When you merely mention the words “homosexual” or “gay” in front of certain social conservatives, they get whipped up into a frenzy and start warning of a parade of horribles, sometimes including the end of Western civilization. Similarly, when you mention the word, “Republican” or the name of the current President of the United States (and/or his top advisors) to some on the left, they also get whipped up into a frenzy.
Sometimes you don’t even need mention the word Republican (or GOP) to get these Bush-haters to start leveling all kinds of accusations against our party, particularly its gay members. Yesterday, I decided to followup on the hope I have expressed previously on this blog (e.g,. here) to promote a serious discussion of gay marriage by posting on some of the important issues in the debate. To that end, I put together a post on a topic I have been thinking of for some time, the failure of advocates and opponents of gay marriage to discuss two of the most important aspects of the institution — monogamy and divorce.
While most of those commenting took the time to address the seriousness of the issues I raised, a few of our perennial critics used the comment space we offer as just another excuse to bash Republicans, particularly gay Republicans. So burning has their hatred of Republicans become that if a Republican, particularly a gay one, expresses his concerns on an important social issue, they will focus on the writer’s partisan affiliation instead of his ideas, even when the writer faults those on both sides of the debate and even when he does not bring his political views into the discussion, seeing that this is a point which transcends politics.
A gay Republican tries to better define himself by putting forward his ideas and they won’t let those ideas get in the way of their negative perception of all things Republican.
In this way, they have become like the narrow-minded Dr. Dobson who basically dismisses any arguments made by gay writers and activists on gay issues. Like him, they’re not interested in a discussion of the issues which so obsess them. Already “knowing” the answers, they refuse to left facts, sound arguments and ideas get in the way of their opinions.
It’s too bad that some people judge a man, not by the quality of his arguments — or the content of his character, but merely by his political affiliation — or his sexual orientation.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
I remember bracing myself for confrontations every time I staffed a table for my college gay group on campus. Occasionally we would get challenges, but for the most part it was disappointing and what challenges we did get were mostly people who would just come up and discuss in a reasonably calm manner.
Fast forward several years later. I already considered myself a Republitarian (libertarian philosophically, Republican in practicality and by registration). I decided to meet some like minds so I joined Log Cabin. I staffed the LCR table at Pride. Oh… my… God… I was simply not prepared for the overt hatred people would show us — spitting, hitting the table, ripping down signs, shouting that they shouldn’t have allowed us to be there. I had never felt physically unsafe staffing a gay table on my school campus but as the crowd dwindled down at Pride in the evening and I was there either by myself or with one other person, there were times when I feared for my safety as some steroided freak would become physically threatening. It was truly a moment of awakening for me. I still hate that they managed to turn the word “liberal” into something that dredges up such unpleasant images for me and I no longer want anything to do with that word.
To this day, I feel much more at ease at a Republican convention than in a crowd of liberal gay people. I know full well that there are people there who have issues with gay people and they’d rather I not be there, but I can have a calm discussion with them rather than them flying into a rage.
Oh, but back to your topic, Dan. They aren’t interested in a meaningful discussion about a political topic beyond the extent to which they can use it to score points against the Replubican party. Explain why you like blueberry muffins more than bran muffins and they will find a way to relate that to how Republicans are evil. They have no interest in debating your ideas. They are interested in attacking who you are. One way or another, everything will go back to that.
Like all too many issues, determining the just application of social benefits to same-sex couples is not allowed to be a reasonable, analysis-of-alternatives-driven debate, but is instead, on both sides, just an opportunity for posturing, moral vanity, and unfettered emotionalism. Case in point: Andrew Sullivan, who has gone completely nanners over it.
Actually I think that given what is usually the case in the Blogosphere, you got a pretty good discussion on that other post…..
