Since the moment I first starting publicly dealing with my sexuality, I have experienced the narrow-minded attitude of many gays toward Republicans. It seems some believe it’s a rite of passage in coming out for those who were once Republicans not merely to change their partisan affiliation, but also to prove that by becoming viciously anti-Republican.
When I hinted to some of my undergraduate friends about my feelings for men, they told me that I had become a Republican to cover up being gay. They pressed me both to come out publicly and to publicly renounce my partisan affiliation. Instead of helping me open the proverbial closet door, their words led to my slamming it ever more tightly shut.
As an undergraduate, I had discovered conservative and libertarian ideas and read widely, strengthening the intellectual foundation of my political views. And I had grown to love the then-incumbent President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, coming to appreciate his noble vision. That my friends could tell me I was a Republican to hide my sexuality indicated that they dismissed the very basis of my commitment to the GOP — and the time I had taken to develop my mind.
With that experience in mind, I gain a greater appreciation for all that Andrew Sullivan went through in the 1990s. As the first openly gay “public intellectual” to challenge the gay orthodoxy, he was subject to a level of abuse that makes his latest rants against the president seem tame by comparison. Not only did gay writers attack him viciously in print, but other activists threw drinks at him at bars and I’ve even heard that one person spit in his face at a dance club.
As I was about to read his article “When Plagues End” in the New York Times magazine in November 1996, an acquaintance told me the piece was filled with “self-hatred.” So I set the magazine aside, only to find no self-hatred when I read a revised version of that article (in Andrew’s book Love Undetectable : Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival). Indded, so captivating did I find the article that I bought the book. (I had picked up the book in a bookstore and began reading it there.)
Similarly, I meet gay men and women who tell me how Mary Cheney is also full of self-hatred and is in denial about the “reality of her father.” I ask those who level such accusations if they have read her book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life. And while most haven’t, they still proceed to dismiss it, largely based not upon the book, but upon what they have read it in the gay press. It seems that where gay reviewers actually read the book, they used their reviews not to consider Mary as the woman she is, but instead as the activist they believe she should have become.
As I work on a gay film romance featuring a gay Republican, I wonder if the gay media will react similarly to this positive portrayal of a flawed, but decent individual. That is, will they dismiss the movie out of hand merely because of this positive portrayal of a gay Republican? Perhaps the filmmakers chose to make such a caricature of the gay Republican in The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green because they assumed that if they made him a more sympathetic character, that would have guaranteed the film got bad reviews in the gay press.
Ever since I read the (revised version of) Andrew’s essay, “When Plagues End,” I wondered if my acquaintance had even read it, but was merely judging the work not by its content but by his (or the public gay) perception of its author.
There are times when I feel relieved that I did not publish my novel when I completed it in the 1990s. Because there is a gay Republican in the book, it would likely have received a similar reaction to that which Mary and Andrew received to their books (and in, Andrew’s case, other writings). Back then, I would certainly not have been prepared for a barrage of mean-spirited criticism in the gay media.
Just as we need more positive portrayals of gay people in the mainstream media, so do we need more positive portrayals of gay Republicans in the gay media. To that end, gay cultural commentators must overcome their animus toward Republicans and address the merits of gay conservative arguments. Similarly, they should not dismiss a movie (or television program) merely because it offers a positive portrayal of gay Republicans. We cannot let dishonest media representations of gay Republicans define our image.
It’s time that those serious about accurately portraying gay people on stage, screen and in the pages of our journals and magazines — and not just gay conservatives — join me in challenging the narrow-stereotyping of gay Republicans that has become all too commonplace in our culture. Not only will this promote greater understanding of gay Republicans, but it will also show the straight world that gay people are just as diverse as they are.
Let’s hope the new leader of Log Cabin makes it a top priority to improve the perception of Republicans in that community. Should he (or she) develop an initiative to that end, I would be delighted to do whatever I can to help the organization succeed in that endeavor.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Another amazing post Dan. I think if were gonna start working on more positive portrayals of gay conservatives in the media we should look for people like you to do that.
Good post, Dan. Very thought provoking. I’ll confess to being one of those who find it difficult to understand how a person can be gay and Republican at the same time. It’s something I’m working on. Heck, I’m even on the Log Cabin mailing list! But then, given the current administration, I find it difficult to understand how a person can be a Republican period.
I think gay people may overcome their animus toward the Republican party when the Republican party overcomes its animus toward gay people. It really is a two-way street. It may become easier when the Republican party loosens its ties with the radical right-wing evangelists and social conservatives. (I have no doubt this will happen eventually.)
Dan, have you ever seen the documentary The Elephant in the Room about gay Republicans? I saw it on Logo last week and it really changed some of my views of gay Republicans. I liked everyone that they profiled on the program and found myself rooting for Greg in his search for a man and feeling bad for the Republican lesbian who was trying to help the Katrina victims even after a church turned down her help because of her sexuality but cashed her $5,000 check anyway. I highly recommend the program to Republicans and Democrats.
Similarly, they should not dismiss a movie (or television program) merely because it offers a positive portrayal of gay Republicans.
What? You mean the tolerant, open-mined, love everybody liberals would do that? I don’t believe it!
Turk, thanks for reminding me of that. I had wanted to see The Elephant in the Room, but either spaced it or was otherwise engaged when it aired. I’ll see if I can get a review copy of the DVD so I can post on it here.
I hope so, too. But even further, I hope that they can show how the current Republican party (seemingly overrun by religious literalists) can honestly represent or promote those issues that I care about: “Gay rights,” broad economic prosperity, and the seperation of church & state. Currently the elected Republicans that I hear seem to be opposite to my position on each of these issues.
Dan, another good post… again.
