Does Log Cabin really favor Inclusion?
Not too long ago, a Republican friend who, like me, receives Log Cabin’s regular e-newsletter “Inclusion Wins,” wondered if that title were a misnomer for when it comes to social conservatives and the GOP, Log Cabin doesn’t seem very inclusive. While they wanted the party to include gay people, many in the organization are eager to exclude social conservatives.
Now, I agree that social conservatives sometimes have too much sway over the direction of the GOP, particularly in some states. The problem is not that they’re part of the party, but that they attempt to control it. It’s not giving them a place at the table that bothers me, it’s giving them the seat of honor.
But, some in Log Cabin would rather they left the party altogether. Should John McCain win the White House this fall, James Vaughn, the group’s California director commented, “The phone line between the White House and the religious right will be cut.” Seems they delight in cutting social conservatives out of the party.
With comments like that, one wonders how much attention the GOP will pay to Log Cabin, given gay Republicans represent a much smaller portion of the GOP base than do evangelicals. (In the most recent presidential election, we know they didn’t really speak for gay Republicans.)
Comments like Vaughn’s (and others in the article where I found it) suggest that some Log Cabin leaders don’t understand the way politics works, how parties build coalitions of diverse groups in order to win a majority at the ballot box.
Should the GOP exclude social conservatives from its ranks, it would forfeit any chance it has of holding the White House this year — or regaining a majority in Congress. To win, the party needs focus on an inclusive message of ideas, one which its presidential presidential victors embraced in the 1980s and its congressional candidates in the 1990s, ideas which social conservatives, small businessmen and other entrepreneurs, corporative executives, farmers, gay people and countless others could support.
It’s fine with me if representatives of each of these groups has an open line to the White House and has access to GOP leaders. Just so long as the party is inclusive of all who contribute to building the party, promoting its ideas and electing its candidates.
And while I’ve seen Log Cabin make some great efforts at the club level to build the party in their various jurisdictions, I am only beginning to see some efforts at the national level. At the group’s convention later this week, I’ll be eager it to see what it plans on doing to help lead the GOP to victory this fall.
Should they contribute to that victory, the national GOP should welcome them into the fold. Just as it welcomes any group who contributes to Republican success, even social conservatives.
UPDATE: When I e-mailed James Vaughn to alert this piece and promised to post any comment he had on the statement I quoted above. Please quick on more to read his remarks in their unedited entirety:
… my comment to the BAR was taken out of context a bit. When I said the line to the WH would be cut it was in reference to driving an agenda to specifically push for things like a ban on marriage. Not that there’d be no contact at all. I’m not trying to exclude social conservatives from the Party (although they don’t necessarily seem some of them to want to extend the courtesy the other way) but more that they are pushing for things they think motivate the base when I don’t think it does. So it was pushing a losing agenda that I meant the line would be cut, not excluding them entirely. Hope this helps to understand my thinking.
31 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
How can social conservatives and gays coexist when one of the main goals of social conservatives is to restrict the freedoms of gays? Discuss.
Comment by Houndentenor — April 6, 2008 @ 4:54 pm - April 6, 2008
How on Earth can anyone take gays seriously when they insist lies such as "social conservatives are trying to restrict my freedoms" are true. Discuss.
Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - April 6, 2008
Agree, AE. How can ignorami continue to post on GayPatriot with straight faces? Discuss.
What I came to say: Good article, GPW. LCR seem to be a gang of idiots, invested in the same kind of hate-the-right tactics that the Democrats are. Except LCR want to be Republicans, making that even more ludicrous. Every time I take a step toward LCR, they’ll instantly do or say something to remind me they’re just a clueless Gay Left "Me, Too" group.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 6, 2008 @ 7:51 pm - April 6, 2008
Actually you have it bass-ackwards. A much better question is how can social conservatives and gays coexist when one of the main goals of (liberal) gays is to restrict the freedoms of social conservatives? (i.e. forcing the public to subsidize their relationships against the publics will, restricting free speech through "speech codes" and "hate crimes" legislation, forcing the indoctrination of social conservatives children and all the other ways in which liberal gays are trying to institutionalize their agenda at the expense of social conservatives freedoms?) Discuss.
Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2008 @ 7:51 pm - April 6, 2008
Sorry, that last post was addressed to Houndentenor, not you ILC.
Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2008 @ 7:53 pm - April 6, 2008
np
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 6, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - April 6, 2008
GPW,
You understand the failings of the LCR. Nevertheless, I think there are a few things wrong with your post.
First, you are conflatingthe terms evangelical and religious right. Most evangelical Christians do not identify themselves as members of the religious right.
Second, you are too imprecise when discussing those who so often attempt to control the GOP. I grant that it is a commonplace to call members of the Christian Right "social conservatives," but such a label glosses over many important differences.
Social conservatives are cautious about making changes to longstanding social institutions. A social conservative worries about losing connection to the collective wisdom of previous generations. Being one is not the same thing as being a religious reactionary — someone who will not tolerate any change in the status quo and who is motivated by religious doctrine.
The people the Log Cabin Republicans are upset by, and about whom you complain that they try to control the GOP, are the latter group: religous reactionaries.
Third, when you say these people try to control the Republican Party you don’t go into why. The people in question firmly believe that the United States was founded by reactionary religous types like themselves. Accordingly they feel they have a right to rule the country. They consider anything which runs contrary to their religous beliefs be un-American. I would say that the the presence of such people in Republican politics is a real problem for the GOP.
Comment by David — April 6, 2008 @ 8:38 pm - April 6, 2008
Oh good.
A liberal trying to explain conservatives to conservatives. Unfortunately, I’m sick and laughing makes it worse.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2008 @ 9:25 pm - April 6, 2008
TGC, I don’t think this David is the same one as the one you are thinking.
David, I would say you are correct in making the differentiations that you have between "evangelical", "social conservative", and so forth. But before you call others "religious reactionaries", keep in mind that the vast majority of them are strongly in favor of marriage, sexual responsibility, fiscal conservativism, and patriotism, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, and anti-terrorism — all of which the liberal gay community, as exemplified by NGLTF and HRC, insists is "antigay".
Â
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2008 @ 9:53 pm - April 6, 2008
Hardly suprizing since the phrase is used almost exclusively as a perjorative. Nevertheless, I’d be interested in seeing the source on that.
In other words it’s okay to oppose changing traditional social institutions so long as you aren’t religious. If youre religious then your motivation is deemed to be "religious doctrine", code for "superstitious unthinking troglodyte" and you are labled a "reactionary". What ignorant claptrap. Bigot much?
Funny how they’ve never used the term then.
I would guess for the same reason every other group within the Republican party is striving to dominate, and likewise why all the groups within the Democrat party strive to dominate — because they all believe their political agendas are whats best for the country.
Source?
Source?
Source?
I would say that the GOP is fortunate to have them, and fortunate not to have people as bigoted as yourself.
And in keeping with liberalism, having no resemblance whatsoever to reality.
Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2008 @ 10:19 pm - April 6, 2008
#9 & 10
As I said, I’m sick. Now that you mention it, I think one is Dave and the other is David. Wish they’d use unique screen names so it’s easier to keep track of who’s who.
But then I sometimes forget the difference between Houndtenor and Heliotrope. They both have an H and T. Maybe we should have notations like (R), (D) or (C)?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2008 @ 5:19 am - April 7, 2008
Why parse Evangelical, Christian Right and social conservative? Isn’t the issue really about the difference between gays who are conservative and gays who are liberal? That would be on two planes, of course: social conservative v social liberal, and; political conservative v political liberal.
What constitutes "’the’ gay agenda" seems to depend on whether you are conservative or liberal in those two realms.
As a straight, social and political conservative, I am most concerned about the "public square" and whether the change we bring to it has a general utility to the population in general.Â
I am honestly lost when Houndentenor says one of my main goals as a straight, social conservative is to restrict the freedom of gays. I do not see the utility of a geriatric nudie float in the homecoming parade. I don’t want a sex fetish float either.Â
But what a person does in his private life is not my concern unless it victimizes others. The many gays I know are either quite reserved about their private lives or openly gay, but respectful of our differences. Once we know where we stand with each other, we are able to navigate our comfort zones. Militant gays and Code Pink are a different matter altogether.