It could have been much worse…..
how can any gay person take seriously the gop agenda and the way this administration has handled itself?
the fact is, the gop has written in its platform the very idea to keep gay people from having the same rights as others. it’s not a wishy-washy clause buried deep in fine print. it says it loudly and boldly that the right of marriage is only for straight people. while, obviously, some gay people have CHOSEN to stay in the gop, others, like myself said enough of the hypocrisy and have fled to the other side.
as far as this administration, imho, they deserve the vitriol. they completely abandoned the gop fiscal conservatism and mortgaged the next generation’s future in exchange for lining their pockets. bush ran as a ‘compassionate conservative’ and, by judging from recent polls, more people than naught now know who and what he is and don’t like him or his performance. He ran as a “uniter, not a divider” yet this country’s more politcally divided since Vietnam. the hypocrisy is so thick on many issues and many levels.
the reason it’s become so heated, is simply, due to the real and/or perceived ineptness of this crew. from the war in iraq to the katrina response, to so many other major issues, the administration’s performance demands scrutiny by all. unfortunately it seems the gop has its head elsewhere and refuses to even acknowledge the major problems spurred by bushco.
perhaps there would be more civility if the people on the right in this forum act more like chuck hagel and arlen specter (who both have openly questioned some of this adminstration’s decisions) than jeff sessions and rick santorum (who both have their noses far up george’s cornhole).
just one more example of my point above. naturally, it starts at the top
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/12/president-always-right/
who both have their noses far up george’s cornhole
Ah, yes, the language of civility.
As per the above comment, I don’t believe either side has an exlusive claim to the language of civility.
My partner and I have been monogamous for the past 30 years. We would be married if we could be. We can’t. It is doubtful that we will be able to marry in our lifetimes.
We own a home and a business together. We have a lawyer who has drawn up what we hope will be all the legal papers we’ll ever need… powers of attorney, living wills, etc. Heaven only knows what will happen when one of us inevitably passes. We both hope there will be minimal problems for the survivor, but there is really no way we can be sure of that.
We wish we could have the security and legal protection that our heterosexual friends enjoy, but that appears highly unlikely.
We wish people could see this for the civil rights issue it is. We’re not looking for special rights; just equal rights.
Len makes a lot of sense.
My sister and her partner have been together for 30 years but live in a state where the state refuses to recognize marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and all other same sex relationships. They have spent a small fortune with attorneys to draw up all the agreements they hope will protect them. But some of those protections look mighty flimsy as my sister battles cancer and moves through more and more health care situations and her partner finds herself increasingly having to assert her authority. If their relationship had the protections marriage does my sister’s life-oartner would not have to stomp her feet and scream bloody murder to get doctors to at least share with her the reasons for certain treatments and medications. The last time my sister had surgery her partner accidentally left the power of attorney document at the motel and had to retrieve it before the hospital would recognize her right to be with my sister. No married couple would be treated that way.
it says it loudly and boldly that the right of marriage is only for straight people. while, obviously, some gay people have CHOSEN to stay in the gop, others, like myself said enough of the hypocrisy and have fled to the other side.
Of course, right into the waiting arms of Howard Dean, who said, and I quote:
“The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and a woman,”
Or, if you don’t like that, here’s the official word from your last two candidates:
The next day, Aug. 5, Sen. John Edwards said during a stop in the state that the Democratic presidential ticket had no objection to the Missouri vote.
“We’re both opposed to gay marriage and believe that states should be allowed to decide this question,” Edwards told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
But of course, Democratic puppets like you call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and pump tens of millions of dollars towards it.
Who’s the hypocrite?
Howard Dean was mistaken, and confessed to his mistake either the same day or the next. The 2004 Democratic Party platform says no such thing.
The 2004 Republican Party platform, however, does.
It is difficult, as you pointed out, to determine which party holds the patent on hypocrisy.
Perhaps there will come a day when this ceases to be a political issue and becomes a human issue.
It is quite amusing to read argument after argument and the call for spirited debate when all that is implicitly wanted is bobble-headded agreement. It all boils down to human nature that when people take unpopular positions on issues that impact other peroples lives, do not, as it seems to be here, be surprised when people do not like YOU because of your opinions.
Love the sinner, hate the sin is duplicitious crap.
I was simply not prepared for the overt hatred people would show us — spitting, hitting the table, ripping down signs, shouting that they shouldn’t have allowed us to be there.
You call that a “community”? You call that celebrating diversity?
That’s the sort of thing I mean when I say that there’s no such thing as a gay community.
#6
#6
the fact is, the gop has written in its platform the very idea to keep gay people from having the same rights as others. it’s not a wishy-washy clause buried deep in fine print. it says it loudly and boldly that the right of marriage is only for straight people. while, obviously, some gay people have CHOSEN to stay in the gop, others, like myself said enough of the hypocrisy and have fled to the other side.
