After an excellent talk from future Secretary of State John Bolton and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger. BoifromTroy has more on what the latter had to say. Â
Rather than expand on what Scott has to say, I’ll just comment briefly on the Govenor’s presence. Â He seemed almost Reaganesque when he spoke, yet when he sat down for what he called an Oprah-style question-and-answer session with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon, he seemed less in his element.Â
Hearing John Bolton, especially the facility with which he handled the questions and the deep knowledge he showed of world affairs and the politics of other nations in his responses, convinced me ever more that he would make a first-rate Secretary of State. Â
The Governor talked a lot about “post-partisanship” and made clear his strong support for John McCain, even his commitment to victory in Iraq (though the Governor did not use that word), he also said opposes the marriage initiative that social conservatives are trying to put on the state ballot this fall.
It’s a half-hour into the townhall meeting where members are supposed to offer their input, but we still have not been allowed to speak. Â Patrick is now defending Log Cabin’s decision to run ads attacking Mitt Romney last fall in the GOP presidential contest. Â
What further comments I have on this meeting, I’ll include below the “jump:”
Patrick says Log Cabin doesn’t have an position on abortion and seems to suggest Log Cabin’s ads helped secure Romney’s slide in the polls. Â He contends that the group could not have supported Romney had he been the nominee.
Patrick just said he’s happy with the current GOP presidential nominee.
A number of people have spoken out, agreeing with my position, wondering why Log Cabin ran ads attacking a Republican candidate. Â Seems it’s not just gay Republicans who refuse to join Log Cabin who support us.
Says it would be stupid to Log Cabin to take a position on abortion. Â Kudos to that. Â A lot different from my time in Log Cabin when the Board helped defeat a resolution asking that the organization remain neutral on the issue.
Patrick just boasted 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 been fighting against earmarks.
Seems my “tea leaf” reading has been accurate with Patrick strongly indicating that he will be supporting McCain, saying “we’re very excited that Senator McCain is the nominee of our party.”
I’m now weighing whether I need to weigh in at this point, given that no person has yet said Log Cabin should refrain from endorsing our party’s nominee.
Sitting next to someone who just told me he, like me, also opposes Hate Crimes Laws ENDA. Nice to meet a fellow small “l” libertarian at a Log Cabin event. Too bad he doesn’t have a blog I can link.
Kudos to Patrick for talking about foreign policy and persecution of gays in Islamic lands. Is this the first time the head of a gay organization has said as much at his group’s national confab?
Seems he recognizes how Republican national security policies benefit gay people around the world. Something we’ve been talking about for quite some time. It is telling that the first gay leader who recognizes this is a Republican.
(LATER ADDENDUM: Look, it’s entirely possible that the head of some gay organization did speak out against Islamofascism and its impact on gays. I just haven’t heard it and it hasn’t been reported in the news-sites and blogs I read.)
If it turns out this is the case, I think this is a bigger takeaway from the convention than Governor Schwarzenegger coming out against the California Marriage Initiative.
Now, Patrick is taking on (Bill) Clinton for giving us Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and doing nothing to amend the policy while he was in the White House. And faults Barack Obama’s for saying he’ll only appoint generals to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who does not favor repealing this pernicious measure. Patrick says generals follow orders, issue is how well they’ll defend our freedom.
Enthusiastic applause for veterans in the room.
Acknowledges that McCain isn’t where we’d like him to be. Says Federal Marriage Amendment is the biggest issue, “it’s significant that the nominee of our party is on the same page with us on this issue.” But, has also noted that McCain supported Arizona’s marriage initiative which would not only have prevented the Grand Canyon State from recognizing same-sex marriage, but also from recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships as well.
Hillary in Senate for 8 years, he says, what has she done to repeal DADT.
One person does seem to oppose endorsement largely because of McCain’s stand on DADT.
Someone asks if we endorse McCain point-blank, are we selling out the gay community? Suggests qualified endorsement, saying Log Cabin recognizes it must work to keep educating him on some issues. Silly idea in my view. Instead, Log Cabin need saying in statement that endorsement doesn’t mean we agree with him on all issues. In the endorsement, they need keep brief areas of disagreement.
