No matter how hard we try to explain how it is possible to be both gay and Republican, we constantly get comments to this blog (and receive) e-mails, repeating the tired and meaningless cliche that being a gay Republican is like being a black Klansman or Jewish Nazi. Rarely do those who throw out this empty expression have any familiarity with the principles behind our politics nor do they take any time to understand the basic ideas undergirding the modern GOP.
And while some of these people comment frequently to our blog, it seems more often than not that they read little more than the headlines to our posts. If they had read our posts, they might better understand our general support for the GOP.
The ignorance of these critics became particularly apparent in the comment threads to our posts on Rush Limbaugh (here and here–and one to come if I get the time).
Well, in reply to my post on Rush, one reader offered a comment wherein he posed a few rhetorical questions which I thought well addressed the issue of our political views and could well serve to enlighten our critics. So, with his permission, I reprint the comment in full:
Something I want to say about some commentators’ cognitive dissonance with Gay Republicans, or gays who support Rush.
What if you’re gay, but you think capitalism is far superior to socialism?
What if you’re gay, but you want to win in Iraq?
What if you’re gay and you think the identity politics of the left are far more damaging to you than some Conservatives’ homophobia?
What if you’re gay and you think that Global Warming is 1/10 fact, 8/10 scam and 1/10 post modern religion?
What if you’re gay and you don’t think what you do with your genitalia is the most important issue in your political life?
What if you’re gay and you don’t want to emulate Europe in every decision, thank you very much?
What if you’re gay and you’re tired of being told you have to vote Democrat because they tell you what you want to hear and then don’t actually do much of anything for you? (Hello Don’t Ask Don’t Tell)
What if you’re gay and you think yes, in fact sometimes war IS the answer?
What if you’re gay and your evangelical Christian friends still talk to you but your Democrat friends treat you like a pariah for voting for Bush?
What if you’re gay and you think its no one’s god damn business who you vote for?
We now return you to your anti war anti military leftist trolls telling us we should hate Rush for not supporting the troops.
Kudos to the author of that comment. I agree with everything that was mentioned.
Not to mention that it’s clear where the most anger and hatred lies, on the liberal left in particular and the gay left especially.
Although you like to accuse those of us who do not agree with you as ignorant Democarts who do not take the time to read your posts, this is just plain ignorant on your part. Just because I do not agree with you does not make me a troll or a loser or any other such name I have been called by your blog community and yourself here. As for the Rush Limbaugh thing-who cares! I don’t! Is it tit for tat? Yes it is! Congress should have better things to do than censuring free speech-and that goes for the MoveOn.Org ad also. We should be free to criticize whomever we want-military, Dems, Republicans-whomever-they all lie to get elected! Your problem is that you think all Republicans are good and all Democrats bad. What a simple world you must live in, life is so much more complicated than that-as you should know. Of course, I am disappointed in Dems who will not back full equality for Gays, but at least they are willing to talk to us, to meet with us, to debate with us. Are your Republicans leaders? They are taking marching orders from the Religious Right, and you know it. Stop kidding yourself-there are liars in both parties, you just have to be smart enough to know when they are full of it.
People like Dave make me laugh. They want you to believe that they think all politcians are liars when in reality, they focus on the ones that they do not like. In Dave’s case, I guess it is gay conservative Republicans. I think people like this blog are just what we Republicans need. We need to reach out to gay conservatives. As I have noted, like all great coalitions, we will have issues that some factions will not agree on. So, you do not agree with social conservatives. Sometimes, as a social conservative, I do not always agree with them. I do NOT think it is wise to talk a third party challenge if Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee. I have to take him at his word that he will appoint the right kind of judges. His mayoral record is not comforting. Anyway, Dave has low expectations. So, the socialist Democrats “talk” to gays and lesbians. But, do they seriously pursue their agenda? No. And be honest. It is a left wing agenda. It is not nessecarily pro-gay/lesbian. I would remind Dave that a government that is big enough to give you “rights” is big enough to take them away. And, at the end of the day, that is what the socialist Dems want. The biggest government they can get away with. It is to create more of the victim classes and that is not the hallmark of a great nation. I for one welcome those that are gay and lesbian and conservative into the fold and welcome their contributions to the debate. The “religious right” is not the big, bad boogieman that the left makes it out to be. If so, Roe v Wade would have been overturned long ago and a lot of their agenda would be in place. If you do not want the big government to interfere with your life, it would be much better to be a Republican. And, repeat after me, I am NOT a victim!
Howdy,
I read your post here with interest. It seems that so much of our political dialog, indeed most conversations in general, is stinted by people trying to force issues into binaries. Either/Or.