Comment by heliotrope — April 7, 2008 @ 11:16 am - April 7, 2008
TGC, how do you tell the difference between Houndentenor and Heliotrope?
Comment by heliotrope — April 7, 2008 @ 11:17 am - April 7, 2008
Heliotrope,
I parse the terms Evangelical, Christian Right, and social conservative because they aren’t the same thing. Evangelical Christianity is a style of Christian worship and belief; it is no more proper to assume that Evangelicals belong to the Christian Right than it is to assume that Roman Catholics do. Similarly, to be a social conservative does not require one to be religious, let alone a member of the Christian Right.
People need to stop using these terms as synomyms. Sloppy use of language is a sign of sloppy thinking.
Comment by David — April 7, 2008 @ 2:02 pm - April 7, 2008
NDT,
I do not use the label religious reactionary cavalierly. It accurately expresses the distinction I am making. The people I’m describing are primarily motivated by religious opinions that are of a reactionary nature.
An excellent example of such a person is the Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern. Just sticking to the issue of homosexuality, Rep. Kern displayed her reactionary religious nature when she said the following in that secretly taped speech:
<
>
(Her speech can be read at http://www.equalrightsproject.com/)
Favoring marriage, sexual responsibility, and patriotism are hallmarks of social conservatism. It is true that religious reactionaries are social conservatives. My point was that social conservatives aren’t necessarily religious reactionaries. Indeed, as I told Heliotrope, a social conservative needn’t be religious at all.
As for the NGLTF and HRC considering opposition to divorce or abortion to be anti-gay, all I can say is that I bear no responsibility for their choice to be left-wing groups first and gay groups second.
Comment by David — April 7, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - April 7, 2008
Thanks, David. Many labels lack definition. Mostly, they become code words thrown in argument as some manner of tacit slur. When someone asks me if I am a social conservative, I always to ask about a specific issue. As a Christian who is probably on the "right" I also always try what is motivating the question. I find that generally speaking, Â liberals talk in labels and conservatives talk about issues.Â
Comment by heliotrope — April 7, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - April 7, 2008
I’m sorry, but where did Ronald Reagan and George Bush 1 "embrace" Â gay people? Â (with the exception of closet cases like Pete Williams who were protected by their bosses, simply because they towed the line) Â How many years did it take for Reagan to even publicly utter the word AIDS, simply because it was connected to gays?
Comment by Kevin — April 7, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - April 7, 2008
Kevin, you say Pete Williams toed the line. Should he have briefed in his briefs? What the heck are you implying? And why not go all out and claim Reagan invented AIDS and sent infected Judas goats out to infect the gay world? Your statements of "fact" are so ridiculous, you might as well try to show you can equal  the charges of a full blown idiot.Â
Comment by heliotrope — April 7, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - April 7, 2008
American Elephant,
What bears "no resemblance whatsoever to reality" is your post, not mine. For having dissected what I wrote so thoroughly you show scant evidence of having read any of it.
I am not, contrary to your assumptions, a left-winger. Nor am I a Democrat. I am (and I’m sure this will upset you terribly) a Republican — although the nomination of McCain has strained my loyalties greatly. In any event, I have a perfect right to state an opinion as to what is and isn’t good for the GOP without your approval.
Now let’s get to your misunderstandings, shall we?
"Funny how they’ve never used the term then."
No one uses the term, AE, that is why I’ve introduced it.
Yes, indeed, it is ignorant claptrap. But you said it, I didn’t.
"Bigot much?"
The bigot here is you, AE, for assuming that anyone who dared criticize any religious believers had to be on an anti-religion tirade.
You think my statement that "The people in question firmly believe that the United States was founded by reactionary religous types like themselves. Accordingly they feel they have a right to rule the country" needs to be sourced? Obviously you’ve never watched The 700 Club.