What I’ve found when apolitical gays or gays with decided left leanings –whether Democrat, Green, or other– try to shame me on my GOP affiliation what they are trying to do is use the most direct, visceral route to impeach my political affiliation… they try to revoke my Gay Card. Without a tough skin, it works… because of all the trials in coming out, when “your own” turn on you for partisan gain it hurts deeply. What it OUGHT to do is be instructive about the other side’s commitment to “gay brotherhood”. Because it’s a mile wide and inch deep parade for them.
“You can’t be gay if you’re a GOPer” “You must be a closet homophobe if you truly are a GOPer” “No self-respecting gay man could join the GOP unless he’s going for the Jews-Hitler syndrome”
And on and on. The self-hate angle is thrown in viciously to undercut my self-esteem –just like the college-era gays did to you.
I’ve found the only “hate” in this equation is from those purporting that I hate myself… they hate the fact that a fellow gay male doesn’t hold their value of the central nature of being gay in as high a regard AS THEY DO.
Some of the GayLeft commentators here have tried the same old game in earlier threads in the last month.
It’s a mean-spirited, petty, vindictive character that does those things –in fact, by doing so, they undercut and repudiate the very nature of that “gay brotherhood” supposedly held in so high regard by them.
In 2004, at U of M and MSU, we started a conservative gay union –we meet on campus 4-5 times a year, bring in speakers to debate a core societal, economic or political issue. We usually get about 150-180 students… with about 3-5 students who are the die-hard Democrat GayLeft types who are there to disrupt, ankle-bite, inflame, irritate, incite (sound familiar?)
It’s like the blogs, in a way. Free thought usually always wins in the end. The ankle-biters retreat to their envelope stuffing digs to plot the next childish prank and our group builds for a better tomorrow.
#2 Len — My sentiments, exACtly. I wish I was as eloquent in expressive writing as most of the other posters on this site.. Anyway, GPW — good post. Even though I’m lefty liberal on most issues (not all), and while I am trying to come to terms with why anyone who is gay could also be/support the gop, I support their right to do so…. I’ve spoken up for gay republicans before on this issue, both in chatrooms and in person when they’ve been rebuked by far left libs in the covnersation group, and will continue to do so. I have two gay republican friends who were both coming to terms with their orientation about 10 years or so ago… both expressed their feelings of isolation in trying to come out, while still believing in conservative values and being members of the republican party. I suggested to both that they contact the LCR and try to attend a couple of their functions, and even think about joining them. They were unaware of any GL conservative organizations at the time. It went against my grain to suggest this, but I still wanted to support them in finding like minded people to meet, and possibly make friends/social connections with. At least one of them became an active member of LCR shortly after (yes, I know some of you are down on the LCR, but at the time, it was the only outlet I knew of for gay conservatives). So….just because I’m a lefty on most issues, doesn’t mean that I have no empathy for gay conservatives, or that I would shun someone from friendship and/or dating just because she/he held conservative views. Nor do I support the level of hostility expressed by of most gay left libs towards gay conservatives. I think it’s appalling. I have several other GL republican friends whom I like very much and get along with very well. You’re absolutely correct in that, if we don’t learn to be more tolerant of other GL’s, including those with opposing political views, it will be our downfall. We can still continue to debate issues and to fight for equality while projecting at least some level of respect and humanity towards our fellow GL brothers and sisters. Some gay conservatives could ALso tone down their anger/hatred for libs a notch or two.
That said, I also understand the paradox (perfectly stated in Len’s #2 post above).
Look! Even yet more evidence that the Bush Administration approved and encouraged torture of detainiees.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2006/060706_mfe_August_06_Conscience_1.html
Not that anyone here will believe it. It would be too much of a departure from the Party Line.
Vera is not surprised to find many of her gay acquaintances in favor of:
Low taxes
Small Govt
Increased personal liberties & freedoms, including the right to own weapons and wear real fur
A capitalistic economy
A strong national defense / robust military
Respect for the rule of law and a strong law enforcement, with proper punishments for violators
Personal responsibility for their own health & welfare
Respect for private property rights
Full accountability and public oversight of all funds spent thru the public treasury
Freedom of / from / and for/ religious beliefs
The right to be left alone to live their lives
Common law pool boys (it’s on Vera’s wish list)
Vera’s acquaintances explain that as hard working, tax paying, law abiding, respectful citizens of a democracy, these beliefs are vital for ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.
Vera would also include something about banning small children who act up in expensive restaurants but you can’t have everything.
Gramps at #9: you prove the point once again that it’s ok to go off the topic or go off your meds, but never both. And never while wearing a tin foil hat. Never.
Gryph, given Esquire’s bias on matters political, I wouldn’t put too much stock in their reports on the Administration. And anyway, what does that have to do with the post to which you attach it?
And anyway, the “torture narrative” has been disproved so many times, it’s hardly worth my time to address it yet again.
There is NOTHING wrong wrong with being “Conservative” –IT’S THIS BATCH IN POWER NOW…that has turned off many to CONSERVATIVES…they are not REAL conservatives…they ONLY are in TITLE ONLY! I’m not sure really what title/label to call’m…but Conservative is not one of them! I will NEVER vote conservative again – until this Bunch of crooks, liars, thieves, spin doctors, war mongers, bigots & discriminators are OUT OF POWER and OFFICE!
This article is hilarious. The bias against ‘gay republicans’ is from within your own party of Christian bigots! Any bias outside the GOP is not because you are gay, but merely because you’re soooo foolish, or apparently so self-loathing, that you support a party of far right Christofascists that hate you. Now a black christian gay republican represents the ultimate in self-loathing compared to white christian log cabin republican!
#14
Thanks for so perfectly illustrating the point Dan was making.