One guy just rose saying key question is whether Log Cabin is gay organization or a Republican organization. Says that is one of the group’s strengths.
Next speaker, says if we do endorse, we should do so wholeheartedly.
Another one says if Log Cabin endorses, it should do so soon.
A participant from California says the positives of endorsing McCain are greater than the negatives.
Skeptical comment in the form of a question: What can the endorsement do for us?
Show of hands on endorsement. It’s unanimous, all in favor, none opposed (as least from my vantage point), but no one asked for people who are on the fence.
They never called on me even though I raised my hand. Probably because I’m sitting in the back of the room to be near a power outlet.
Â
Just wondering if you could set the scene for us? How big is the Log Cabin convention in CA? How many in attendance? Are there multiple events going on at the same time or is everyone in one room?
This is the national convention. There are, by my estimate about 150 people here.
In the morning, there were several “breakout” sessions, then we all gathered together for the lunch (featuring Bolton & Schwarzenegger), then the townhall meeting.
I blogged this morning on one of the “breakout” sessions I attended, but not the second, more a demographic breakdown of the electorate for 2008 as summary of the financial contributions to the various party committees and congressional committees. Which didn’t look good for the GOP.
The only thing helping the party was our nominee’s high favorables.
I’m confused about this part. Are people upset because:
1. They spend money on these ads?
2. They attacked a Republican?
3. They weren’t given a say in whether or not the ads were run?
Or some combinations of the above? Is it considered heresy to attack any Republican candidate even if their message is very anti-gay? Obviously, it is very tricky to balance the “Republican” side with the “gay” side when sometimes the two are in conflict.
I’m conservative but not a member of LCR.
I just read the script of the ad about Romney here
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/log-cabin-tv-ad-campaign-sets.html
I would take issue with the ad too if I was in the LCR. If LCR was advocating from a conservative POV then I think it was self-defeating to go on the attack against Romney. I assume the resources of this group is limited, so I would question why such resources would be wasted like that.
And I have to laugh at characterizing Romney as being “very anti-gay”
I said “any Republican candidate.” It was a hypothetical situation. The original passage that I quoted seems to imply that some in the LCR would have a problem attacking any Republican no matter what the circumstances. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. That’s why I asked for the clarification.
Picture a gay Democrat group running ads in 2004 attacking John Kerry. Or running ads now, attacking either Obama or Clinton. Stupid and self-defeating, no? And you’d wonder how they call themselves Democrats or why they even exist, if they never manage to say anything positive about their party or about liberal principles. Yech!
And no – except for the one issue of gay marriage, the Republican Party cannot be characterized as “anti-gay”. “Anti-gay” is an overused term. Some think it means, “Anytime a person doesn’t have 100% support for the full-on Gay Left agenda.” But few people in America are authentically anti-gay any more. And of those who are, no, the Republicans don’t have a monopoly; some (like Fred Phelps) are Democrats.
The LCR didn’t run these ads in 2008. They ran them in 2007 in the early stages of the primaries. There’s a big difference. They wanted to prevent Romney from winning the GOP nomination, not help out the Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t think very highly of the Romney attack ads, nor did I think that they had much effect on his failure. I don’t pay any attention to ads like that from any party.
What about repealing DADT? What about equal rights, such as tax breaks for gay couples? (Maybe you include that with gay marriage.)
I don’t agree with that. There are plenty of Republicans (don’t ask me to name them off the top of my head) who still maintain that being homosexual is an abomination against God.
You’re preaching to the choir on this one. I’ve had discussions about this on other sites.
Sorry, wrong answer. LCR ran their anti-Bush ads in 2004 at the height of the campaign, like August / September / October.
But do they want to kill you? No, never did. Do they want to imprison you or subject you to harassment by police or others? They did 30-40 years ago, but today, no. Would they turn you away from their churches? Some; not many. Would they even frown at you, or be anything but pleasant to you, or have any trouble interacting with you? Some; but not many. Do they oppose President Bush’s 3x increase (over Clinton) in budgets to fight AIDS? Probably not.