The way I see it, at least it’s written. Whereas Democrats NEVER have the guts to tell people what they really believe. Sure they’ll suck your cock and tell you how much they love you, but they’ll stab you in the back as soon as it suits them. What’s worse, you damn well know it’s true.
Further, I seriously doubt you “fled to the other side”.
He ran as a “uniter, not a divider” yet this country’s more politcally divided since Vietnam
He’s did quite a bit to make the libs happy early on. He let Teddy write NCLB, he didn’t (and still hasn’t) fired all the Clintonistas, didn’t presecute the Clintonistas for ransacking the WH, appointed libs to various positions etc. etc. etc. And what did he get? SHIT ON.
Can you please provide examples where libs have fallen over themselves to be united? Of course not. The liberals have done every damn thing they can to divide the country starting with the 2000 election. There isn’t ONE damn thing libs have done.
I dare you to prove me wrong.
BTW, the fake “unity” after 9/11 doesn’t count.
Oh yeah,
unfortunately it seems the gop has its head elsewhere
It’s called reality. Join us, won’t you? You’ll be much happier.
Don’t think we didn’t notice your obligatory Vietnam reference either, gloid.
Straight white conservative male jumping in here to, of all things, defend Andrew Sullivan.
Before Andrew went insane — and I don’t know what else to call it — I was one of his regular readers, and even donated $100 to his site. And I have to tell you: Andrew-the-sane made some of the most cogent, rational, logical arguments for gay marriage that I have ever heard anywhere; and where I started out mildly opposed to the idea, he convinced me pretty conclusively. The only remaining argument I see against gay marriage is pragmatic: I don’t think the country is on board yet, and an attempt to force it will only raise a backlash. (And before anyone blames conservatives for that: Michigan went about 55% for Senator Kerry in 2004, yet overwhelmingly approved a rather hideous anti-gay-marriage proposal. Opposition crosses parties. So does support.) So for strategic reasons, I would prefer “civil unions” that were marriage in all but name, since I think that would be an easier sell; but if I could be dictator for a day, legalizing gay marriage would be slated in somewhere around 10 a.m. (And I seldom wake up before 9.)
So give Andrew-the-sane credit: I think he did a lot to advance your cause. And lament Andrew-the-insane; because as he becomes more and more unreadable, you’re losing lots of chances where the old Andrew could’ve won you supporters.
rightiswrong in #6, you make my point.
And Martin, it seems you and I have similar sentiments on Andrew Sullivan. Prior to 02/24/04, Andrew did do a lot to promote gay marriage. His 1989 New Republic piece, “Here Comes the Groom,” was the first serious article on gay marriage to appear in a mainstream American magazine and remains a good starting point for a serious conversation of gay marriage.
Your last paragraph is a good summary of Andrew’s noble past — and his unfortunate present.
The main difference between commenters here and James Dobson is these commenters are just giving your their opinions. Dobson wants to make his opinions – which involve things like a constitutional ban on most legal benefits for gay couples – into law.
Carl, that strikes me as very naive. Many, perhaps most of the commenters here also want to make their opinions into law. They just have little to no power to do so. And in my opinion, neither does Mr. Dobson.
#19 Carl — July 13, 2006 @ 3:27 am – July 13, 2006
Shoemaker is correct, but not in a way that he might want you to believe. Dobson isn’t interested in making his opinions into law. He wants to make his opinions into money. If Dobson’s opinions are made into law, he won’t be able to continue making money off them.
Thats also the reason why there is no federal law or constitutional amendment against abortion. The longer that the Dobsons, Foulwells and “Diamond Pat” Robertsons and their Republican butt-kissers in the congress can keep the issue alive, the longer that they can steal money from the lil’ old ladies on social security.
Shoemaker at #22 writes: “No thinking conservative that I know takes him (Dobson) seriously. His influence is nowhere near as large as he thinks it is.”
I’d amplify that observation to include my own experience in 20+ years of nat’l, state and local GOP politics. I’ve yet to meet one of those wild-eyed, radical wingnuts and religious zealots at a party function where they are taken seriously… hell, I can’t even remember a single instance where that kind of group hosted an event function, party, tea, or get together for party regulars… it just doesn’t happen. GM does. The Docs do. The Chamber does. The No Tax groups do. Lots of others.