If you want specifics, lets return to Rep. Sally Kern. In her speech that was recorded without her knowing, she said, "What made us great is that we were a nation founding on Christian principles. Okay, that’s just the bottom line. … read our founding fathers … they gave preferential treatment to Christianity."
For Kern the liberal democratic principles that went into our country’s founding, principles that have their roots in the cultures of pagan Europe, are unimportant. All that matters is that most of our founders were Christians. She states, "we need to have the principles of Christianity for our society to exist." And what are her ideas of such Christian values? She lets us know when she says:
"we have the gay/straight alliance coming into our schools … Kids are getting involved in these groups, their lives are being ruined"
"Another thing that I’m real big on that is a real detriment to this society is evolution. Evolution undermines Christian principles. Period. That’s all there is to it."
And there is a letter she wrote to the Tribune newspaper where she attempted to explain her secretly taped little talk. Here she quoted from the notorios Paul Cameron while making it look like she was quoting the Centers for Disease Control and ended with this little gem:
"Homosexuals are already citizens who have equal rights. They want “special rightsâ€for the acceptance of their deviant lifestyle."
There’s nothing reactionary in any of this is there, AE. And it is all bound to do the GOP a lot of good. Is that what you want to believe?
If you persist in ignoring the unpleasant facts like this you should change your moniker to American Ostrich.
Comment by David — April 8, 2008 @ 2:02 am - April 8, 2008
#13
Is it Houndentenor? I thought it was just Houndtenor. Hell, I don’t even know anymore.
#17
According to Rich Tafel, Bush 41 was the first president to invite gay leaders to the WH for a meeting. Then when lord BJ invited gay leaders to the WH, his staff wore latex gloves to greet them and he proceeded to display his boredom and disinterest throughout the meeting. I would also ask you which president signed DADT into law. Then I would ask you who gave us the DOMA, claimed he cried as he signed it and then bragged about it in campaign ads on Christian radio stations within a few weeks.
“Embrace gays” indeed.
First, I would ask what the hell difference does it make? What’s more important than when he first mentioned AIDS is when did gays start taking responsibility for their actions? With barebacking a popular porn genre these days, who the fuck cares what the government does about it? Gays still do whatever they damn well please as it is. And with liberal parties with the theme of “Fuck Abstinence”, where’s the responsibility there? And then, according to Deroy Murdoch, there was funding for AIDS from 1984 onward.
According to the usual lies of gay liberals, supposedly he didn’t mention it until 1987, but on September 17, 1985 he said
And then in the 1986 SOTU:
I do hereby, in the presence of God and all readers and contributers of this blog, demand that you, Kevin, refute my post. Furthermore, I demand that you provide evidence on gays taking continued responsibility for their actions in stopping the furtherance of AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease.
I eagerly await your reply.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 8, 2008 @ 3:44 am - April 8, 2008
In short, Kevin, I see almost nothing that would lead me to believe that liberals, gay or otherwise, truly give a damn about AIDS. Sure they care when it comes time to decide how much taxpayer money should be flushed down the proverbial shitter every year. Other than that, libs have done everything they can to trivialize AIDS and, in some cases, cast it as something one should aspire to.
Sure people made the obscene, transparent effort to wear a stupid red ribbon to portray the facade that they care more than anybody about it. Where are they now?
AIDS has come a long way from a death sentence to a joke. Nobody really cares about it, that I can tell, except when it’s time to hold out your hand for other people’s money. I don’t see gays doing much, if anything, to try and stop it. Rather, I see a laissez faire attitude about it.
So really, what difference does it make when Reagan, or anybody else for that matter, first talked about it? Gays are gonna follow their narcissistic, self absorbed interests anyway.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 8, 2008 @ 5:07 am - April 8, 2008
David,
Actually just the opposite. Apparently I read it much more thoughtfully than you wrote it, because it is blatantly bigoted as is your reply.
Not only did you have the opportunity to retract your broad-brushed negative descriptions of an entire group of people — which is the very definition of bigotry — but you instead chose to compound them by disparaging the 700 club, again without any sourcing, and by citing an obscure state representative that no one has ever heard of before as evidence of some
Oh lord, cry me a river. Are you sure you arent a liberal? You sure play the victim like one.