As someone who has voted Republican down the line for over ten years (anyone who’ve read my blog would know my sentiments), who supports the war in Iraq, who has a loathing for the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, etc,… and have known and hung out with gays most his adult life, I am very close to saying to the Republicans and Democrats alike, “A plague on both your houses!”…
If you take many conservatives fundamentalists at their word, they are anti-gay right down the line. I’m not even sure they comprise the majority, but they are one of the main activist arms of the Republican Party. And as many astute observers of politics knows, it’s the activists who motivate debate and wield influence, not that proverbial “silent (inactive) majority”. This is true of the Democrats as is evidenced by their going Leftist en total.
I think Dave has a point and so do you, but I fail to see a “good guy” or a “bad guy” in all of this manure. I don’t like either side, and just because I somewhat agree with the Republicans, it doesn’t make me a Republican. And just because I mostly disagree with Democrats, doesn’t mean there won’t be a time and place where I would support them.
But I have no illusions about the Republican fundamentalists. They definitely aren’t the friends of gays, and by their own statements, they would like to outlaw homosexuality being reinstating the Sodomy Laws. Gays shouldn’t have any illusions about the Dems either. I wouldn’t put it past them to serve up the gay community to those who hate them, so that they can have their way in a power grab.
In this political environment, who are the friendlys? I dunno.
Wrong, Dave. Not taking issue with those of you who criticize us. Taking issue with those who refuse to understand how a gay person could be gay and call us self-hating.
I don’t think all Republicans are good and all Democrats bad. If you read my posts (& comments), you’d know that.
As to my favoring criticism, I let comments like yours stand and frequently approve critical comments that get caught in our spam filter.
Well isn’t that warm and fuzzy? Guess it ain’t rape (liberal anti-gay legislation) if they tell you they love you, right?
You’d obviously be surprised how little many of us care about a candidate’s stance on gays. That’s way down the issues list for me because I don’t rely on other people for my happiness.
Source please.
You are perfectly free to do so. What you are suggesting is that you should be able to say whatever you want, and other people shouldnt have the right to criticize you for it. Fortunately the first amendment protects everyone’s right to free speeh, not just your own. And yes, that even includes congress.
I haven’t seen anyone suggest that all Republicans are good and all Democrats are bad, but I have seen someone profess that…
Which is equally ignorant. Just as neither party is all good or all bad, all politicians arent equally dishonest. Nor are the parties equally honest. One party, for example, does their best to force corrupt members out, the other party is headed by a woman who stole the white house furniture.
You accuse him of living in a simple world because you falsely attribute a belief to him that he does not hold, and then you make the ridiculously simple-minded claim that all politicians lie. As you said, life is more complicated than that. I think of it as my duty to sift through all the poltics and spin and find out who the honest ones are. (To paint them with your broad brush is intellectually lazy in my opinion.) And having done so, one of the major reasons I’m a republican is because, while theyre not all honest, Ive found Republicans to be a great deal more honest than Democrats.
The Democrat party will sweettalk you til youre purring in their lap. They will tell you how much they care, tell you about all the very expensive government programs they want to start to help you, tell you that those big bad republicans are out to poison your water, starve your children and send you to prison for being gay, and that if you just elect them, they’ll make everything better
…then 40 years later, you’ll find that theyve grown very rich and powerful while youve become dependent on the programs they started to “help” you and you havent gotten anywhere. If you want proof look no further than New Orleans Louisianna which has been under Democrat rule for two generations and the people are poorer and more dependent on government than ever.
But hey, at least theyre willing to talk to you.
Where I part company with Dave is the simplistic “I hate all politicians therefore all politicians are the same” formulation. I hate both political parties, but for different reasons. I hate the Democrats for the things they stand for: socialism and all that goes with it. I hate the Republicans for not standing up for what they’re suppose to stand for: limited government, low taxes, national security (including border security), and freedom of individual conscience.
I regard most all politicians as corrupt, greedy, and stupid, and I think everyone should distrust politicians because only a vigorous skepticism will restrain people whose mission in life is to exert power over you.
Firstly Dan, I’m kind of surprised that you focused on gay GOPers and not just gay conservatives. I seem to recall that a majority of the more vocal commenters here contend that aren’t even GOPers, although they might have voted (when they can make it to the polls) for some Rs in the past.
I’ve found in BlueDem Ann Arbor that you can be a conservative gay and be more readily accepted by the majority of gays than if you are a gay GOPer. Frankly, gay conservatives have it made –they can complain about the Left, the liberals, the media, higher ed, the Democrats and the Republicans and never be accountable for any political, social or cultural progress. Gay conservatives are kind of a new class of curmudgeon –in a crusty, churlish good natured way.
