While many gay activists accuse Republicans of being anti-gay, some leading Republicans, including my great Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sign pro-gay legislation and reach out to gay citizens. As Mayor of New York, my man for ’08, Rudy Giuliani signed a domestic partnership policy into law — one of the first in the nation. While other Republican leaders do not live up to the examples of these two fine leaders, some are often doing good in smaller ways.
Such was the case yesterday when Maryland’s Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich fired Robert J. Smith “his state’s representative on the board of directors of the D.C. area Metro subway and bus system” when he learned that Smith had “referred to gay men and lesbians as ‘sexual deviants.’” In a statement, Ehrlich said:
Robert Smith’s comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. . . . They are in direct conflict to my administration’s commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity.
Ehrlich fired Smith fewer than four hours after openly-gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who also serves on the Metro Board, “demanded Smith’s resignation.” Later, Graham said that, “Governor Ehrlich got it. . . . He recognized the seriousness of this situation.“
Kudos, Governor Ehrlich. Let’s hope that, like Jim Graham, other Democrats acknowledge this Republican’s swift response to a mean-spiritied remark.
(H/t: Washington Blade)
So…over a week has passed and there has been no post about the President’s press conference calling for an anti-marriage amendment to our Constitution, or on the Howard administration’s overturning of legally-passed civil unions legislation in the Australian Capital Territory (I mention that because GP and GPW have had numerous posts that praise Howard).
How can we correctly criticize Democrats when we don’t critize Republicans. Sometimes reading this blog, I feel we’re just a bunch of foks who point out the specs in the eyes of the other party while ignoring the plank protruding from our own eye.
Lets have some integrity. And Governor Schwarzenegger will get my praise when he doesn’t veto legislation granting marriage equality to Californians.
Sorry, I’m just a little miffed right now.
Jeremy, the simple answer is the time issue. We can’t cover everything which affects the gay community, but so focus on those issues the gay press ignores.
We do criticize Republicans, but what other gay blogs praise them?
As to the Governor and the marriage bill, he did the right thing. Had he signed that, the social conservatives would have succeeded in getting a referendum on the ballot banning gay marriage (and perhaps also domestic partnerships) altogether. And he did sign 5 pro-gay bills.
“He did the right thing.” So did George Wallace. That’s just bullsh*t.
Dan, come on. Jeremy will give credit to GOPers when they stand up to repudiate the Party, confess that their past sins of intolerance were directed by Karl Rove, admit that Democrats and the GayLeft have all THE answers on issues of morality, equality and social progress… and then kill themselves after jumping into their self-dug grave (not a metaphor, the real thing –finished, not coming back, fill it in boys).
Thanks for pointing out what GOP Gov Ehrlich did, Dan. Unlike the Democrat Party LEADER HowieDean, at least Ehrlich didn’t fire someone ’cause their spouse was passionate in advocating gay issues.
Good to hear.
I’m a Republican. Its just sometimes I have a spine. And good for Ehrlich.
#1 – Jeremy, I’m mystified as to why you are using “we”, as in “How can WE correctly criticize Democrats on this blog when WE don’t critize Republicans…”
In addition to the obvious fallacy already pointed out (that the GP blog authors and frequent commentors do criticize Republicans)… I believe your past comments that I can recall have used a “you guys” tone. So it is jarring (not to call it other things) to see you suddenly place yourself into “we”.
#6 – There, that’s more like it. You imply that others, perhaps especially Bruce and Dan (the blog authors), unlike you, do not have spines. That’s more like the non-“we”, critical and catty Jeremy I remember.
(P.S. Full disclosure – please note I am NOT part of “we” either. I was a 20 year Democrat, have never been a Republican, and am now Independent. I hang out on GP because I simply cannot get over the twisted insanity that passes for rational discourse among gays and Democrats nowadays.)