The problem is, I never suggested you dont have the right to state your opinion. But what a fabulously irrelevant canard!
Wrong.
When you set out to define the difference between two groups of social conservatives with a broad-brush and state that the difference is that one group is “cautious” while the other “religious reactionaries” who will “not tolerate any change in the status quo” and who are “motivated by religious doctrine,” that is exactly what you have said. Your words, not mine.
And I hate to break it to you, but its entirely possible to be a social conservative who is reactionary without being religious at all. And the idea that Christian conservatives are opposed to all change out of hand is even more asinine, as is the idea that being informed by religion, and being “cautious” are mutually exclusive, and as is the implication that being motivated by religious doctrine, means one is not informed by other sources. Some of the most deliberative people I have met and read are religious conservatives.
Religious conservatives hold all sorts of differing beliefs, many times disagreeing with each other on any range of issues. Many, like Mike Huckabee, favor CHANGING the federal government to be more involved in social programs, many oppose it. A growing number we are told, favor drastic change to protect the environment and fight “global warming”. Some support tougher immigration enforcement, others support more “compassionate” approaches, some support affirmative action, others don’t. Tell us, which of these are the “reactionary” “incautious” positions?
Absolutely I do. As does your statement that “They consider anything which runs contrary to their religous beliefs be un-American.”
All three are slanderous remarks which further expose your bigotry and which you’ve still provided no evidence to back up.
Actually Ive watched the 700 Club many times and Ive never heard Pat Robertson or anyone else on it claim that the they believe the founding fathers to be reactionary, in fact Ive heard Pat Robertson talk about how the founding fathers constructed the founding documents in such a way as to ensure the eventual equal rights of blacks and women — which of course was absolutely progressive at the time, the antithesis of “reactionary”
And I’ve never heard any of them claim they have a “right to rule” or that “anyone who disagrees with them is anti-American”… And neither have you, which is why you are unable to provide any examples of them doing so. In other words, slanderous, unsupported disparaging remarks about an entire group of people. How is that not bigoted?
No, I don’t want anecdotes. You’ve made disparaging bigoted remarks about a group of millions of Americans. You’ve claimed they are trying to “control” the Republican party and that they are reactionaries opposed to all change out of hand for which the sum total of your evidence is a few statements, some of which are reactionary, some of which you seem to think are, but are not, made by a local politician no one has ever heard of before.
That would be like me saying black Christians hate America because of the comments of Reverend Wright. But of course that would be an incredibly bigoted argument that I would never make.
No, if you want to smear all Christian conservatives you need to do much better than that. If you want to call them reactionary, then you need to prove that they oppose change out of hand, which will be rather tough, since I’ve already cited many ways in which many of them favor change.
Unless you are trying to argue that opposition to gay marriage and the gay agenda is what defines a reactionary, in which case your argument is going to be even more difficult seeing as a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and majorities and pluralities of differing degrees oppose much of the gay agenda.
And finally I reject this entire idea that religious conservatives are trying to “control” the Republican party any more than you or GPW or I or anyone else is. We all have our political beliefs, and we all try to advance them and convince others of our way of thinking, as is evidenced by this blog and this discussion, yet only religious conservatives get smeared with the nefarious motives of trying to “control” others. Its demagoguery plain and simple.
If you want to address people who are actually trying to control others then why don’t you look to the people who are working to pass laws and otherwise institutionalize rules and regulations that actually would control others and take away their liberties. And that most definitely is not religious conservatives.
Comment by American Elephant — April 8, 2008 @ 12:17 pm - April 8, 2008
In retrospect, I should have put more emphasis on this part of Reagan’s address:
This is probably why gays don’t.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 8, 2008 @ 9:25 pm - April 8, 2008
American Elephant,
Or should that be American Ostrich? Why, yes, I think it should! You should be recognized for your marvelous ostrich impersonation. You keep your head in the sand and continually show the world your arse.
I wrote my first post quite thoughtfully, which is how I wrote my replies to NDT and Heliotrope. It was you who made asinine assumptions about me because of what you read into my post.