Regarding the post, you must be from a very different generation than I, my partner, and most of our friends. We couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about each others’ politics. In point of fact, my partner and I came from very different backgrounds–and he was very liberal and I very conservative. We got together in 1978. Within 5-7 years we had flipped–he was very conservative, and I relatively liberal. Thereafter, we both moderated each other.
Most of our friends (generally couples) are relatively liberal, and none of them look down on us, and we don’t look down on them.
Methinks that your problem is more with you than anything else. You may very well look to see whether your problem is trying to reconcile the fact that more than a few (non-gay) conservatives and more than a few (non-gay) Republicans are not adverse to putting you down because you’re gay–or whether you fear that they are. I don’t know whether or not either is true, but it has not been in my experience. Maybe you’re running around with the wrong crowd.
Another excellent post…
I struggled with the issue of being a lesbian AND a republican for some time. There was so much that said that I couldn’t be both. But as I did more research and reading, I realized that it is my views and beliefs that align me to the Republican party, not my sexual orientation.
And since I have realized this and come out, I love the reaction I get from people….. How can you be a gay republican?!? It’s quite easy I tell them…
Thanks for all your efforts on the blog. I always enjoy reading. Your websites was one of the ones that made me realize…. hey, its ok to be me.
Cheers,
Anna.
There are some serious pigs in high positions at the Rep party. Denial of their sins will not help us in the long term. Even so, securing America is still priority one and I have no choice but help keep the Reps in power so the party of freaks never gets to screw this country over again.
We need to stay positive in order to make our allies’ jobs that much more effective. Its hard to stand up for people who march with Communists against their own country. Being rightfully angry does not entitle you to lose your soul.
Another fine piece of fiction. The objection to Andrew Sullivan’s plague piece had nothing to do with “self hatred” — at least not by anyone taken seriously.
The piece was universally condemned by people in public health (including my partner, an epidemiologist working in the field at the time) because Andrew represented what had happened in his white little urban circle as true everywhere. It was an amazing example of generalizing life in a bubble to the greater world. At the World Aids Conference the piece was held up as exactly the kind of outrageously uninformed reporting that kept the fight against AIDS sliding back.
Of course, Andrew hurried, eventually, to his inevitable Prufrockian defense: “No, no, that’s not what I meant at all.”
Is anything more tiring than the incessant whining about the way Gay republicans are treated by gay liberals? I mean, holy shit, talk about victim mentality. And what a place to fix your gaze. It’s the Republican PARTY that wants nothing to do with you, according to its last election platform. That sort of puts the disgust of liberals in perspective, doesn’t it? And we all know that if liberals were screamng thusly, we’d be hearing about the culture of victimhood from republicans.
Further, review this very site — Matt’s inevitable nastiness, for example — and please tell me how it is that liberals are any more spiteful than you republicans. My guess is that the problem is that, there being more gay libs, you get shouted down. But anyone who can read can see you are just as heavy on the spite.
Now here comes NDT, rushing in to claim that the Democratic Party doesn’t support gay people, either. Not to the extent it should, NDT, but — Howard Dean’s lunacy aside — the Democratic platform has never included a plank attacking gay people.
You know what, Dan? It’s not the LCR’s job or anyone else’s to make life easier for you. Andrew Sullivan is popular JUST BECAUSE he took a stand as a maverick — a freak among ordinary liberals. If you are going to wait around for the political climate to make publication of your novel less painful for you….well, by that time, there won’t be any NEED for it.
#16 Methinks that your liberal friends don’t look down on you becauser you are a liberal too. Please in future try to make a point.
#19 The Christian fundies that I deal with regularly in Texas are, despite their views, at least polite with very few exceptions. The Gay Lefties are almost a mirror image. If fact they seem to hate even more and make little or no attempt to hide it. That doesn’t make me a victim. it’s just the way things are. All I wish for is for them to demonstrate the tolerance that they pathetically pretend to worship.
Perhaps you’re caught in a time warp. You confuse the Republican party of the mid-20th century with the neo-cons who have taken control.
If you could get away from some unexplainable knee-jerk reaction to such words as “liberal” and “Democratic,” you might find that virtually every liberal/progressive today is the equavalent of an Eisenhower Republican of the 1950’s.
Liberals are against government waste; Liberals do not trust the military/industrial complex; Liberals support continued freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Liberals believe in just wars. Liberals believe in Constitutional checks and balances. Liberals believe in the separation of church and state. Liberals believe that education and infrastructure are vital to the success of the nation. Liberals believe that capitalism is a good economic basis and that the worker’s position in capitalism must be valued as well as the value given to the capitalist. Liberals believe in pay-as-you go. The government must oversee/fund certain programs, and those programs must receive sufficient funds from the public, through taxes, to get the job done.
Liberals believe ad hominem attacks do not further the national debates.
(Ok, try to get past the name of my blog…it’s a joke among my liberal friends.)
Neo-cons adhere to some of these items, but not all. 2006 Republican leaders have very little of the stature of Republicans of the mid-20th century. The country is less for it.
I voted for Goldwater and Nixon. It pains me to say they laid the foundation for the current crop; it’s a terrible proof of the unintended consequences axiom. (And I don’t care if axiom is the appropriate word or not.)
Good luck. If you are able to influence the Republicans to return to their pre-Rovian roots, the Republic will be better off.
Agape.
P.S. There is still too much easy use of “hate.” It has become meaningless.
Agape
Liberals are against government waste; unless they’re the ones doing it.
Liberals do not trust the military/industrial complex; They hate it with a passion.
Liberals support continued freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That is, their version applies to themselves only and to hell with everybody else.
Liberals believe in just wars. As long as they can retreat or bomb from 30,000 feet.
Liberals believe in Constitutional checks and balances. We take your checks and you keep ’em balanced.
Liberals believe in the separation of church and state. Their own version of the Constitution. Actually, liberals believe in the state and hate the church (Mosques, though, are O.K.)