As I said: few people in America are authentically anti-gay any more.
You would appear to believe that “anti-gay” is if someone doesn’t agree with your proposals and ideas for gay equality – say, if they need 10 or 20 or 30 years to come around. I agree they’re not exactly pro-gay. But I believe in using the term “anti-gay” less, uh, promiscuously 😉 I would simply call them “skeptical”.
P.S. Let me give you an example of opposition to “gay rights” that isn’t anti-gay. I personally oppose hate crimes laws and ENDA. They are Orwellian assaults on freedom. Such laws should not exist, for any group. I don’t want them extended to us; I want them repealed for everyone. My reasons have nothing to do with anti-gay animus. (I was out fighting for gay equality in the early 90s.) And I know that’s true of many Republicans and other straights who also oppose such laws.
Long story short: a person can oppose many measures that are popularly alleged to be “pro-gay” (but that in reality are terrible measures), without being “anti-gay” as screeched by Left activists.
I oppose hate crimes law. (Hate Crimes Laws are an institution of Thought Control/Police)
I oppose ENDA. (At the Federal level, I believe that property rights and freedom of association supercede any invented right to not be discriminated against due to sexual orientation. If States/Cities want to enact such protections, I think that is appropiate)
I oppose Gay Marriage. (4,000 years or more of human nature is what it is, and no Leftist can change that. Birth Control/Abortion are very recent “innovations”.. the damage they are causing is incalcuble, procreation doesn’t need any more innovations please )
None of that makes me anti-gay… it makes me pro-liberty, anti-collapse-of-soceity.
Schwarzenegger says he would fight efforts to ban gay marriage in CA.
This is America, and the Republican Party, in the 21st century.
I only saw the Romney ads. I can’t speak about the Bush ads.
You clearly have a different opinion than I do of what anti-gay means. I don’t think you need to be violent or cruel to be anti-gay. IMHO, people who preach that gays need to be “reoriented” are anti-gay even though there message is always framed as being about love and understanding. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Some of my beliefs on gay marriage are covered in comments to a post on my blog. I know it’s a shameless plug of my own infant-stage blog, but I don’t want to write all of that out again.
I don’t know what I said that came across as equating anyone who opposes supposedly pro-gay legislation with being anti-gay. I myself oppose some legislation because it goes against my political values.
NG, interestingly enough, I also wrote about the case you cited on your blog, but I took a far different tack.
In simplest terms, the problem is not the absence of gay marriage; it’s that a) the two men involved didn’t plan well and b) that the company in question wrote a piss-poor benefit plan.
The sad thing to me is that the easy way to fix this problem on the Federal level is simply to change the tax code so that an employee may have up to one adult person, or however many dependents, on their health insurance without the additional company contribution being taxable. That way, companies could offer benefits that employees could use for people other than spouses — including aged parents living with them, a roommate between jobs, a non-dependent child — without taking a tremendous tax hit or penalty. That would pass Congress rather simply.
But it wouldn’t be ideologically satisfying for antireligious gay leftists, and therefore, they will never support it.
Go to any “marriage rally” in California, for instance, and ask how many couples have registered their domestic partnership with the state; the answer will appall you. They can agitate all day for marriage and how awful their lives are without it, but they can’t seem to take the time to take advantage of the benefits and protections they already have under state law — and in fact, when the enhanced DP laws took effect, gay couples were bailing out left and right because they didn’t want to have to deal with the same issues like shared debts or communal property that straight married couples do. The problem with “gay marriage” is that it has nothing to do with marriage; it’s simply a fight that gay leftists picked in the manner of a spoiled child throwing a tantrum over not getting a toy that other children have.
NDT, I agree that the couple in the article does bear some blame for their predicament. They should have research more carefully what their move would mean. However, I stand by my original point in my blog.
I’ve heard similar ideas to yours about the tax code. I think that what you present would be too open for abuse. If anyone can claim anyone else as some sort of live-in partner, then everyone would do it. We might as well not have any tax breaks at all.