I made no “broad-brushed negative descriptions of an entire group of people.” My post was responding to GPW saying this:
My response did two things. First it made the point that the term social conservative shouldn’t be used as a catch-all phrase that glosses over all sorts of differences. Second it pointed out that the right-wingers GPW complainted about were of a particular type.
And it was GPW who first raised the complaint about “attempt[ing] to control” the GOP. I am just a commenter who happens to agree with him. I your opinion differs on this point then argue with GPW.
No, I’m afraid I was right: the ignorant claptrap came from you, not me. Refering to my post you wrote,
That is certainly claptrap. But it doesn’t in the least resemble what I actually wrote:
Being intolerant of all change is reactionary. And if one’s reaction is motivated by one’s religious beliefs, then one is a religious reactionary. You can follow the logic, can’t you?
I never said it wasn’t.
You are reading things that weren’t written. I was never generalizing to all Christian conservatives.
True, but I never claimed this either.
Again, I never made this accusation nor implied it. You must stop assuming that anyone critical of any religious motivations hates all religious motivations. You have no more right nor cause to do so than to assume that any person who criticizes some Republicans must be a leftie.
Now this is really one of the most stupid things you’ve said! I never claimed Robertson thought of the Founder Fathers as reactionaries. In any event, such a claim has nothing to do with my case!
Pat Robertson’s holds many opinions that are of a reactionary nature. What is important here is that his reactionary social and political views are fueled by his religious beliefs.
When people in Dover, Pennsylvania tossed out the school board that wanted Intelligent Design taught, Robertson’s objection was entirely religious. He said,
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4427144.stm
Pat Robertson’s views on the conflict between Isreal and her Arab neighbors are shaped entirely by his theology. His views are so strong he even suggested that Isreali PM Arial Sharon’s stroke was devine retribution for dealing with the Palestinians.
SOURCE: The Jerusalem Post
Robertson has made it clear — on the 700 Club and elsewhere — that this country was founded by Christians, has been ruled by Christians, and should continue to be run by Christians now and forever. If you’ve missed this you haven’t watched him often enough. In his own book (which I own, by the way) The New World Order, he discussed how non-Jews and non-Christians would have no place in any presidential administration of his.
And that is what I’m claiming: Politically active religious reactionaries like Robertson feel entitled to having their views on Christianity lead the laws and mores of the nation. They justify their attitude with the claim that Christianity is what the founding of the 13 colonies and then the United States was all about. I am not putting words in their mouths.
Want some more non-anecdotal evidence of religious reactionaries in Republican circles? Here’s some:
If we look at the Concerned Women for America web site, there is a page “Unmasking The “Gay†Agenda.” It starts out with how homosexuals want to destroy God’s design for human sexuality and ends “With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.” Of course, in between there is the claim that those who want gay couples to have some sort of spousal recognition hate all Bible believers.
And let me not forgot Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans for Truth, who has dedicated himself to “standing for God-ordained sexuality.” He was at the thousand-man strong rally for Sally Kern that was recently held in Oklahoma City.
Even though you have been remarkably dense during this conversation I think you must now see what I’ve been driving at. In any event, I grow weary of arguing with you. I don’t tolerate fools gladly and your foolishness has strained my patience mightily.
One last thing. If the people I’ve mentioned ever succeeded in getting bans against homosexual sodomy reenacted — which they’d very much love to do — they would definitely be controling other people’s lives.
Comment by David — April 9, 2008 @ 12:31 am - April 9, 2008
David,
I will deconstruct that load of crap after this, but I want to make sure the more important point doesnt get lost in the tedious work of eviscerating your complete BS.
The problem (or I should say, main problem with your argument, since your arguments are basically all problematic since they all stem from the same bigoted and wrong-headed approach), is that the word “reactionary” is an epithet to begin with. It is meant to smear and dismiss people rather than dealing with ideas. Just as liberals call conservatives fascists, nazis, stupid, what have you. In fact its just another one of those same epithets usually used by leftists.