Frankly I think the Governor did the wrong thing. Did Robert J. Smith every actually discriminate against gays and lesbians or did he just talk mean about them? I could see reprimanding him maybe for representing his own views instead of the Governors, but I don’t think he should have been fired.
Sound way too politically correct for me.
Gramps, I hope that’s sincere… but it sort of sounds like damned if the Gov expects appointees to be tolerant, damned though if he forces a bigot to resign.
Sometimes, in government and politics, talking “mean” as you put it is just as bad for the body politic and civil discourse as doing it… kind of like those here who often condone the anti-patriotic talk of GayLeft types while hiding behind the 1st Amendment.
Talk isn’t always cheap. I’m glad this GOP Governor proved the point.
On the one hand, I’m glad to see that Ehrlich finds such views so reprehensible. On the other, I don’t think it’s right to fire someone for their personal views unless they let those views interfere with their job.
It’s a simple matter of fact that there are many people who object to homosexuality – it is, after all, considered abhorent in so many religions – and creating reprocussions for someone who holds that opinion (but doesn’t act on it) is simply wrong. It is, of course, Ehrlichs administration and he may run it as he sees fit, but it smacks a bit of CRIMETHINK to me.
Well, my only hope is that he was also terrible at his job. WMATA is so deeply hosed that it can’t afford to lose good administrators.
Jeremy a Republican??? Oh for cryin out loud I’ve heard everything now… next it’ll be Ian S contending he’s a Rhodes Scholar and climatologist of world reknown.
Jeremy a Republican? That takes the cake.
I don’t think it was a firing offense in theory but had he said something like that towards another group the same would have happened and I guess we can take some comfort in hysterical firings being applied equally.
“Kudos, Governor Ehrlich. Let’s hope that, like Jim Graham, other Democrats acknowledge this Republican’s swift response to a mean-spiritied remark.”
At this point I am not expecting any Democrats acknowleding what Governer Ehrlich did. I”m just glad he did the right thing.
“Graham, who is gay, also serves on the Metro board and informed board members during a June 15 meeting that Smith used the term “sexual deviants” (Washington Blade)
One does not have freedom of speech in the work place, Mr. Smith is welcome to share those views with his friends off the job. But on the job he should be keeping those opinions to himself. I’m glad Governer Erlich is not allowing meanspirited, hate speech to take place during work meetings on the job. Maybe if Graham had overheard the comment between co-workers during lunch hour I would feel differently, but this was definately during a work meeting.
I thought the official Gay Patriot line was that you shouldn’t be able to fire someone for personally held opinions. Or is it just ok when a Republican Governor does it? 🙂
I’ve been thinking over and over again about what my view on this is. I’ve ended up more or less where Andrew Sullivan is. While it is true that Ehrlich had the legal right to fire a political appointee and Smith’s free speech rights were not infringed, the firing is in itself an act of gross civil intolerance at a time when the ongoing public argument over homosexuality continues.
There is also the not inconsequential consideration that the future viability of our governments may in part depend on the willingness of people with the views of Jim Grahams and Robert Smith respectively to work together on the common good despite their differences. If Shiite and Sunnis are trying to set aside their murderous differences and work together for the common good of the nation of Iraq, I certainly think Jim Graham ought to be able to work with Robert Smith without issuing childish ultimatums and threats.
If Smith was calling Graham a deviant during the course of Metro business, then I would support Graham and Ehrlich’s stance because clearly Smith himself was refusing to work with Graham for the common good of the DC region’s transporation network. That, however, does not appear to be the case.
A simple test for Jeremey, Patrick, Michael, et al. What is the correct reaction to these statements.
1.”It’s one simple comment that acting Black, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.
2. “It’s one simple comment that Islamic behavior, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.
3. “It’s one simple comment that Hebrew behavior, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.
4. “It’s one simple comment that cripples, in my view, are deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.
Simple free or irresponsible speech in the workplace?
