements when it comes to gay marriage or non-discrimination. “I believe that homosexuals should be treated with respect, but I believe we must protect marriage as being defined as one man and one woman.” No, the US Constitution does not specifically list gay rights protections, and yes, the Supreme Court has held that there can be limits on recognizing marriage. It still appears the Constitution allows equal protections for gays as individuals (except, of course when it comes to employment from a federal point of view), but not for gays in long-term committed relationships as it does for straight people who are married.

    Comment by James — May 27, 2006 @ 5:37 am - May 27, 2006

  68. #19. Should we even write the posts for him, since they seem to have the same repetitive pattern?

    Comment by jimmy — May 28, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - May 28, 2006

  69. Still no suggestion as to a rational basis for the state discriminating against recognizing relationships of couples of the same sex (so-called “gay marriage”) as against couples of opposite sex (so-called “marriage”).

    Read it again.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2006 @ 12:50 am - May 29, 2006

  70. Now, please explain how the demographics demonstrate a paring back of those laws, and the the inability to garner sufficient public support.

    Where are the Federal and state constitutional amendments requiring segregation?

    It was always my observation that the GOP rose to power in the South because Democrats were proponents of desegregation, and that the GOP, advocating states’ rights, and because Southern Dems felt the courts violated those state rights with regard to Brown vs. The Board of Education, was able to welcome “Dixiecrats” into its fold.

    Actually, it has less to do with that than simply the fact that the Democrats moved farther left towards socialism, increased Federal control, higher taxes, public hostility towards religion, and numerous other examples– all of which was anathema to the majority of the South.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2006 @ 12:55 am - May 29, 2006

  71. #68 Kevin — May 28, 2006 @ 2:11 am – May 28, 2006

    You continually have an incredible knack for putting words in others people’s mouths, twisting what they say and continually harping on single points.

    Kevin, it’s called the “straw man” method of arguing. The responder, who is either unable or unwilling to respond to an argument in toto–but who apparently purports to be responding to the argument in toto–sets up a “straw man” proposition that he wants to responds to. The “straw man” may, but oftentimes does not, have anything to do with the original proposition that he is purporting to respond to. It is the setting up of the “straw man” that you are referring to as “twisting.”

    The commenter to whom you are referring, “North Dallas Thirty,” also has an incredible knack for avoiding responding to questions to which he obviously has no response. Like my question to him regarding his proposed “rational basis” for the state not recognizing relationships of same sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite sex couples (so-called “marriage”). No response, never. And that is referred to as “avoiding the question.” Eventually, given enough avoidance time, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the person to whom the question is presented simply has no response.

    Comment by raj — May 29, 2006 @ 2:02 am - May 29, 2006

  72. #69 North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2006 @ 12:50 am – May 29, 2006

    Each of the points in the comment that you linked to has been dissected and dismissed as being irrelevant or not a rational basis for the discrimination. Try again.

    Comment by raj — May 29, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - May 29, 2006

  73. #71. Don’t you know that the Dallas guy is the most brilliant thinker on the web today? Get with his program already and remove the Liberal Leftie Fascist Commie America-hating Terrorist-loving Imported Beer Jetta Driving blinders from your eyes!! We just have to recognize that faggots deserve to be second class citizens. We have to learn to love the 10 Republican America-Loving senators that voted the MPA/FMA forward–because they love us compassionately–and hate the 8 Democrat America-hating senators who voted against it out of their anti-gay hatred and plans to resurrect Lenin and Stalin for the MoveOn-YearlyKos Egg Toss that is coming up. Follow the Dallas man…he’s deep and wise.

    Comment by jimmy — May 30, 2006 @ 12:45 am - May 30, 2006

  74. Each of the points in the comment that you linked to has been dissected and dismissed as being irrelevant or not a rational basis for the discrimination. Try again.

    Obviously you didn’t read the post in question.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 30, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - May 30, 2006

  75. I’m a gay senior citizen and former President of LCR Oregon. For well over half a century, through thick and thin, I have supported the party and most of its candidates. I no longer do so. As I see it the Republican party under the leadership of the “compassionate conservative” in the White House, together with the spineless wimps in the Senate and House, are Hell bent on destroying the party. Spend, spend and spend more! Run up the national debt for future generations to pay. Trash the decades of often successful foreign relations. Spy on everyone!
    The party will suffer greatly in the polls this fall and likely lose the House and very possibly the Senate as well. If the party and LCR are to mean anything in the future there must be some serious questions asked. Why be a Republican? Is there really ANY difference between the two parties at this time? If the party is to mean anything in the future it must return to its philisophical roots. Now more than ever it is time to reflect on the words and deeds of those great Republicans like Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Regan and those honorary republicans; Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. This is how we can once again raise our heads and say “We are Republicans, we are the party of greatness!”

    Comment by Clem Knorr — June 12, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - June 12, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.