Liberals believe that education and infrastructure are vital to the success of the nation. Somewhere between Flag Burning 101 and Howie Dean’s “Idear” of the Day, you might just learn how to spell inferstruktor. If not, you’ll pass anyway just for showing up.
Liberals believe that capitalism is a good economic basis and that the worker’s position in capitalism must be valued as well as the value given to the capitalist. And yet they sound more and more Socialistic all the time.
Liberals believe in pay-as-you go. You pay, we go.
The government must oversee/fund certain programs, and those programs must receive sufficient funds from the public, through taxes, to get the job done. No matter the cost or effectiveness. “Pay no attention to the results!”.
Liberals believe ad hominem attacks do not further the national debates. I’ll be damned if anybody could buy that steaming pile after the last 6 years.
As a libertarian-leaning Republican, I disagree with many policies of the current administration. But I find the positions of most Democrats on most issues even more objectionable. When I hear “liberals” say that they support universal health care and the environment, what they are really saying is that they support socialist medicine and the EPA, the implication being that unless you support bureaucratic, top-down decision-making, you are against “health care” and “the environment”.
Today’s “liberals” have found a new word for themselves : “progressive”.
Well now. We are all for progress, aren’t we ? Of course, this is just another attempt by the Left to obscure reality and avoid logical discussion / debate. The most accurate term to describe today’s “liberals “, oops, I mean “progressives”, is neither of those terms. In reality, they are statists. You name the issue or alleged problem, and for Democrats, the answer always lies in top-down, governmental social engineering and coercion, particularly on economic issues.
I have had discussions with Democrats about education vouchers, and the typical response is along the lines of “education is too important to be left to the market”, yada yada. What this really conceals however, is that the Democrats are controlled by the teachers unions, which resist any attempts to fundamentally reform education. The same perverse dynamic exists with health care, Social Security, and the constituent groups of this sick institution known as the Democrat Party. When I talk to the typical Democrat about education, and I remind them that food is more important than education, but that the government does not run the grocery stores or restaurants, they either have no answer, or they just fall back on their stupid slogans. When Democrats I know say the market cannot work in health care, and I respond that the market solution has not been tried, they look at me dumbfounded. Of course, we do not have a free market in health care today, and that is the problem.
I find it almost impossible to have a logical discussion with most Democrats. And that is because as they see it, life is not fair, and by God, they are angry about it, and “something must be done !” Never mind that the greatest mass murders in human history have been perpetrated by such thinking.
As I see it, these people are conservatives, because they resist any changes which would reduce the power and size of the federal government. And their lapdog allies in most of the media keep the American people in the dark, because most people are too busy with their lives to take the time to become truly informed on issues. But in the long run I am optimistic, because I believe the globalization of markets and the tandem decentraliztion of power and decision-making is working in favor of freedom, albeit slowly. The social engineers are frustrated by anything which decentralizes power, because the Left fundamentally distrusts people, and think they have to be controlled by elites. This is the naked truth behind the Orwellian machinations of the Left. And this is why I am not a Democrat and never will be until the Democrat Party becomes the party of individual liberty.
Gene said :
“The government must oversee/fund certain programs, and those programs must receive sufficient funds from the public, through taxes, to get the job done.”
Ah yes, but WHICH programs ? And what is meant by “get “the job done?” What if government is not getting the job done ? If McDonald’s is not getting the job done, we go to Wendy’s. Can’t do that with government now, can we ? The problem is, government today is doing so much that it should not be doing that it cannot do well what it SHOULD be doing.
So lets talk about time warps, shall we ?
The Democrat Party today is in a trap of its own making. The Democrats are now merely a collection of interest groups who depend on government, either for jobs or benefits. So any attempt to reform or eliminate obsolete programs, EVEN if they are worthless, offends one or more Democrat constituent groups. Therefore, the Democrats cannot innovate, except to advocate more government.
Republicans have plenty of problems, the most difficult being the rift between the religious right and the libertarian wings of the party. But it is the Democrats who are truly stuck in a time warp. From the apperance of things, most Democrats think it is still 1968, and the counterculture mentality grips the party. The Democrats have still not gotten over the Vietnam War. Their view of their own country’s power and position in the world is still seen through the prism of Vietnam ( a JUST WAR which COULD have been won ) , and every military mistake or overstretch is another My Lai massacre. Americans know that it was not Republicans who burned flags and spat on our soldiers returning from Vietnam.
I was a young kid during the Vietnam War, but I remember it well, and THAT is when the Democrats went off the deep end, and they still have not come back to reality to this day. The Democrats’ reaction during the latter years of the Vietnam War laid the groundwork for the alienation of Middle America and the decline of the Democrat Party. The American people got fed up with unchecked Soviet expansionism, exploding government , and defeatism. Then along came Reagan and it was morning again ! Some of you may be too young to remember, but I am not.
The Democrats got what they deserved. They are unworthy of leadership in their current condition. And the origins of their current maladies go back at least 35 years.
The last truly honorable Democrat president was JFK, and even he was over-rated. Clinton was lucky enough to be president during a time of peace and prosperity for which he deserves almost no credit. The groundwork for the 1990s economic boom and the end of the Cold War was laid by the great Ronald Reagan. Clinton lived off the hard work of his predecessors. The only good thing to be said for Clinton is that he was smart enough to leave well enough alone.
The Democrat Party is brain dead…no guiding philosophy, just interest groups and anger.
Um, dante in #19, I hope you realize that I said in the post that I found no self-hatred in Andrew’s essay and even noted that I wondered if my acquaintance, the one who said it was filled with self-hatred, had even read it. I found that essay captivating and compelling; while I didn’t agree with many of Andrew’s points, thought he expressed and defended them well. My present opinion of the man’s writing does not lessen the respect I have for some of his past work. The whole book is a good read, one which I have recommended to others. I am delighted to note that after reading my praise of it in past posts, some readers have bought the book, with at least two e-mailing me to thank me for the recommendation.