In other words, you’re guilty of exactly the behavior GPW is rightly criticizing Log Cabin for — your only disagreement is that you just want to narrow down the definition of who we should exclude.
You are either unwilling or unable to understand their arguments, you just want to smear them and shut them down. Your entire hysterical trainwreck of an argument has been an attempt to justify why they should be shut out:
And yes, wanting to shut the Christian Right out of the GOP makes you a bigot. Period.
That is also precisely what you accuse the Religious Right of doing to gays. How is it any better when you do it?
Moreover, the problems with that, as GPW already explained is that its a power struggle we will lose and which will get us nowhere. Not to mention being a morally repugnant approach that is neither good for gays or America.
The answer is to engage Christian Conservatives. What you failed to note in your mention of the Concerned Women for America website, is how many facts they presented. They’ve very accurately defined some very real problems with the gay-left agenda, they raised some very valid concerns.
And when you try to respond to valid concerns by smearing, excluding and ostracizing, you are always, always in the wrong.
The answer is to, as GPW or GP have espoused, to develop an alternative to the gay-lefts agenda, that takes valid concerns into consideration and addresses them, not dismisses them, and then set about the work of persuading people.
Gay conservatives have a great deal more in common with Religious conservatives than with the left — actual concern for the institution of marriage, concern for how things impact society, belief in the fundamental principles of our society, etc… Progress will come from building on those common grounds, not burning bridges.
Comment by American Elephant — April 9, 2008 @ 10:24 am - April 9, 2008
Exactly, AE.
For instance, David, CWA opposes the belief of liberal gays and lesbians that dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair constitutes an “educational experience”, and that anyone who argues otherwise is “close-minded”.
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html
Now, since you claim that everything CWA does is “religiously motivated” and thus is “reactionary” and involves “opposing all change”, you obviously must agree with those gays and lesbians.
Or you can put yourself in what is obviously the distasteful position of having to admit that CWA is right and that what these gays and lesbians are doing is wrong.
Gay solidarity or common sense.
Which will it be?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 9, 2008 @ 1:26 pm - April 9, 2008
AE,
I use words because they mean what I want to say. As I told NDT, “I do not use the label religious reactionary cavalierly. It accurately expresses the distinction I am making.”
A reactionary position is one that opposes any and all change in something, or which proposes a return to the past. With regard to epistemology I am myself a reactionary in that I consider post-Enlightenment views to be wrong and pre-Enlightenment views to be correct.
I do not share your opinion that the label “reactionary” is an epithet. It is simply an accurate description.
I see that I was overly optimistic.
You have consistently refused to deal with the actual thrust of my argument. I never drew the equation:
religious reactionary = Christian Right
Just as evengelical, social conservative, and Christian Right are not synonyms, neither are conservative Christian and religious reactionary.
Nor did I advocate excluding anyone from anything. I simply warned that the GOP has a real problem on its hands when one of its constituencies justifies its politics solely on theological grounds.
You don’t understand my point about the Concerned Women for America and their anti-gay crusader Matt Barber either. What the CWA says about the Gay Left is irrelevant. I am not concerned with their opinions of left-wingers or anyone else. I am concerned with how they justify their basic social and poltical positions. Their stance on homosexuality per se (and other issues) is based on their theological views. It is consistently defended and promoted on scriptural and theological grounds.
In a nation of 1,001 different religions, why should one theology determine law and public policy?
The GOP’s problem is I’m not the only one who’ll ask this question
Comment by David — April 10, 2008 @ 3:03 am - April 10, 2008
David,
I responded at great length to your previous BS, but GP’s spam blocker apparently blocked it for being so long — probably for the best. The truth of the matter is youre exceedingly dishonest.
You’re correct that words have meaning, and I very thoroughly showed that your words not only said exactly what I’ve claimed, but that you’re incredibly dishonest about what you’ve said.
Just the most blatant example to prove my point:
And yet you had just gotten through saying this:
Your entire arguments have been that kind of evasive intellectual dishonesty from beginning to end. You make outrageous statements that you cant back up with fact, and when called on it, you deny it or pretend you’ve said something else.
In short. youre a liar. I think I’ve made that clear enough.