My understanding is that when Smith made the remark on the Cable Access show, he did so in his official capacity as a member of the Metro Board. And that colors my opinion on this one.
GPW: Ahhh. I didn’t know that.
GPW, the Washington Post story says that Smith appeared as a “Republican activist” and is a regular on the show – which sounds like a local McLaughlin Group style political discussion. Since homosexuality is a live political/social issue, I should expect him to weigh in on the subject even if his point-of-view offends some.
I stand by my earlier position.
It seems a lot of people need to buy a dictionary and look up “deviant.”
In the Blade article, Smith said that his comments on the television program “had no relevance to his work on the Metro board.” As the medium was a public forum — and he a public official — in my view, that’s making a public statement. That said, had he made the comment at a private dinner party, I might have a different view of the subject.
It is entirely possible that he could harbor private feelings of animosity toward gay people, yet work well with them in his official capacities.
To be sure, he has a right to his own opinions, but I’m not comfortable with the notion of having anybody with such views in public office. Of course, that would mean firing a lot of Democratic appointees who have expressed narrow views of people of faith. But, you guys are right to rise the issue of an official’s ability to separate his narrow private views from his officials duties.
Oh, and, by and large, this has been a great discussion! Keep up the civil comments!
Check out the AFA’s response to what Gov. Ehrlich did:
http://www.afa.net/marylandgov.asp
Its amazing how one can put spin on just about everything.
Hmmm…
So what you are telling us is that you support a religious test for holding public office, right?
Sounds like it, doesn’t it?
#24 GayPatriotWest — June 17, 2006 @ 2:23 pm – June 17, 2006
In the Blade article, Smith said that his comments on the television program “had no relevance to his work on the Metro board.” As the medium was a public forum — and he a public official — in my view, that’s making a public statement.
From what I have read elsewhere–I don’t recall exactly where–not only was he making a public statement (it should be clear that the statement was public), but he was also appearing on the television program either as a representative of the Metro board, or he allowed himself to be announced as being on the Metro board. He was not on the program as just some John Q. Citizen that the program dragged off the street to appear. Accordingly, if the MD governor believed that his statement on the TV program might have resulted in disrepute of his state’s representation on the board, he was probably well within his rights to remove him from his state’s representation on board.
That said, had he made the comment at a private dinner party, I might have a different view of the subject.
Agreed.
BTW, this is being discussed at volokh.com, and Gene has an interesting take on the “free exercise” clause. From what I gather, he suggests that that clause may actually require some equal rights for gay people. I believe that he’s grasping at straws, since I have noted the he is relatively anti-equal-rights-for-gay-people, but his discussion makes an interesting read.
Recently I had to tolerate some nasty ‘comic relief’ from my gay friend whom I had taken to a memorial fundraiser for a statue for a fallen soldier. I paid for his ticket and at the dinner he appeared to have a lovely time. About a month later during a small dinner party I had, he began the nasty ridicule of the mother of the fallen soldier, her name and how sexually uptight was the crowd at the dinner. None at the dinner cared whether my friend was gay, probably didn’t even notice him as there was something more important going on yet all he could do was to ridicule and humiliate people based on his warped perception of ‘those people.’ At my dinner party, after he made all those nasty jokes I ask him a simple rational question, ‘what does same-sex union between a man and a women mean?’ He response to me was “you’re a homophobe.”
My gay friend’s attitude is so common among the collective group think who feel perfectly entitled to mock, ridicule and use others misery as comic relief for his own miserable life.
I am done with being a fag hag and want nothing ever to do again with gays, their agenda, and their irrational emotionalism.
I agree with Camile Paglia as I too have look in the eyes of gay activists and all I see today is vicious fascism.
I am done with gayism and after a decades of supporting his cause that gay guy is no longer my firend
Bzzzt. Sorry but I’m going to have to disagree with GPW on this one. Gov. Erlich definitely shouldn’t have fired the guy. So he thinks gays are deviants? Big deal! We are deviants! He didn’t say he had a gun and will be blowing off all the gays’ heads. We all need to grow a thicker skin.