So, make sure when you criticize me, you pay attention to what I said. Given what I have experienced on this blog, I would now be fully prepared to deal with the adverse reaction that my novel would likely receive. When I first finished it, I expected it to get a fair reception, with critics judging it on it merits. Now, I know what to expect.
I never said it should be LCR’s job to make my life easier, but it should be that organization’s mission to make clear why its members belong to the GOP. And to make that case to the gay community whose leaders (particularly its political ones) have such false notions of our party.
And ditto to Bobo. I have found the fundies to be far more polite than the gay lefties (though I have heard stories (from reliable sources) of their meanness to certain gay people).
Raj, in #16, I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say. While I began this post on a personal note, I focused on cases of bias against other gay conservatives, while offering thoughts about the anticipated response to my book and/or screenplay. I have many liberal friends, many of them gay, who, if anything, enjoy ribbing me about my politics, but still treat me for the individual that I am.
And Gene, please note how many Bush-haters define themselves as such with book titles using the word “hate” and even liberal writers for supposedly highbrow magazines writing essays on how much they hate the president.
Perhaps this article should have started – I have come out Republican and I am scared my gay family will reject me ….. so I am going reject them first.
I suspect many gay people will hold some ideals that are more Republican in flavour and others that are more democratic. This makes it uncomfortable for those, like the writer, who needs to find an identity in self labelling and then justifying ther choice of labels. Guess it is kinda like the person who may be so hell bent on dressing only in a particular label. You know the type, that Armani guy who thinks there is simply nothing else that can beat Giorgio and won’t hear a bad word said, even if there is one particular outfit they look totally ridiculous in.
Time to get real and have a transparent honest debate of the issues otherwise we slip into a superficial, deeply paranoid, prejudiced, hateful society that deals with life by name calling.
#26 GayPatriotWest — July 14, 2006 @ 3:19 am – July 14, 2006
Raj, in #16, I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say.
I’ll give you the “executive summary”: I haven’t noticed any “persist(ant) bias against gay conservatives” that you are complaining about.
Is that clear enough for you?
Um, GPW..Um…Um…You are such a condescending little advocate. Kill your “ums.”
Also: Read you own damn posts..and mine. DId I say anything about “gay self hatred”? I wish you would follow your own advice about responding to actual subjects instead of erecting strawmen.
You are admiring a particular essay that every public health official in America condemned for its factual errors and classism. It was an object of complete derision at the World AIDS Conference for the reason that it ingores FACTS.
Yes, I know you could NOW deal with the negative reaction to your novel. The point is, again, that Andrew Sullivan paved the way for people like you. Nobody owes you “niceness.” If you put your ideas and your art out for pubic scrutiny, then you get what you deserve — a mix of adulation and condemnation.
And it’s BS that you don’t think the LCR should make your life easier by doing things YOUR way.
And saying that the fundies are “nicer” to gay Republicans than gay liberals is just lunacy.
Is this blog about much more than whining? “I’m such a poor, put-upon, disciminated-against conservative among a bunch of radical socialists! Waaaahhhhh!”
Stop it.
The only way to gain respect is to earn it. The push-back you and other conservatives get within the LGBT rights movement is NOT because you’re conservative, it’s because you support almost without reservation a party whose central tenant has become the marginalization of gay people and their families. How is it possible you don’t understand why that enrages progressives?
And Gene, please note how many Bush-haters define themselves as such with book titles using the word “hate” and even liberal writers for supposedly highbrow magazines writing essays on how much they hate the president.
Examples, please. I know of two such books — which isn’t even as many as Ann and Sean have calling liberals godless traitors. There are the Clint Willis anthologies. What else? And please don’t tell me that there is a difference between calling someone a godless traitor and expressing hatred.
Dante in #29, please note, the purpose of bringing up Andrew’s essay was to note how an acquaintance dismissed it by saying it was filled with self-hatred. Perhaps I misread your comment late last night when I checked the blog. Let me clarify–I was not referring to why most people objected to the piece, but merely holding up this one individual’s reaction as an example of how some people in our community treated Andrew in the 1990s — accusing him of self-hatred merely because he was (or was perceived to be) conservative.
And yes, I agree that Andrew paved the way for people like me. And I have said as much on this blog (on more than one occasion).
You are mostly right when you say that we put our ideas out there for public scrutiny, we get a mix of adulation and condemnation. I wouldn’t say we get what we deserve–I would just say we should be prepared to receive a variety of responses, some offered in good faith, others not so much.
Donny, below I provide some examples. Perhaps these are the books with which you are already familiar, but I don’t think you’ll find books from the 1990s entitled the “Clinton-Haters Handbook.”
The Bush – Haters Handbook.
The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything
The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice. . . Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal’s War on America (The “I Hate” Series).
Not that that “I Hate” Series refers not to books by conservatives but by those who hate them.
You should also note that this blogger has criticized Ms. Coulter on more than one occasion and has also faulted Sean Hannity.
33: GPW
Left side pundits use the word “hate” more than their Right side counterparts. But the Right side is no less insulting and vitriolic in their characterization of liberals / progressives as “traitors” and “Godless” and a whole string of phrases as attempts at character assasination.
Sadly, both sides claim the other must be the first to step back into “civil discourse.” Which is why I believe it will only get worse through our lifetime. The more vicious our in-fighting the stronger our enemies become in relation. (The answer, as someone it going to say, isn’t for Left or Right to give in to the other, but to look for ways to work together…but no one is willing to do that these days.)
Treason is defined in the Constitution, and it fits liberals to a T. As for godless, that’s exactly what they are — and that’s easily documented. See the ACLU page.