That’s because you don’t understand words, or for that matter ideas, any where near as well as you think you do. I showed that at great length as well.
Its not a matter of opinion. Words have meaning.
Yes, it means opposition to change, the entire thrust of the word being to dismiss ideas. “Oh, don’t listen to her, she’s just a reactionary –i.e: she doesn’t have any valid points, she opposes all change out of hand”
But don’t take it from me,
And in the future, you might consider not using big words you dont understand, and you should especially consider not arguing about their meaning with people who do, lest you look like a liar and a complete ass, as you do now.
I’m done with you.
Comment by American Elephant — April 10, 2008 @ 4:16 am - April 10, 2008
NDT,
Now this is really disappointing. I expected better from you. You obviously haven’t read my reply to you — or my replies to AE — any better than AE has.
I’ve taken flak on Box Turtle Bulletin for daring to question several ‘progressive’ assumptions. Now I get flak from you for daring to criticize a conservative group. I just can’t win.
I am not an ideologue and don’t have much use for ideologues generally. This vexes many in the blogosphere no end apparently.
What CWA thinks about the Folsom Street Fair has no more to do with this discussion than the value of the transcendental quantity e. Please see my above reply to AE.
Uh, for the umpteenth time: I have not claimed that all religious motivations are reactionary! (For that matter I haven’t even claimed that reactionary motives are necessarily bad. Again see above post #27.)
What a glaring non-sequitur.
If CWA opposes bringing children to S&M fairs (I wouldn’t be surprised by them doing so, but you have provided no evidence of this) I will happily agree with them. But that is beside the point. Because CWA is right on one matter doesn’t mean they are right on others.
I pointed out that position page from Matt Barber because it makes it clear that CWA considers the normalization and mainstreaming of homosexuality to be an offense against the founding principles of the United States. It also makes plain that their opposition is routed in their view of Christianity. We get this all straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
Now all we havet to do here is put two and two together, and…. voila!
The CWA think that their reactionary vision of Christianity is part of America’s founding principles.
Such an attitude is a political winner only with people who share the same views on both politics and religion. This is a real problem unless the GOP wants to be a theonomic party of some sort. And I frankly don’t see why I should catch shit for saying so.
My question to you, NDT, is this:
Right-wing solidarity or common sense. Which will it be?
Comment by David — April 10, 2008 @ 4:39 am - April 10, 2008
American
ElephantOstrich,That you are done with me pleases me no end. Conversing with a fool is fool is really no fun.
I am not as ignorant as you’d like to believe. The origin of a word is not the be-and-end-all of it. Reactionary ideas and radical ideas are what they are. Deny ourselves the ability to so label them achieves nothing.
Oh, and you missed something in that Wikipedia article:
Do you want to accuse yourself of hurling epithets for for talking about “religious conservatives”? Or were you just using a big word you didn’t understand?
If you want to find dishonesty in our discussion, I suggest you look to your distortion of my defintion of religious reactionary, where you said I claimed only the non-religious can validly oppose social change.
Your accusing me of being a liar is just plain stupid. You’ve made a speciality of saying stupid things here. You should really stop it — its a bad habit.
What I said in reaction to your comments on Robertson was perfectly honest. Rev. Robertson honestly believes the colonists who established the 13 colonies and the founders of the United States shared his religious opinions. That’s what “firmly believ[ing] that the United States was founded by reactionary religous types like themselves” means. But Robertson doesn’t think he’s any kind of reactionary. Why would he think the Founders were reactionaries, religious or political?
Well, our dialogue has reached its end. Its been a great failure, of course, but not because I’m dishonest and ignorant. It’s because you’re incredible stubborn.
Comment by David — April 10, 2008 @ 5:09 am - April 10, 2008
[...] that McCain won’t have Dobson on speed dial. Â Does seem Log Cabin is still overly focused on beating up on the religious right rather than working with social conservatives as part of a Big Tent. Â He did say that he favored McCain because the Arizona Senator has long [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Liveblogging Log Cabin Townhall Meeting — April 11, 2008 @ 6:14 pm - April 11, 2008