“I am done with gayism and after a decades of supporting his cause that gay guy is no longer my firend” ~syn
Hi! I’d like to thank you for clumping all “gayism” into one, large group based off of your personal experiences with a few individuals. The next time I lose my sense of reason and clump all religiosity into a broad, unflattering generalization, I’ll think of you and feel better about how such stunning irrationality is so common place and acceptable.
You are a service to whatever view it is you represent.
That aside, GPW brings up some excellent points for Ehrlich. Since Smith was a part of his administration, technically any public speech he makes will reflect on that administration, and that’s simply the cost of being in public life. It is, however, still counterproductive to me. I wince a bit when I find myself in agreement with the AFA (flamey rhetoric and pointless boldface aside), but if the cause for gay equality is strong (and I believe that rationally it is), then it can withstand a dissenting and personal opinion. Given that it is exactly those types of personal feelings that are the highest hurdle we have to overcome, firing someone for simply having them is not going to win gays any favor with the – sadly – numerous people who feel the same way.
A take in the DC Examiner
Mildly representative of my view on why this decision from Ehrlich was wrong, reflected poorly on him and his administration, and will likely reflect poorly on the gay community. Just take out the slippery slope arguments and it represents my opinion to the letter.
And just to drive my point home – this goes to you, Syn sans my snarkiness – we should be clear that this is not a strike for gay rights, but a strike against freedom of thought and expression.
Jared, I’m glad you’re right in there carrying water for the GayLeft… I think what’s really in focus from the comments here and elsewhere is that the GayLeft is so begrudging of anyone not from their “clique” doing something mildly pro-gay (and being given credit for it) is cause for alarm. God forbid it might have been done by GOPer!!
Bring out the whips. Bring out the stocks. Someone is diminishing our monoply as the collective voice for gays.
I understand syn’s take on all this… and, I too, have looked into a lot of eyes of GayLeft activists and see only fanatical devotion to keeping a monopoly on being “the voice of gays”.
It may be fascism in its earliest stage.
Or it may just too much time spent at Democrat Party HdQrts licking stamps.
Or it may be evidence of their appreciation they no longer matter on the political landscape and are ranting louder, longer, more often to get some attention (raj, Gramps, Ian S and others here come to mind).
In a way, they’re just following after the lessons of leaders like John Conyers… remember all his stunts to bring some attention —Hell, any attention– to the Downing St Memo? It was high comedy at times.
When that collective voice is discredited, we’ll finally gain progress on the gay agenda. Right now, most of America doesn’t care about our issues –and they have good reason.
“Jared, I’m glad you’re right in there carrying water for the GayLeft…”
Wow… Unless I’ve misunderstood you, I don’t see how you’ve come to that conclusion.
Here’s what I’m saying… I will try to be as clear as possible.
GPW, in his original post, brought up excellent points on how Republican leaders – like Schwarzenegger, and Giuliani – are doing things for gays. Outreach and legislation that ultimately support equality for gays are examples of positive representation while trying to hold true to the rest of their constituency. It’s a delicate balancing act and should rightly be commended. Ehrlich removed someone because of their personal conviction that – near as we can tell – did NOT impact his job performance. Ultimately, it has no positive affect on the gay community beyond some handclapping from the actual PC Left.
Imagine applying this same reasoning that fell on Smith to yourself. What if my boss found my blog? What if he disagreed with the statements I make – irrelevant to my job and in no way claiming to represent my company – and fired me over them? I concede (here, again>, and in a previous post) the difference between public and private sector, but conservative thought should confront dissent, not squelch or deny it. Ehrlich should support his politics thru debate and legislation, not by exercising his authority against those that disagree with him.
As for the off remark I made to syn, I simply abhore stereotype. I took personal offense and responded in a personal way. I’ll try to reign that in.