It’s kind of shocking to me that people who describe themselves as “libertarian” or “libertarian-leaning” could possibly associate themselves with the Repulican Party at this point. GWB and his party stand for historically big, intrusive government. In 1994, the GOP promised us they’d cut entire cabinet departments to streamline government, but guess what? After almost twelve years in power, the net resulit is one more cabinet department. And that is the source of my bias against “conservatives,” gay or straight.
Fact is, the “small government” lie has never been anything other than a campaign tactic for the Republican Party, and if you can’t see that, then shame on you.
The push-back you and other conservatives get within the LGBT rights movement is NOT because you’re conservative, it’s because you support almost without reservation a party whose central tenant has become the marginalization of gay people and their families. How is it possible you don’t understand why that enrages progressives?
Because the same so-called “progressives” endorse parties and candidates who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments — things that would normally be called “marginalizing gay people and their families”, but, when carried out by Democrats, are called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, you have no problem with peoples’ actions, only with their party affiliation. You openly endorse antigay individuals who are Democrats.
“And please don’t tell me that there is a difference between calling someone a godless traitor and expressing hatred.”
There’s a huge difference. One is nothing more than an expression of a personal emotion. A liberal wing-nut hates a conservative. Wow, news flash! Thanx for informing me of this important information to apply to my future voting choices!
Calling someone a traitor– that’s definately a strong statements to make, and yet pretty objective. They better have given some good evidence to back it up! I’ve read some that seemed like pretty good evidence to me. I’d have to judge on a case-by-case basis of course. Perhaps someone could respond to a specific statement of evidence and respond with a rebuttal. It would be a nice change of pace. I’ll be holding my breath.
As for calling someone “Godless”… that’s not even really that strong a statement? I mean, a lot of liberals proudly proclaim themselves to be atheist which is practically a synonym for “Godless”. I’m sure some think it’s an inaccurate label but the people who ARE atheists have no problem with it, right?
It has just occurred to me that many gays and lesbians do exactly what opponents of gay rights do: observe the group based on little factual or experiential information and judge the individual based on that observation rather than getting to know the individual and going from there.
Many gay and lesbian Democrats (and I admit to having been guilty of this in the past) are prejudiced against gay and lesbian conservatives based on what they see of the GOP, without actually having officially learned anything about the party’s principles, and probably because those prinples don’t resonate with them if they do know them.
Many gay and lesbian conservatives are prejudiced against gay and lesbian liberals based on what they see of the Democratic Party and gay rights activists. It certainly doesn’t help that individual interractions with such persons have put them off. They may know the principles of the Democratic Party, but they may not resonate with them.
I believe it is cruel to be biased in either direction. Each side can make a unique and fruitful contribution to America. And I believe it would behoove all of us to leave a little room for the exception to the rule.
#33 GayPatriotWest — July 14, 2006 @ 12:40 pm – July 14, 2006
These book titles are moderately interesting, but, query: just what do they have to do with the subject matter of your post, which is entitled “The Persistence of Bias Against Gay Conservatives? Do any of the books have anything to do with gays? And do any of them have anything to do with conservatives? Note that at least a few people here have opined that Bush Jr. is not a conservative.
Raj, I am merely replying to a question raised in a prior comment.
As to those opining that President Bush is not a conservative, at least on domestic policy, they have a very valid case.
#28 The only explanation for your cooment is:
A. You don’t get out much.
B. You’re delusional
C. You’re lying
I’m leaning toward either B or C. Given you history of comments on this blog, I’d say it’s most likely C. How about a shout out to all my GP homies. What do you think?
Um, as you say, GPW, UM…this is what you said:
“And Gene, please note how many Bush-haters define themselves as such with book titles using the word “hate” and even liberal writers for supposedly highbrow magazines writing essays on how much they hate the president.”
You have come up with THREE books, two of which are edited anthololgies by the same person I mentioned. So the precise “how many” of your allegation is two.
It’s just another fiction you keep repeating as if it were the truth. Or perhaps you would like to retract your statment. Or maybe issue some blustery explanation of how two authors amounts to many. Perhaps you didn’t mean to say “hate” explicitly but that “hate” is imnplied in the tone blah blah blah.
How stupid can a gay man be. You are ignoring the most important challenge for gay people–to achieve equal rights with the rest of the country. Idiots like you belong with the republicans. This country has been destroyed by GW bush and the repugs and people like you who voted for them. You are now getting just what you deserve. They want you BACK in the closet because they hate your guts. I pity you man.
#44 It sounds like you need to ESCAPE to a gay friendly place like Cuba, Iran or Malaysia ASAP before the Repugs SNATCH you up into those camps in the northwest woods. I’m in Texas and if you’re close I’ll help you pack and escape before the ROVE GESTAPO show up on you’re doorstep!!!!
#44 — Suggestion: get one of those 7 day pill canisters so you won’t forget to take your meds. Or maybe you are taking your meds but they’re not *ahem* “doctor approved” and they’re making you have paranoid delusions.
Oh wow. I just input “Marriage is between a man and a woman” into my Ovaltine emotionally-unstable moonbat secret decoder ring and sure enough, it translates into “Go BACK in the closet because I hate your guts”. My bad, Don. I apologize for my rude comment about your meds. Next time I will do my research first.
Oh, Donny, Donny, Donny, I only need 3 books to make my point. If you come up with that many titles where conservatives define themselves as Clinton-haters, you may have a point. And you try to exclude these books because they are anthologies by the person you mentioned.
That person chose to title the book as such and since they’re anthologies, the authors apparently agreed to have their pieces published in an anthology about Bush-hatred, so they were clearly comfortable with the term.