Hate to burst the GayLeft’s bubble, but in Michigan GOP politics the guys like Dobson aren’t in positions of power, aren’t pulling the strings –unlike the ACLU or BigLabor or BigTeachers or the EcoTerrorists or anti-War types are over at the DNC these days.
It might be different in Georgia or Mississippi or Virginia, but Dobson-esque types don’t call the shots here. When the marriage protection initiative was heading through the approval process here, many GOP legislators and county chairs came out in their local papers and said it was wrong.
Did they help organize and fund a viable opposition? Hell no. BUt did the Democrats? Did Governor Good Smile? Senator StupidCow?
And Len at #12: Dean reversed himself after a lot of intense, screaming pressure from leaders and staffers at the DNC. He spoke what he thought was the truth –in an unguarded, honest, direct way in order to sell the Party to the religious right. You just don’t like “the fact” he isn’t supportive –nor Edwards it seems as NDXXX points out and you ignored.
Daniel darling, politics has been a contact sport for hundreds of years!
Vera is sad to report that Senators no longer beat each other with wooden canes when they disagree (Vera recalls it was Senator Charles Sumner from Massachusetts who took the caning, she can’t recall which Senator gave the beating – or why) and duels, fisticuffs, lynching, burning of private and public property (rioting?) and trashing of reputations were fairly common, if not necessarily acceptable forms of political expression. Today’s public demonstrations and political discourse is tame in comparison. (Note to Cindy Sheehan: Vanilla ice cream and iced coffee latte are not allowed on most diets – let alone hunger strikes. You’ll never fit into your ‘Bush/Hitler tee shirts if you keep indulging your sweet tooth!).
Of course, civil discourse is wonderful – but isn’t the prerequisite of ‘known facts’ required in order to facilitate a real dialogue? As the charming Senator Moynihan put it; “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”. While the arguments on both sides contain the same words, expressions and terminology (i.e.; terrorist, fascist, torture, traitor, marriage, and democracy), these words definitely don’t pertain to the same people, policies, or predicaments. If competing groups can’t truly identify and agree on the specific problem or issue before them, all proposed solutions would appear half-baked, misguided or downright dangerous.
Vera is a champion of open, honest, civil discourse – anonymity is no excuse for incivility – and relishes a good debate between people of good will. Vera will even endorse what used to be called ‘street theater’, assuming it’s done with intelligence, wit and passion (signs saying ‘Vera Sucks!’ or ‘Vera’s a Nazi’ don’t constitute intelligence or wit; they show limited vocabulary). Also, anything involving the burning of anything or anyone (in effigy, of course) has been done so many times it’s derivative in the extreme. Nudity – while never appropriate around small children, old maids, or hungry dogs – does have its time and place. Full bathing before the public removal of clothing is, of course, required.
As for what Senator Sumner (he of the beaten body) would think of today’s marches, sit ins, lie downs, stand ups, and be counted – is anybody’s guess; But Vera thinks it beats a beating.
Cheers!
My strategy suggestion is for all gay people to become Democrats and to loudly encourage all other gay people to do the same. The image of gay people as a monolithic force behind the Democrat (aka losing) party will no longer be undermined by conservative gay voices of dissent. The Democrats can then confidently take gay people for granted and fail to make progress on our issues while Republicans can dismiss us as an unattainable voting bloc and fail to make progress on our issues. Sure, it will slow any advances toward civil equality but more importantly, we will feel all cuddly and self-righteous while our Democrat politicians talk nice about us in their speeches.
On that note– Dan, how can you be a Republican? Democrats say nice things to validate me while Republicans say things like “marriage is between a man and a woman”, that undermine my already fragile self esteem!
* balls up into a fetal position in the corner and cries *
It would be superficially comforting to lie with the Dems full time since they do tend to talk nicer about us. I’d have to be willing to sacrifice my country and my own freedoms to do so, however, and people liking me is just not enough to give all that up to obtain.
There is a recurring theme on this blog – a theme of persecution and rejection. I would challenge you to try and take off your … “ I am a victim of these mean hateful gay liberals shades and listen to the messages, even as angry as they may be”.