The part I think you’ve missed is that it seems Democrats who are gay tend to be more intolerant, more viscerally partisan, more intellectually narrow because they’ve always been challenged in bridling their passions and for them passion, like drama, often substitutes for real living. It’s like a character defect… they can’t help it; it’s part of the culture in which they matured. Drama, 24×7. The best of them remind me of those Young Republicans at natl conventions living on the convention floor and making placards of political worship at 3:45AM for the next plenary session.
Drama; 24×7 as a driving force. And maybe that’s why the cliche Nazi-Jew metaphor works for them (Dems who are gay) because it’s visceral and passionately petty… like the ChickenHawk taunt did for Democrats who were vets. They don’t need to listen or understand to pigeon-hole the opposition… all they need do is silence them.
Secondly, I wonder how many readers of GP are actually gay GOPers? Gay conservatives, yeah. Gay libertarians, oh yeah. Gay independents who are behavioral Republicans but can’t bring themselves to admit it, maybe more than a few. But gay GOPers? Don’t know… seems like more than a few comments here begin with “I’m not a Republican but…”.
Anyway, I think gay “apolitical” conservatives have it made. Unless they’re religious or prudent in their public displays of sexuality or otherwise support mainstream American values. Then, to the GayLeft, that’s a far worse heresy.
So basically, Dave, what you’re saying is that the Democrats talk to you and tell you how much they care about you before relieving themselves on you when it’s politically expedient?
Not that my party is better on gay issues (certainly worse on a number) but they’re better on most other issues for me.
And TGC, honestly, I do care very much about a candidate’s views on gay issues because it is important to me to see some legal rights thrown the way of gay couples. Does it make or break my level of happiness if it does/doesn’t happen? No, but I’d be happier to see it happen. Nor does it make or break a candidate for me, but it’s a strong consideration that I take into account.
And, MJG, it’s not that outlandish of interference or beyond the current purview, as they’ve been giving the same rights to heterosexual couples for, well, years.
Perhaps you will be less surprised MM, when you grasp that the post’s subject is a **specific line of criticism** received by GP/GPW in “comments” and “e-mails” per first paragraph. From what I’ve seen, such critics most often phrase it as “Gay Republicans”.
Fair question, though you left out at least one category: Gay ex-Democrats who vote 60-70% Republican and announce it most readily and happily.
Also, if I may direct your attention to the GP logo at the top of the main page, it does say “…the Internet home for the American gay conservative”, not Republican.
As an Independent ex-Democrat and secular Capitalist I am not even that much, of course; yet I have always been welcome here, a tribute to the blog’s openness.
And a number of commentators here are neither gay nor Republican.
There are a number of “us” who are conservative relative to the overall-Electorate and support the GOP who are not “Conservatives” nor Social-Conservatives. There are the libertarians and the pro-business progressives and the fiscal-conservatives who used to be the back-bone of the GOP party from before the social-conservatives crashed the party with their better organization and zealot social agenda.
Personally I identify as a Progressive Republican in the mould of Teddy Roosevelt…and even Barry Goldwater, though he used the vocabulary of “conservativism”. Goldwater’s conservatism is far from that of the modern-Social Right and even Ronald Reagan’s, whom I fault for letting the snake-handlers and tent-show revivilists grasp the levers of power within the GOP party apparatus.
I’m a Republican since I’m pro-business, pro-capital and believe in the “big stick”. I’ll support lower taxes, less government and governmental influence, and a smaller bureaucracy. I oppose the socialist-tendencies of the Unions and the nanny-state of the Left which in it’s hubris thinks it’s “…for my own good”, even if it kills me.
Will I change my positions just because a small but influential minority within the GOP is against gay marraige, no. Just because they dont like me doesn’t mean that I won’t hang-around to put the stick in their spokes whenever the opportunity presents itself.
For my part, Ted: Having spent 15 years as a mostly-sane, pro-gay moderate in one party (Democrat) and then been abandoned by that party, I am just not very likely to sign up for another party (Republican) that wants to abandon me on certain things, anytime soon.
I have to admit, though, the Republicans might get me, if they ever went back to a true Reagan-Goldwater, small-government agenda. The last 8 years with Bush have been a disaster – in terms of abandoning small-government principles. I’m referring to spending, education, etc.
Oh, and I’m referring to FMA/MPA. But *not* to the irrational criticisms/claims so often advanced by my old party and its socialist moonbats.
Re: #15
May I just say, “Ditto,” excepting, the “progressive” label, which I don’t apply to myself. (I am a big Goldwater fan, and TR is one of my favorite presidents, but I prefer the “conservative” label, as defined by Goldwater, or the “libertarian” one when trying to explain to others.)
And:
Hear hear! I love that line, and echo the sentiment.