It also doesn’t address other couple-related issues like inheritance and hospital rights (I don’t know the right phrase for that, but you know what I mean).
I don’t agree with that. While I’m sure that for some liberals, gay issues are just a fighting point, for others and for conservatives like me, it’s about equal protection under the law. I just want to know that if something happens to me, my gay little family (whenever I actually get one) will be able to make decisions and to inherit my belongings just as any straight family would. I don’t care whether it’s called marriage or something else.
Wow, we’re way off the original topic now. I never even had my original questions answered.
I just want to know that if something happens to me, my gay little family (whenever I actually get one) will be able to make decisions and to inherit my belongings just as any straight family would
It’s called “A Will”
#12
If they actually hated you, they wouldn’t want anything to do with you. They wouldn’t care if you burned in Hell. The notion of supporting reorientation is based on the belief that you can be saved from eternal damnation, not that they hate your ever loving guts. Maybe it’s misguided, but it has more to do with saving you than hating you.
I don’t agree with the whole “ex-gay” thingy, but I do understand the reasoning behind it. Seems to me that if you can be easily “reoriented”, as you put it, you weren’t very gay to begin with.
Some women seem to be able to move in and out of Lesbianism at will.
I guess for guys it’s harder since cock is so wonderful.
If only it were that simple. It can be prohibitively expensive to cover all of your legal bases. Depending on your jurisdiction and the whims of the judge, your blood relatives could easily override your wishes. The “death taxes” can also eat up anything you left behind, leaving your family to fend for themselves.
#16 – TGS – You are equating “anti-gay” with hatred of gays. I’m equating “anti-gay” with anything that says being gay is wrong, unnatural, immoral, etc., no matter how sugar-coated it is.
So you want to radically transform what is sacred to many people because it’s too hard to make a will and a few contracts?
Cmon how lazy can people be..
You don’t have to redefine the term “marriage” to grant equal rights to all couples. Government shouldn’t be defining marriage anyway. It is a social institution, and for some people it is a religious one.
NG, is that true in the jurisdiction where *you* live?
I got an airtight complete estate plan (living trust, will, health care directive & power of attorney, etc.) done for $2000. And I could have gone cheaper, as low as $800. Perhaps that is a little more money than a $25 marriage license. But life isn’t fair. The point is, it’s do-able – for anyone who actually wants it.
This brings me to one of my pet peeves about the way the gay marriage is pursued: the whining. Whining “Without it we don’t get every last benefit, boo hoo hoo, we have to spend more for our arrangements, etc.” is not going to persuade the gay marriage skeptics. In fact, let me go farther: It’s a crappy reason for society to grant gay marriage. If I were straight, I would make a point of *not* caving in to that kind of emotional blackmail.
Showing how gay marriage will benefit society as a whole, is what will persuade the skeptics. I.e., “what’s in it for society?” But to do that, first there has to be a believable benefit to society. Like, say, gay men settling down, having fewer diseases, etc. The basic social and evolutionary purpose of marriage is to tame men. (To tie them to their wives and kids. In exchange, the wife gives fidelity, honor, etc. Some cheat, but notice how it is indeed called “cheating”.) The $64K question: Will gay marriage tame gay men?
That’s what we have to show. We have to show people, by correctly using those institutions, laws and benefits which *are* available to us in whatever jurisdiction we find ourselves, that we – gays and lesbians, but especially gay men – are serious about behaviors that benefit society, such as commitment and monogamy.
When *that* is achieved, *then* it will seem cruelly unjust to most people that we aren’t simply allowed to marry.
Cue somebody (not necessarily NG) in 4… 3… 2… whining the usual convenient excuses, “Keep f*cking and using drugs because you can never persuade the skeptics, they’re just hate-filled homophobes”, yadda yadda.
My, wouldn’t that be convenient. People being taxed on what they earn, versus what loopholes they can use or what relationships they have. It makes me feel all tingly inside. 🙂
Two words: “Terri Schiavo”.
Amazingly enough, her marriage didn’t stop her blood relatives from doing everything THEY could to override her husband’s wishes.