It’s time to get real and honest with yourself. Of course many people are going to have an issue with what you say you believe in. Some are going to be down right angry. It is not a new phenomenon when an oppressed minority come across one of who identifies as like them endorsing the values of those that oppress them. Maybe you have had a privileged life and haven’t felt the wrath of the oppression as some of these people ? Oppression destroys soles and makes people angry.
I am left wondering why you have adopted this political identity and started a blog called the gay patriot if you don’t like being challenged on your views? Is it because you agree and endorse the values of the GOP or could it be the blog supports some kind of need to feel different and be rejected because of it. I don’t mean to pathologies, I am genuinely interested.
#25 mario — July 14, 2006 @ 5:03 am – July 14, 2006
There is a recurring theme on this blog – a theme of persecution and rejection.
You really should understand the mindset of “movement conservatives,” whether they are gay or straight, secular or sectarian. It is a “siege mentaliy,” an “us against them” mentality. They–the amorphous “they,” although they’re obviously referring to the dreaded lib’rals–want to take our guns (that’s a big one with movement conservatives). They–again, the amorphous “they”–want to increase our taxes, instead of decreasing them, although we don’t want to pay the bills for our corporate welfare and wars abroad. They–again, the amorphous “they”–want to turn our children into automatons by teaching the dreaded evilution. They–again, the amorphous “they”–want to make our children fags, or spics, or jews or so forth, by teaching diversity. They–again, the amorphous “they”–want to get Christian prayer out of the public schools, as if “they” had the power to. The upshot is that t hey–again, the amorphous “they”–will succeed unless you vote for us, give us money, and so forth.
It’s the siege mentality. Give us money, give us votes, and we–the leaders–will make you victorious over the dreaded heathens.
That’s what it’s all about to movement conservatives. Money and power for the leaders.
And that’s why I reject all of it.
#25 mario — July 14, 2006 @ 5:03 am – July 14, 2006
I am left wondering why you have adopted this political identity and started a blog called the gay patriot if you don’t like being challenged on your views? Is it because you agree and endorse the values of the GOP or could it be the blog supports some kind of need to feel different and be rejected because of it. I don’t mean to pathologies, I am genuinely interested.
You have to understand what a “patriot” is:
PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
–Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary (emphasis added).
“It is not a new phenomenon when an oppressed minority come across one of who identifies as like them endorsing the values of those that oppress them.” — Mario
That makes no sense. I rarely identify with liberals.
What’s feeding your delusions about oppression is a screwed up liberal definition of it. Oppression to a liberal means I’m entitled to stuff from other people– a job, healthcare, oral sex, whatever, and if they don’t give me what I’m entitled to, they’re oppressing me. It’s goes hand-in-hand with the liberal definition of generosity– forcing other people to help people in need.
I will immediately concede that Republicans do engage in real forms of oppression as well, like corporate welfare. That’s why I’m a Libertarian. If I vote for a Democrat or a Republican as I often do, it’s because I’m choosing the lesser of the two evils, though I often wonder if I should bother.
My issue is not with liberals disagreeing with me. My issue is the lack of any civility in debate. When I staffed a Republican table at Gay Pride, I expected debate, questions, challenges. I wasn’t prepared (not the first time anyway) to get spit on, vandalized, and physically threatened. As a Libertarian, I have issues with both Republicans and Democrats. I can have civil polite discussions in the Republican environment.
In retrospect, it makes sense though as it becomes more readily apparent to me that liberal viewpoints are founded not on reason but on emotion. In fact, I have a theory that they are often based in very personal issues that have had lasting emotional effects to create the victim mentality that reinforces the misguided definitions I described above. When a liberal is losing a debate they become more emotional. They shout louder, spit, hit a table, rip down a sign.
Does it ever happen the other way around? Of course there are exceptions to the general rule. It’s a similar reaction with pro-lifers and their bloody baby pictures and shouts of “baby killer!” but I’m just pointing out that I’ve been to a lot of gay events as a Republican and I’ve been to a lot of Republican events as a gay and this is the general impression I’m left with. Also, after years of reflection, reading, and political activism, I definately feel like liberal forms of oppression have a much greater impact on my overall quality of life than the conservative ones. It’s especially true when you take into consideration what amounts to just talk which I can ignore (though it results in much knashing of liberal teeth) and what amounts to actual policy that has an absolute real impact on me.
LOL! Thanks, I really needed that!