Yes, there are liberals who call themselves Bush-haters. You can call it a fiction if you like, but since you’re used to calling fictions fact, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for you to call fact fiction.
And don cole in #44, thanks for proving the point of my post. 🙂
Dan, I think you do need to realize that this is not merely a perception problem in the gay community. It is a problem with the Republican Party itself. (I’m not talking about gay issues — the Democrats are not really any better on this; they’re just better at pandering.)
I will grant you that Reagan probably did have a “noble vision” compared to most politicians today — I am too young to remember that much about his administration. But if that vision, for you, involved things like free markets, free minds, and unobtrusive government, then the sad fact is that the modern Republican Party has utterly lost that vision. Back in 1994 they ran on ideas that seemed very promising, but since then government has only gotten dramatically bigger and more powerful, and the party now seems to be dominated by people who seek even more control over our lives. (Note that the Democrats aren’t any better; these days, though, they’re just a little less scary to me.)
So, yes, I am a (libertarian) Bush-hater — I despise him, I won’t shy away from that. But I hope I have given you an idea of how I’ve come to hate Bush and the GOP, and it has nothing to do with being gay.
Well, fine. But: can you spell Bush, Santorum, Brownback, Frist, Romney, etc. etc. etc.? Have you ever heard of the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwall, Pat Robertson, etc. etc. etc.? With so many enemies, all Republicans or closely aligned with the party, we need some friends. Outside of New York, and there only half-heartedly, it is hard to think of a gay-friendly Republican. You guys might be valuable as a sort of fifth column, if you choose to play that role. But respect? Good luck!
The most virulent and visible anti-gay individuals in mainstream America: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Marylin Musgrave, Pat Robertson, Janice Crouse, Laura Schlessinger, Rick Santorum and the like, are all Republicans. In turn, many other mainstream, abliet less overtly anti-gay, Republicans then support their political causes they champion, like Focus on the Family and Concerned Woman For America.
If and until that changes, most gay people will not identify as Republicans. So, expect to be swimming upstream for a long time as a gay Republican. Basically, until evangelical Christians either call off the dogs on homosexuality or lose their political clout in the United States, the Republican Party will remain anathema to the gay community.
But the real breakdown is this: Gay has to be considered “normal” in our society first, before gays can really embrace the idea of being conservative. It’s hard to be conservative when society considers you to be deviant and abnormal.
But have you seen how nasty our Culture War is? Yea, don’t hold your breath fellas. It’s not coming to an end any time soon. You’ll be fighting this battle for the rest of your lives.
I do want to point out one thing. As ill-advised as many of you might think it is to be a gay Republican (and I think it’s more than ill-advised to be a Republican, period), we have to acknowledge that many (most?) gay people voted for John Kerry, who supported a constitutional amendment in his home state that would have reversed the historic court decision in favor of marriage equality there.
Being a [gay] Republican may be stupid, but being a gay Kerry voter was equally stupid. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and, by not supporting any of the various candidates who did support equality under the law, these voters sent a message to the Democrats that they can take the gay vote for granted, and can continue to pander rather than fight for equality. I despise Bush, and I despise gay people who vote for candidates who don’t support equality under the law.
#42 – BoBo, you nailed it. And him. In one fell swoop. Kudos!
Regards,
Peter H.
BTW, I heard Jeff Gannon is still visiting the White House. Aren’t you conservatives envious?
Well said #51. You are exactly on target.
That person chose to title the book as such and since they’re anthologies, the authors apparently agreed to have their pieces published in an anthology about Bush-hatred, so they were clearly comfortable with the term.
LOL! Nice try, but by your definition, I could produce an avalanche of hateful prose on the right — starting with the Swift Boaters. You did exaclty as I predicted in my post: When you couldn’t come up with a factual case for self-definition of Bush haters, you decided an implication was sufficient.
Anyone who’s ever appeared in an anthology will tell you that not even the editor has power over the title’s writing.
You really should learn to admit when you’re wrong, Dan. You’re just like Andy Sully in that respect. Actually, you’re worse. He’s learned to correct himself.
#47 Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 4:52 am – July 15, 2006
Oh, Donny, Donny, Donny, I only need 3 books to make my point. If you come up with that many titles where conservatives define themselves as Clinton-haters, you may have a point. And you try to exclude these books because they are anthologies by the person you mentioned.
That person chose to title the book as such and since they’re anthologies, the authors apparently agreed to have their pieces published in an anthology about Bush-hatred, so they were clearly comfortable with the term.
Thank you for telling us what you believe the authors “apparently agreed to.” If and when you tell us what the authors actually agreed to, you might have a point. Until then, you don’t. It may very well be that the authors agreed to have their contributions to be added the anthology, without a reservation regarding the title of the anthology. In which case, they wouldn’t have a say in the title.
I’m sorry to have to pull a L-3 on you, but, them’s the facts.
Raj in #56, did any of those authors object to the title of the book?
Um, Donny in #55, go check the writings of the “Swift Boaters” (as you call them), you won’t find much hateful prose in their writing, not nearly as much as I would find by perusing certain left-wing blogs.
Actually, Donny, I already came up with a (as you put it) “a factual case for self-definition of Bush haters.” I just referenced those books. And one is enough for “a factual case.” It’s you, Donny, who should learn to admit when you’re wrong.
Even if the authors did not agree to the title, someone came up with it and marketed the book as such, so they were aware there were people who saw themselves as Bush-haters. And then of course, there’s my original question in this comment — are you aware of any of the authors objecting to having their works included in a book of that title?
And here’s yet another example–a Washington Post piece, A Dislike Unlike Any Other?” where writer “a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer”>Jonathan Chait explains why he hates George W. Bush.”
