Comments on: “Out” Author Remains Clueless About Gay Republicans

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:22:35 +0000

Aaron Hicklin and all those mediaheads are typical left wing trust fund brats who can relate more to Fidel Castro than the average American. What do expect from pathological narcisists who comprise our media?

By: GayPatriot » Kudos to Log Cabin for Handling “Out” Magazine Bias

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:10:35 +0000

[...] I read Charles Kaiser’s response to (what I called in this post) “a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out [...]

By: Vince P

Vince P — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:52:30 +0000

I should have said I did consider the other view but then you would have the situation where the lowest common denominator would have to be recognized.. and I know this would lead to outrage by the majority of people in the country, so i didnt’ consider it to be a realistic option.

Nor did I view the total elimination of Federally recongized marriage as being likely.

By: John

John — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:45:43 +0000

It’s not pie-in-the-sky stuff but about changing the realities that exist now. Attitudes like this only gives fuel to leftist nutjobs in seeking to achieve their goals through any means necessary. Being partial to Federalism myself, I’d prefer to work through the States which means the Feds should butt out and remain neutral – honoring whatever legal marriage or divorce papers are handed to them.

By: Vince P

Vince P — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:40:38 +0000

I can have it both ways because reality is something everyone has to acknoweldge and deal with.

I was dealing with the world as it is, not an ideal world.

By: John

John — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:35:36 +0000

Vince: That’s just it, marriage is a State issue and not a Federal one. DOMA Federalizes the issue which I strongly disagree with as this is antithetical to federalism, something conservatism is supposed to hold dear. You can’t have it both ways, is this something for the States to decide or the Feds? If it is the former, than the Feds have no business opposiing a valid marriage certificate, or even a divorce decree, from any of the States. This goes for all marriages, not just same-sex ones.

By: Vince P

Vince P — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:21:37 +0000

15: I would say the Federal govt is not compelled to recognize marriages that do not meet its definition of marriage.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:51:35 +0000

There’s a magazine called “Out”?

By: John

John — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:45:35 +0000

I think States and Cities are the proper venue for ENDA, marriage type laws.

I disagree about ENDA, but I am curious about your views concerning DOMA: since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, IYO should the Federal government have to recognize it just like it does for all other marriages?

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:30:45 +0000

#9
Third!

By: LesbianNeoCon

LesbianNeoCon — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:28:03 +0000

#10 ***#2: Lesbian Neo Con:

Yes, thatâ€™s me over there.. How do I do?***

Stellar!! Just like you do here, my friend!

By: Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bruce (GayPatriot) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:40:40 +0000

Sounds like Kaiser went to the Dan Rather School of Journalism — “Fake, but Accurate”

By: David

David — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:36:48 +0000

He might not find that so baffling if he understood the basic political philosophy undergirding American conservatism for the past forty years.

Kaiser can’t do that; it would mean violating the principle belief of all left-wingers everywhere: They are God’s greatest gift to the universe in history, and anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest is either stupid, evil, or both.

By: Vince P

Vince P — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:26:04 +0000

#2: Lesbian Neo Con:

Yes, that’s me over there.. How do I do?

By: Vince P

Vince P — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:25:40 +0000

qu: I back up V the K’s explanation. Those are precisely the reasons I oppose Federal ENDA and support Federal DOMA.

I think States and Cities are the proper venue for ENDA, marriage type laws.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:48:55 +0000

I certainly think there are republicans who remain consistent on this point and that is admirable. I am glad to see that atleast you guys are consistent in wanting to follow the true principles of the party.

By: John

John — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:41:10 +0000

Dan: Good post. Typical hatchet job ‘reporting’ by leftwing nutjobs.

VK: You mean like Loving v. Virginia? If all DOMA did was say one state didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another, I wouldn’t like it but would at least see an element of Federalism there (ignoring the Full Faith & Credit Clause of course). Yet DOMA intruded into what has been a State affair and gave a Federal definition of marriage as well, which is not in keeping with Federalism IMO.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:31:37 +0000

Quuerunity, fair criticism. But, there are some Republicans, John McCain notably, but also New Hampshire’s John Sununu who are consistent on this point.

By: V the K

V the K — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:31:57 +0000

DOMA was in response to the imposition of a new definition of marriage by unelected, unrepresentative, and unelected courts. Therefore, DOMA is a law that restrains government from acting without consent of the governed.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:16:39 +0000

I understand the republican philosopy is limited federal powers and so they may disagree with ENDA, yet I find it ironic that the republican party platform is against ENDA because it would be a federal piece of legislation yet they endorse the federal Defense of Marriage Act and want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.