Furthermore, even if your blood relatives try, a correctly-done will invariably wins out — and, at the Federal level, it would be possible to put in place a set of standards that can be used so that a will and a healthcare proxy is recognized in every state.
Which is why the estate tax should be repealed — something for which you would have overwhelming Republican support.
Amusingly enough, the Democrat Party staunchly opposes that. I wonder why, given that it’s such an antigay tax?
Finally, to ILC’s point, marriage does NOT tame men. Marriage is the reward given to men and women who have chosen to tame themselves. People miss that most straight people do not get married for the benefits; indeed, I would argue that more straight people do NOT get married because they don’t want to have to deal with the legal entanglements.
What this boils down to, NaturallyGay, is that I, for one, do not see the point in wasting effort and energy on things like gay marriage when there are things like repealing the estate tax, changing the tax code to make it easier for health benefits to be provided to unmarried individuals, and providing a uniform set of Federal standards for wills and healthcare proxies — all of which enjoy a much broader base of public support and which have the support of the vast majority of Republicans.
Obsessing over “equal” doesn’t make any sense when you have rather remarkable cultural and biological differences between gay and straight. Putting effort into “sensible” would be far more logical.
Government shouldn’t be defining marriage anyway.
They should if you want their benefits. Even though sometimes it may not seem like it, all government benefits have requirements that you have to meet. You can’t just show up and say “I’m married. Gimme…!”
I’m not in a relationship right now, so I haven’t looked into it that closely yet. The laws could change by the time I’m ready, so there isn’t much point. Of course, just because I’m not in that position doesn’t mean I won’t speak out for the sake of other people.
I agree with what NDT said about this. Marriage isn’t going to change what gay men do. The ones who want stable relationships will seek them out. The ones who want to cruise for the rest of their lives, will do so. I for one will continue to search for a “life partner” regardless of whether or not the government ever recognizes my union.
You won’t see me complaining if the tax code gets revamped, but I’m skeptical as to whether that will ever really happen.
Of course it won’t stop people from trying, but spouses have more legal standing by default, followed by blood relatives. In a gay relationship, the spouse is often legally treated as no better than a boyfriend, if even that.
You don’t honestly believe that, do you? Some of my relatives right now are engaged in a legal battle over my aunt’s will. The will states exactly what she wanted (she left her money to charity), but my cousin is claiming that what she really wanted was…blah, blah, blah. The sad thing is that my cousin stands a good chance of winning and getting a huge chunk of money.
Agreed.
If what you are proposing gives me the same legal protections as a married couple, then I have no problem. I don’t need some certificate from the government to validate my commitment.
Gay marriage is not on the top of my list of priorities. Otherwise, I’d be voting Democrat. I have a lot more important things to worry about like National Security, the economy, etc.
What do cultural and biological differences have to do with the government? The government shouldn’t be regulating culture. It’s up to society to define culture, and those definitions change with time. Biology isn’t within the purview of the government either.
I don’t really understand why granting equal protection is supposed to undermine the traditional marriage. The gay marriage issue isn’t what is fueling our approximately 50% divorce rate or our nearly 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Why do people think that society is going to crumble if gays are afforded equal protection under the law? Society is doing a darn good job of collapsing on its own < insert link to latest Britney Spears/Paris Hilton media frenzy here >.
You’d better be wrong, because if you’re right, there is no sound reason for society to grant gay marriage. The everyday “relationship” of 2 men saying “We love each other but have sex with other people” is a joke. Other gay relationships are more serious and worthy, but, as has been pointed out, can be secured as well as a marriage (cf. the Schiavo case) by other means. Maybe the benefits and tax breaks aren’t 100% perfect, but at that point, as I said, we’re in the realm of whining and if I were straight, I probably wouldn’t give in.
“You don’t honestly believe that, do you? Some of my relatives right now are engaged in a legal battle over my aunt’s will. The will states exactly what she wanted (she left her money to charity), but my cousin is claiming that what she really wanted was…blah, blah, blah.”
Yes, I do.
Because even an unmarried gay man being sued by his partner’s parents in court has won such things.