Why is the existence of “Bush-haters” at issue? Obviously there are people (like me and many others I know) who hate Bush; there’s plenty about him to hate. Here are four reasons, each of which independently would lead me to unabashedly hate him:
(1) He opposes equality under the law for gay people, and provides comfort and aid to those who want to keep us down.
(2) He has increased the size and power of a government that was already far too big and powerful. This includes spending on both the military and “social programs,” as well as random and systematic intrusions on the privacy of US citizens who are not suspected of crimes.
(3) He led the US military into war based on claims that were, at best, based on speculation rather than evidence. He continues to pump money and human lives into this conflict when there doesn’t even appear to be a clearly defined qualitative criterion for “victory.”
(4) His administration holds people in military prison, indefinitely and without trial. Some, maybe even most of these people might be dangerous criminals, but civilized people know that you need to prove this in a trial before you take away a human being’s liberty like that.
I could go on, but those are four big things that come to mind. Any of them would make Bush worthy of being hated, and so I think it’s very rational and respectable to be a Bush-hater.
#57 GayPatriotWest — July 19, 2006 @ 12:03 pm – July 19, 2006
Raj in #56, did any of those authors object to the title of the book?
Don’t know. I’m sure that you will be in a position to tell us, though. Moreover, since you purport to have gone to law school, I’m sure that you will be in a position to tell us whether the author/contributors would have been in a position to object to the title of the book.
funny, though, Kdogg…..1) doesn’t lead you to hate John Kerry, Howard Dean, or all the other Democrats who have no problem supporting antigay state constitutional amendments, 2) doesn’t lead you to hate all Democrats, whose primary objections to Bush-era social programs and governmental expansions have been that they’re not large enough, 3) doesn’t lead you to hate all the other governments and people in the world who were convinced enough that Saddam had WMDs to keep him under sanctions, demand that he allow inspections, and insist that failing to do so with complete cooperation was an act of war, and 4) undoubtedly would not stop you from demanding Bush’s head if one of those interred people killed a few thousand folks while out on bail awaiting their trial.
When you can admit that you hate everyone I’ve mentioned above, then we’ll talk.
#60: You have no idea what you’re talking about. How on earth do you claim to know all this? Did you read my comment #51? I am an anti-statist; in fact, I do hate both establishment parties as well as other governments. What on earth gave you the idea that I didn’t? It just so happens that this government, and this president, is the one I have to deal with, and he was the topic of discussion. A humble apology for making all those false assumptions would be appreciated. 🙂
So much for your points (1) through (3). As for (4), applying normal legal principles (as I understand them; I’m not an expert), if there is at least some evidence indicating probable cause that an individual was a danger, bail would not be granted. If even that modicum of evidence doesn’t exist, then no one has any business keeping that individual locked up. That’s how civilized people handle these sorts of things, and there is always some risk to it, but that wouldn’t be Bush’s fault.
Since when are terrorists like El Fatah, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al considered civilized people? And how, pray tell, do you negotiate with a terrorist? Just curious, Doggy.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter (#62),
That’s not my point at all. I agree that you can’t negotiate with terrorists, but you also can’t simply label an individual a terrorist and imprison that person for years without showing any evidence. If someone self-identifies as a member of a terrorist group, or if evidence can be provided to show that someone is a terrorist — then fine, throw away the key. But we simply don’t know that all of these people are terrorists; some of them might be innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And we, as civilized people, need to provide a fair and rational process for sorting out the dangerous criminals from those who didn’t do anything wrong.
So Doggy, in your mindset, if someone acts like a terrorist, thinks like a terrorist, has the same ancestry/lineage as a terrorist, and has close ties with known terrorists, then they are not terrorists?
Try again, Rover. Your argument holds about as much water as a leaky dish.
Regards,
Peter H.
My only argument is this: we need to evaluate each individual’s status in a fair proceeding and treat each person accordingly. If someone thinks and acts like a terrorist and has close ties to terrorists, then I’d say he’s a terrorist by definition. If those are known facts about someone, then they can be presented at a trial, the person can be convicted, and, as I said, you can throw away the key.
But we don’t know that these facts are true for every person who is being imprisoned. For the most part, I’m pretty sure, they were rounded up and captured in pretty chaotic situations where it would have been impossible to distinguish the bad guys from unfortunate people who just happened to be there at the time. Okay, that’s understandable, but now that they’re in custody, it’s time to separate them out. The way that’s done is with a fair trial.
You are assuming what I am saying has to be proved — that all the individuals in these prisons think and act like terrorists and have close ties with terrorists. My argument is that, if you’re going to imprison someone for years, they deserve fair, impartial, and individual trials. It’s kind of stunning that you say that’s an argument that doesn’t have any merit.
Finally, there was one deeply disturbing thing in your post that made me wonder if I’m wasting my time trying to explain myself in a careful and reasonable way. That’s the implication that someone’s “ancestry/lineage” is relevant to the question of whether they deserve to be in a terrorist prison. I have the same European “ancestry/lineage” as Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Adolf Hitler, among many other very bad guys. That doesn’t mean I bear any of the guilt for what they’ve done. I think it’s barbaric to suggest that one’s ethnic background should come into play in deciding whether someone should be thrown into prison.
Still responding to #64, I wanted to maybe put it another way. Yes, if someone acts like a terrorist, thinks like a terrorist, and has close ties to terrorists, he’s a terrorist. But simply being rounded up by the US military and thrown in a prison camp does not mean these facts are true. You seem to be implying, I think, that simply because they’re there, they’re obviously terrorists. And that is not a logical conclusion at all. (If that’s not more or less what you’re saying, then please correct me and accept my apology.)
Hi! These book titles are moderately interesting, but, query: just what do they have to do with the subject matter of your post, which is entitled “The Persistence of Bias Against Gay Conservatives? Do any of the books have anything to do with gays? Note that at least a few people here have opined that Bush Jr. is not a conservative.