First of all let’s stop with the sterotypes-i.e. all Democrats are socialists and want to give Osma Bin Laden a great big hug, and free all the child rapists from prison. If we are to believe this sterotype, than I could reasonably think all Republicans are Rich, White, Evil and money hungry who want nothing more than to rape the planet and put gays and Mexicans in concentration camps. You cannot have one sterotype without the other. While I diagree with many Republican policies, I do not think they are evil- just misguided. Now if we could come to some sort of compromise, because in the REAL world nobody ever gets everthing they want, then maybe we could get something accomplished in Congress and possibly Iraq. Now wouldn’t that be grand, but then again maybe I am being naive?
Dave: When Osama bin Ladin “speaks” to the American people, he uses Democratic Party / Michael Moore / George Soros talking points. He cites Noam Chomsky as a great American. He openly hopes for Democratic Party victories. Do Democrats show any embarassment over that? Not that I’ve ever seen. Coingressional Democrats openly long for American defeat in Iraq, explaining that victory would pose a “real problem” for them. That’s a fact, not a stereotype; it happened in August I believe.
But if Fred Phelps (say), on the other hand, were to call for Republicans to put gays in concentration camps, many if not most Republicans would show a great deal of embarassment over that. They would repudiate him. Because I know I’ve seen them repudiate such people before.
(BTW, Fred Phelps is or was a Democrat, never a Republican… but that’s a topic for another time.)
Secondly: If the Democrats aren’t socialists, then… why are they constantly proposing to **socialize** (i.e., bring under government payment / control) a major industry constituting one-seventh of our economy? Again, fact not stereotype. Deal with the world of facts.
“We” (not you, nor I) already are. And how does one “compromise” with policies of surrender? To compromise with policies of retreat and surrender, *is* to retreat and surrender. There is no substitute for victory in Iraq, i.e., for killing al Qaeda there and so permitting a government voted-for by the people of Iraq to exist.
It’s bit absurd to be asserting that “Democrats are not socialist” when Hillary Clinton is actually the least socialist candidate her party has put forward for president… and socialist health care is her signature issue.
In a technical theory discussion, I would refer to the Democrats as “statist” not as socialist. Their answer to every conceivable problem is to increase the reach and power of the State. In a more everyday discussion, “socialist” serves fine.
Guys and Guyettes: surely, in your quiet moments, you understand that Rush Limbaugh is an over-fed and under-humble draft dodger who has no business using the term “phoney” to describe ANYONE, let alone America’s heros who’ve served in Iraq but do not believe Iraq was worth the service.
And by the by: slinging the term “socialist!” the way you do only reinforces an image of you as “1950’s”, which is when I think most of you would have been the most comfortable socially and politically.
You’re behind the curve there, KYKid. Limbaugh was describing Jesse Macbeth; and if you don’t know why **everyone** (even Hitler or Charles Manson) is brilliantly qualified to describe Macbeth as a “phony soldier”, do a little research on him.
As often noted here but ignored by the see-no…hear-no sweeties on the blog, Limbaugh used a plural in response to a caller PRIOR to ANY discussion of MacBeth. And no, as a draft dodger and preeminent chickenhawk, Limbaugh is NOT “brilliantly qualified” to describe ANY soldier as “phoney”.
Actually, KYjelly/Ian knows the truth however, he’s keen on plugging his ears and screaming. That’s why he trots out the “chickenhawk” slur in an attempt to shut down the truth.
If you can put you’re lying aside, KYjelly/Ian, perhaps you can explain Senate Majority Failure Reid’s military experience. What qualifies him to smear our soldiers?
The technology of the present combined with the moral clarity of the fifties would be an acceptable utopia to me.
#27 You and me both.
If I meet a man that I want to spend my life with and have a ceremony with, can the government stop me from doing so? No.
If that man and I want to exchange rings, can the the government stop us from doing so? No.
If we want to get our last names hyphenated so that we both take one another’s surnames in addition to our own, can the government stop that? Barring the judge involved in that very minor judicial proceeding from going insane, no. (and even then, just refile and get another judge. something like that is usually just signed off on…they’ve got bigger fish to fry as we say down here in the south)
If my husband and I want to refer to ourselves as “my husband and I” can the government stop us? No.
If my husband and I want to take out powers of appointment, powers of attorney, set up trusts for another, give advanced directives regarding our health should something happen, own property together as joint tenants with right of survivorship, joint checking accounts to take such out of probate and do all those other things which give us in large part all the protections that hetero couples get automatically, can the government stop us? As this attorney will tell you, the answer is no.
I agree with ThatGayConservative – I don’t need a governmental recognition to make my relationship (er…well when I find a good man that is…) any more real or validate me as a person in any way. I really have to wonder about the self worth of some of members of our tribe if their self esteem is so low that they feel compelled to try and legislate others into viewing their relationship as legit.