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=10021
Of course, that article also illustrates the major problem; most gay people and lesbian people are under the delusion that marriage will prevent them from being sued over wills, while any straight lawyer will tell you that’s not the case by far.
“I don’t really understand why granting equal protection is supposed to undermine the traditional marriage.”
Oddly enough, that’s what people said about removing the social strictures on unwed mothers and initiating no-fault divorce proceedings.
But I think the answer is more to ILC’s point; the typical monogamous, child-bearing structure of marriage is not suited to the vast majority of gay relationships. Given the abnormally low number of marriages in Massachusetts and domestic partnerships in California, it should be obvious that gay people are not exactly rushing to enter into these relationships; indeed, prior to California’s quasi-equalization of DPs and marriage, many gays were LEAVING, claiming the rules would require them to be responsible for their partner’s debts, that they wouldn’t get as many welfare benefits because of their partner’s income, and that they might have to split property if they split up.
Like straight married couples have had to do for centuries.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/03/28/BAGDLBVG0F1.DTL
I’m sure we could both find cases where the gay man won and where a gay man lost. The issue is that in many places, the law is stacked in favor of blood relatives. The case you cited was in Maryland where gay rights are increasing. Not all states are like that.
In both of those cases, it became easier to take families apart. In the case of gay marriage, it is about making it easier on families who stay together.
What are you basing that on?
I read the article in your link, and there is more to it than what you are stating here. There are legitimate reasons for not taking advantage of the DP benefits. The conflicts between the state laws and federal laws is leading to a lot of confusion. What you gain under state law but lose under federal law might mean that there really is no benefit to register as a DP couple. To quote the article:
No one knows whether assets and property that move between partners — during their lives together or after a split — will be subject to federal gift, income or capital gains taxes down the road. If, for example, one partner makes $100,000 and the other doesn’t earn an income, community property laws mean that the unemployed partner is now entitled to $50,000 — but it’s not clear whether the federal government will impose a gift tax on that money. Gay couples cannot file joint tax returns.
I take this to bolster the claim that I made in my blog that the rights need to be granted at the federal level.
As to the couples who are separating because of shared debt, etc., well they’re just playing the money game. I’ve seen straight couples to that too. It’s no reason to deny DPs to couples who want to enter an honest relationship.
The issue is that in many places, the law is stacked in favor of blood relatives.
As it should be, because at its root, that’s what protects children. But, as with many other things, the law has introduced ways to sever and override that, provided you take the necessary steps — and if you do, it’s darn near ironclad.
As for the article quote, the answer is much simpler than that; if you attempt to assert your state right to community property or money that you did not earn, the Federal government is going to treat it as a gift tax. But, as we saw in the case of Arizona, straight couples who entered into a domestic partnership did so because they argued it offered LOWER taxes and HIGHER Social Security benefits than their getting married.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/149133
As far as “legitimate reasons”, what those all boil down to is that liberal gay and lesbian couples do not want to have to play by the same rules as married couples have had to for centuries — but still demand marriage.
My argument is based on marriage being structured for a one-income two-adult relationship that is having and raising their own biological children. Everything in the tax code concerning marriage, including Social Security, is designed with that in mind.
How many gay couples actually fit that paradigm — and would it be the majority of them?
Huh? If the children in question are the adopted children of a gay couple, then the law hurts them. There are cases, which I don’t have in front of me, where a gay parent has had to sell a business or the family home when the partner dies because of the overburdening taxes.
Are you applying that to straight couples as well? It would certainly put a damper on those Anna Nicole Smith type marriages.
That’s a very sweeping statement that I don’t think is true. I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but not all or even the majority.
Fine, but why wouldn’t a gay couple with that same basic family structure not be able to take advantage of those same things? I don’t see how allowing one undermines the other. And since when does it only apply to biological children?
If you ask that question, then you should also ask how many gay couples want to fit that paradigm, but can’t because they can’t marry and they can’t adopt children?
I don’t care if it applies to the majority of them or not. In the future, it may not apply to the majority of straight couples either. That doesn’t mean the laws shouldn’t exist.